Reply With Quote
I really don't see any problem with drug testing welfare recipients, tbh. If you live off the government you invite the government to invade your privacy. Even if weed was legal, people on welfare shouldn't be blowing money on it.
On Wednesday, the Texas State legislature, currently composed of 19 Republicans and 12 Democrats, unanimously passed Senate Bill 11, which mandates that every Texan applying for food assistance through the TANF (Texas Assistance for Needy Families) program, submit to an undefined "screening process" and possible drug test before receiving benefits if the screener finds "good cause" to even suspect that person is... or is likely to... abuse any "controlled substance" -- despite the fact that there is no evidence at all that people seeking assistance are more likely to do drugs.
According to the bill’s author, Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound), the purpose of the bill:
The state of Florida passed an almost identical testing procedure that ran from 1999 to 2001 and was reintroduced in July of 2011 that was struck down by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta the following month, citing the fact:“It ensures that TANF, formerly known as welfare, supports its core purpose of helping families to achieve self-sufficiency,” said Nelson, as she introduced the bill. “We found common ground to support a plan that makes sure state resources aren’t used to support a drug habit while at the same time making sure children receiving benefit in a productive environment.”
The Tampa Tribune investigated the results of those July 2011 drug tests and found that "96 percent proved to be drug free", another 2 percent never bothering to complete the lengthy application process, and 2 percent actually failing drug testing. At an average cost of $30 per test, the state was hemorrhaging tax dollars at a rate of "$28,800-$43,200 monthly"... FAR out pacing the supposed "savings" from preventing drug-abusers from gaming the system to buy drugs."there is nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a `concrete danger' that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use."
(Another analysis of the Florida program also found it to be a costly & colossal failure.)
The Texas bill is a bit more insidious than the Florida program, leaving the decision whether or not to submit an applicant for the confiscation and testing of their bodily fluids up to an ambiguous "good cause" determination by an unspecified process.
This is just further perpetuation of the stereotype that poor people are all lazy drug-abusing scam-artists, rather than just people that have fallen on hard times seeking assistance. The results of these programs is always the same. Legislators are "shocked" to discover that PEOPLE WITH NO MONEY CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY DRUGS. Pick up any tabloid or turn on the TV, and the biggest drug abusers are the rich & famous (see: Lindsay Lohan), star athletes and the rich spoiled children of corporate executives, not the Average Joe who lost his home after his multi-billion dollar bank got bailed out -- and he didn't.Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas, said she was shocked to see the measure pass unanimously when it clearly singles out poor Texans as more likely to abuse drugs when federal surveys find no difference in use across any income groups and given the clear experience of Florida that such measures cost more money than they save.
http://crooksandliars.com/mugsy/texa...-drug-test-wel
Let's start testing legislators too....
I really don't see any problem with drug testing welfare recipients, tbh. If you live off the government you invite the government to invade your privacy. Even if weed was legal, people on welfare shouldn't be blowing money on it.
I think he is referring to the fact that it has cost far more money than it has saved in florida.
I don't disagree with it in principle either, but in a climate where we have cut education funding, investment funding and infrastructure funding, maybe we shouldn't blow a bunch of cash to analyze the pee of paco, cassie-ray, and leroy.
Good point tbh
Repugs running FL. no surprise they non-stop over browns, blacks, the poor.
taxpayers handed $Ts of welfare to financial sector, no body had to pee.
Texas unemployment is 5% and sales tax revenues are off the charts. There is no budget crisis.
Paco and Leroy should pee in the cup.
Can we cocaine test every employee of any firm that received a bailout too?
what a about breath test for alcohol?
So you are cool with burning money when there are more important things just so you can see what comes out of cassie-rae's cooter?
LOL
Damn, that cheese brought the rats out of the attic.
Night guys, got work early tomorrow.
LOL...
Test their CEO's.
Not cost effective. waste of public money, tbh.
I know it seems that way, it it may even be fact. However, my gut feeling is that the economic benefits are better overall. I'm sure it will make a difference in some people's lifestyle. I'm sure some will even be more actively seeking work, and be tax payers again instead of being a recipient of other people's money.
black market piss samples are about to go up in $ sons
time to unzip some of that liquid gold
there's $Ms for businesses that do the pee testing, $Ms to be made by the PIC when the urinators are locked up. It's all about the $$$ and criminalizing the poor.
"Send 'Em To Jail That Day!” The Newest Frontier in the Drug War and the People Who Make Millions from It
Seventy-seven years old, DuPont adopts the air of a sprightly televangelist as he outlines what he calls “the new battle lines” in the war on drugs, one that “begins with kids.” At the climax of his speech, DuPont offers “the new paradigm” of drug treatment: a program that one controversial Hawaiian judge administers to all drug-addicted probationers he oversees. “If they test positive,” he says, his voice slowly rising into a high-pitched yell, “they go to jail that day! No discussion!… No discretion! To jail that day!”
DuPont is in an expansive mood following his speech. Since the 1980s, he has been in the business of selling drug-testing services to employers. As far as he’s concerned, drug tests should be given to “anybody who receives a benefit,” from unemployment insurance to welfare. “Test ‘em all!” he exclaims.
one study of employers in the high-tech sector found that drug testing “reduced rather than enhanced productivity.” Performance-based tests, researchers found, are far more effective at assessing a worker’s ability to perform safety-sensitive jobs than drug testing. Unlike urine tests, these tests detect drug impairment and a host of other factors (fatigue, stress, alcohol) far more likely to compromise a worker’s concentration than past marijuana use.
By 2006, 84 percent of American employers were reporting that they drug-tested their workers. Today, drug testing is a multi-billion-dollar-a-year industry. DATIA represents more than 1,200 companies and employs a DC-based lobbying firm, Washington Policy Associates. Hoffmann-La Roche’s former consultant, David Evans, now runs his own lobbying firm and has ghostwritten several state laws to expand drug testing. Most significant, in the 1990s Evans crafted the Workplace Drug Testing Act for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC),
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/send-e...ke-millions-it
Nobody gives flying ing whether you use drugs, all they care about is the $Ms to be made doing the testing.
fact is, in Florida it has been a waste.
shaming folks on public assistance is a favored pastime, but there's not much more to it than petty spite.
...and, in this case, state giveaways to politically favored contractors.
It is, indeed, a fact. And your gut feeling is suspect, per usual.
You willing to be drug tested before you are given a government golf cart?
Nice racism, btw.
CC is your typical rich asshole. I got mine, I gotta get more, I about my taxes, and I gotta piss on, criminalize the poor, it makes me feel so good.
Why just the CEOs? Everyone who still has a job there is in some way indebted to taxpayers because we saved their company from going under. As much as I appreciate all of the jobs they create by manipulating money to make more money, we have an obligation to make sure that they're not using the salaries (that we funded) on recreational drugs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
