PDA

View Full Version : Drug tests for Welfare recipients



Norman Bernstein
01-22-2015, 03:32 PM
I'm totally in favor of this....

...as long as any corporate officers whose company receives any federal dollars as subsidies, special tax breaks, or federal contracts, undergo the SAME drug testing.


WASHINGTON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is pushing forward with a plan to make food stamp recipients pass drug tests -- a requirement that the Obama administration says violates federal law.

The drug testing, which Walker first announced he'd pursue last year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/15/scott-walker-welfare-drug_n_5822552.html), is part of an overall budget proposal Walker's pitching as a workforce readiness plan.

“We know employers in Wisconsin have jobs available, but they don’t have enough qualified employees to fill those positions,” Walker said in a press release (http://walker.wi.gov/newsroom/press-release/governor-scott-walker-announces-workforce-readiness-plan#sthash.ZGgJEY5f.dpuf). “With this budget, we are addressing some of the barriers keeping people from achieving true freedom and prosperity and the independence that comes with having a good job and doing it well."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (known as FoodShare in Wisconsin), says it's against the rules for states to require drug testing as a condition of receiving benefits. The federal government could yank administrative funding from states that are out of compliance -- a threat the USDA leveled at Georgia (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/food-stamps-drug-test_n_5440742.html) over a similar drug testing scheme last year. Georgia backed down.

Walker has been aware of the rule from the start. "We believe that there will potentially be a fight with the federal government and in court," he told the Journal Sentinel (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gov-scott-walker-wants-drug-testing-for-public-aid-recipients-b99350145z1-275037361.html) in September.

to see the yield on equivalent drug testing, see this link: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/16/few-welfare-applicants-caught-in-drug-screening-net-so-far/

Dan McCosh
01-22-2015, 03:40 PM
Michigan's Governor/Mayor recently signed this into law.

Ian McColgin
01-22-2015, 03:42 PM
The WSJ bit did not include the court eliminated Florida program that was really a corporate welfare program for the governor's pals who set up drug testing labs. Like all states where it's been tried, the number of welfare recipients caught on drugs is laughably small, the expense is large, and the program syphons money from drug programs that work. But that's actually the idea. The Republican governors and the drug abuse industry - prosecutors, corrupt defense attorneys, customs agents and private prison contractors - all need for our "war on drugs" to continue as an expensive failure.

S.V. Airlie
01-22-2015, 03:47 PM
I have nothing against the IDEA of drug testing welfare recipients for drugs. It's tax money they just might be buying drugs with. Issues yes Ian..problems yes Ian. The chances of corruption yes Ian but, again, the idea is, to me sound.

S.V. Airlie
01-22-2015, 03:50 PM
PS.. Drugs are pretty rampant here in Cherry Valley as is welfare, jail, and no work. It's almost blatant in fact.

Katherine
01-22-2015, 03:51 PM
Legalize and tax

Ian McColgin
01-22-2015, 03:57 PM
There are not enough welfare recipients on drugs to make such programs of any value, and sadly that's for all the wrong reasons since really there should be more druggies on welfare. The system is sufficiently complex that people fall off for small mistakes in the continuing eligibility process, a savage system that weeds out almost all druggies and all too many struggling and sober young mothers by shere bureaucracy.

It's a solution in search of a problem and the only goal these testing programs meet is the goal of enriching politicians' pals. Like the rest of the 'war on drugs', these programs are profoundly corrupt and are designed to make drug abuse both more rampant and more profitable to the 'war on drugs' industry.

S.V. Airlie
01-22-2015, 04:04 PM
Come to Cherry Valley anytime Ian. As is I have very little faith in the gov.'s Social Services Departments in this area. They often don't want to fix problems because by doing so, they might lose their jobs.

BrianY
01-22-2015, 04:06 PM
What a great idea. While we're at it, let's drug test EVERYONE that receives money from the government - including members of congress, state legislators, governors, attorneys, judges, etc. to ensure that our tax dollars go to people who are worthy

S.V. Airlie
01-22-2015, 04:09 PM
Don't parolled inmates out of jail get tested for drugs? If so, why bother. Heaven forbid, testing athletes for drugs. They ain't even on welfare.

Norman Bernstein
01-22-2015, 04:13 PM
What a great idea. While we're at it, let's drug test EVERYONE that receives money from the government - including members of congress, state legislators, governors, attorneys, judges, etc. to ensure that our tax dollars go to people who are worthy

+1

We all know what this drug testing thing is all about: it's the presumption that welfare recipients are all lazy, shiftless slackers who are probably druggies.... and if they're not, well, the fact that they're on welfare means that they deserve to be humiliated and treated like criminal suspects.

I think it's disgusting. We can dole out billions of dollars to CEO's of banks, for example, in subsidies and bail-outs... and THOSE guys have certainly shown themselves to be less than honorable citizens.... yet we wouldn't dream of compelling them to undergo any humiliation... and even if we did, their millions would soothe bruised egos quite easily.

People on welfare and food stamps, by and large, are victims, not perpetrators.

Sky Blue
01-22-2015, 04:23 PM
It is a perfectly logical idea that forces those who contribute so very little (or in fact constitute a net drain on public resources) to decide whether they would rather have public support or use illegal drugs. Those with true addiction problems should be offered a treatment program during a probationary period before termination.

If they have children, all the more reason to see that they get clean as a good parenting measure and otherwise as a condition of continuing to slurp away at the public trough. Lefties should like more government spending anyway, more jobs for scientists and testing labs and entities, more accountability for persons receiving free stuff.

Some years ago, the City of San Francisco (of all places) instituted a similar policy for public housing, as a study had been done showing that most of the violence in and around public housing projects was associated with drug crime among the residents living there.

There was the usual screaming and howling and so I think the policy was scrapped, and so the killings, muggings, assaults, dope dealing and open drug usage (often in the presence of children, who comprise a large percentage of those housed publicly) continued on and on and on...

S.V. Airlie
01-22-2015, 04:27 PM
I sometimes, and have said it before, people are happy to be on welfare. On the street, I've heard them get pissed off bat others also on welfare getting MORE benefits than they do. AND how dare they! I'd agree that even thirty years ago, people would DO ANYTHING to avoid getting assistance. I just don't see it anymore. Of course, I don't live in Sharon ( probably not many welfare recipients there) but, I do live in a one light burg with one state cop who I never see, and 75% probably are on welfare.

Norman Bernstein
01-22-2015, 04:31 PM
It is a perfectly logical idea that forces those who contribute so very little (or in fact constitute a net drain on public resources) to decide whether they would rather have public support or use illegal drugs. Those with true addiction problems should be offered a treatment program during a probationary period before termination.

Then this should certainly apply to anyone whose income is derived from public funds, right? Banks that receive bailouts? Corporations that receive subsidies? I doubt you're suggesting that some of THOSE people aren't also drug users.....


Some years ago, the City of San Francisco (of all places) instituted a similar policy for public housing, as a study had been done showing that most of the violence in and around public housing projects was associated with drug crime among the residents living there.

Then why restrict drug testing to welfare recipients? Why don't we drug test ALL citizens, if the issue is crime associated with drug use? Not all drug users are on welfare, and not all people living in public housing are on welfare... maybe it's only welfare recipients, because they are people perceived as deserving of humiliation and invasion of privacy?

Captain Intrepid
01-22-2015, 04:36 PM
It is a perfectly logical idea that forces those who contribute so very little (or in fact constitute a net drain on public resources) to decide whether they would rather have public support or use illegal drugs.

Wellfare, foodstamps, and the like are a net benefit to society. Cutting them off to anyone who needs them hurts society as a whole. Even if you hate the poor, they provide unmatched economic stimulus.

Sky Blue
01-22-2015, 04:37 PM
No, Norman, it is because such persons, above all others, are the most vulnerable to drug problems and associated crime, and in fact deserve to be incentivized in some manner to embrace a drug free life and the dignity and opportunity that comes with it.

As usual, the Left shows their penchant to keep persons mired in poverty and addicted to illegal narcotics, fighting any incentive whatsoever that these persons might improve their lives or share in opportunity or personal accountability and dignity...:rolleyes:

Sky Blue
01-22-2015, 04:43 PM
Unmatched economic stimulus

Oh, I couldn't agree more, but that is a separate issue of course. I think I read somewhere that WalMart (the business entity that Lefties love to hate) is the single biggest recipient of the government largesse associated with welfare and food stamps. I guess if that is the economic stimulus you really want to have...

slug
01-22-2015, 04:45 PM
Its not worth the trouble...if they fail the drug test they will just grab a gun and rob the corner store.

might as well just pay them thier welfare, plus whatever else they need , then throw in a supply of free drugs...dope stamps.

keep them stoned and off the streets.

Norman Bernstein
01-22-2015, 04:46 PM
No, Norman, it is because such persons, above all others, are the most vulnerable to drug problems and associated crime, and in fact deserve to be incentivized in some manner to embrace a drug free life and the dignity and opportunity that comes with it.

Interesting.... and strikingly at odds with usual conservative Republican thinking, which supposedly values freedom, liberty, and non-interference by the government. I'm going to presume that those attributes are important to you... but nonetheless, your perspective here seems shockingly patronizing.... you're going to 'incentivize' a class of people by subjecting them to scrutiny without evidence?


As usual, the Left shows their penchant to keep persons mired in poverty and addicted to illegal narcotics, fighting any incentive whatsoever that these persons might improve their lives or share in opportunity or personal accountability and dignity...:rolleyes:

First off, I don't represent 'The Left', I represent Norman Bernstein, and no one else.

Secondly, trying to defend the human dignity and civil rights of ALL people, regardless of their economic circumstances, is hardly a 'penchant to keep persons mired in poverty', or any of the rest of that argle-bargle you just said.

Civil rights are utterly meaningless, if we can arbitrarily suspend them for an entire class of people who we look down our noses at.

My civil rights, nor any benefits which citizenship entitles me to, are subject to, or conditional on, passing a drug test. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is the standard.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-22-2015, 05:03 PM
Giving money by whatever method to those at the bottom of the economic ladder is a benefit to the overall economy.The poor will certainly spend what they have because they have unmet needs. That money levens the economy and is likely to change hands many times before it makes it into the offshore bank account of some high-roller.

Duncan Gibbs
01-22-2015, 05:04 PM
I'm a businessman. Not a significant businessman, but I do run a small business. If I put such a programme, such as the ones in place that the WSJ has reported the data for, or the one being proposed for Wisconsin, to a benefit/cost analysis I would most likely find that such programmes are a complete waste of public money.

You may as well pay someone to dig a hole all day and fill it up the next day.

If there are funds budgeted for such a programme I would suggest that there are better ways of spending it that will reduce drug use, and not just in groups of welfare recipients.

S.V. Airlie
01-22-2015, 05:05 PM
I had qa chatr with a lady who checks, does some cleaning for me once a month. Talked about an hour!

Here's the bottom line;

Her son has just been released from jail
Now living with his girlfriend, child (his) and her parents. He has another child too with someone else
He smokes constantly ( his mother's words)
The child is turning five shortly
When he does, one of the gov. assistance programs will be dropped.
So, her mother wants HER to have another child so get that program reinstated.
She luckily is on birth control shots but, doesn't know it luckily\
The adults, child mother boy friend have been reported to social services at least 40x's ( from the lady, grand mother I talked to)
The house is a pig sty, the bathtub hasn't worked in at least a month.
Forget care of the child who has been found tied up on the porch. Reported!
Drugs, ya betcha, welfare programs, you betcha
Social Services does SQUAT!

Hopefully, someday, the grandmother will get custody of the child. When, who knows!

Curtism
01-22-2015, 05:05 PM
Wouldn't you think, since these Tparty governors are so good at marching in lockstep in these sorts of efforts, that they would eventually learn from each others mistakes? For instance look at how fabulously this very program failed in Florida, how every court the law was tested before ruled it unconstitutional and how many millions in taxpayers dollars were spent trying to implement a policy that's been ruled unconstitutional, repeatedly. How many more states have tried to push this policy through and failed so far?

Florida journalist and author Carl Hiaasen had the right idea. He wrote an op-ed offering to personally fund the testing of the group of people most prone to pissing away taxpayer dollars; the state legislators. They of course declined his generous offer.

S.V. Airlie
01-22-2015, 05:08 PM
Did it fail or did those on drugs knew they were going to be tested often well beforehand and refrained for a certain amount of time from taking them to make the tests negative.

slug
01-22-2015, 05:22 PM
I see a good buisness opportunity drug testing benifit takers.

" 153,323,000 total benefit-takers at the end of 2012, said the Census Bureau, equaled 49.5 percent of the population. "

Say 25 bucks a test x 153,323,000...thats 3,833,075,000.00 bucks a year.

not bad cash flow...not bad at all

id be up there with Bill Gates ...now .lets get to work and push this legislation thru, ill give you a cut.

Curtism
01-22-2015, 05:23 PM
Did it fail or did those on drugs knew they were going to be tested often well beforehand and refrained for a certain amount of time from taking them to make the tests negative.

It failed in almost every aspect, Jamie. The lawyers who first reviewed the law said it would never fly in court, the vast majority welfare recipients (who were tested randomly, making it almost impossible to "study" for the tests) tested negative for illegal drugs. All but something like 2%, if memory serves. And here's the wonderful part; those who were tested payed the $35 fee to be tested and those who tested negative were reimbursed by the taxpayers.

Guess who got scrood . . . and guess who made a some quick bucks at the public trough again. Go ahead, guess.

S.V. Airlie
01-22-2015, 05:31 PM
Nothing the SServices is random with these people. They call often two weeks ahead to check on the apartment. (is it clean) and the folks scurry around and clean it up. When SS leaves, it's back to normal. Same with drugs apparently and school visits. I hear this all the time from the grandparents and it's about Her grandson, HER son, HIS girlfriend and her parents.

hanleyclifford
01-22-2015, 05:39 PM
The program might be made economical if we combine it with the stop and frisk program. Let the cops handle it: stop, frisk, piss test with equipment already in the cruiser, instant disposition of the violators (might need to hire more cops - unions should like that...might have a few bugs to work out)....

hanleyclifford
01-22-2015, 05:40 PM
Its not worth the trouble...if they fail the drug test they will just grab a gun and rob the corner store.

might as well just pay them thier welfare, plus whatever else they need , then throw in a supply of free drugs...dope stamps.

keep them stoned and off the streets. Where were you when we needed you?:D

Curtism
01-22-2015, 05:52 PM
Sigh. Jamie, I'm surprised you'd fall for this old ploy. It's simply another rendition of the old maneuver where the politician takes all but one of the cookies off the plate, looks over at Joe taxpayer, points at the poor person and warns that he's trying to steal your cookie. People like you are why the pol's continue to get away with these shenanigans.

Don't take my word for it though. Read some Florida news outlets, pay particular attention to who was behind the program, what the actual results of the tests were, how much tax$'s were spent fighting and failing in the courts and, especially, who stood to gain from this disastrous policy initiative. The people who pushed this through the legislature were publicly shredded by the news papers and, once the whole story of what a waste it was came out, they ran like scalded dogs from the stupid ploy.

S.V. Airlie
01-22-2015, 05:54 PM
A big difference between PLOY and witnessing it. I, at least, can tell the difference especially seeing where you live

Paul Pless
01-22-2015, 06:05 PM
Legalize and tax

Everything?

Curtism
01-22-2015, 06:11 PM
I'm done here. I'll be over soaking my head in the pond behind Glen's pub if anyone needs me. :rolleyes:

Bob Adams
01-22-2015, 07:25 PM
I'm all for it. You should see the drug houses operating in government subsidized (section 8) housing in my area. Appalling.

Boater14
01-22-2015, 07:30 PM
Getting easy to tell the racists from the rest of us. Voter ID drug testing. Walker is courting the racist ote for his presidential run. Court, even this court won't allow it. Walker knows that.

BrianY
01-22-2015, 07:37 PM
It is a perfectly logical idea that forces those who contribute so very little (or in fact constitute a net drain on public resources) to decide whether they would rather have public support or use illegal drugs. ...

Turn that around for a second. Does this mean that it is also "perfectly logical" that those who contribute a lot and who are not a drain on public resources should be allowed to do all the drugs they want?

if the standard we use to decide if people should be drug tested is the amount of public resources they consume, why shouldn't we test congressmen and other government officials? After all, their salaries and benefits represent a significant drain on public resources. I guess these folks should get a pass because they contribute something to society...although that's debatable with most politicians these days. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that we're getting something out of them in return for our public resources. That must mean then they should be able to as many drugs as they want -at least as long as their contributions to society continue outweigh the drain they impose, right?

Bob Adams
01-22-2015, 07:40 PM
Turn that around for a second. Does this mean that it is also "perfectly logical" that those who contribute a lot and who are not a drain on public resources should be allowed to do all the drugs they want?

If I'm not paying for their drugs, I really couldn't care less.

BrianY
01-22-2015, 07:50 PM
I'm all for it. You should see the drug houses operating in government subsidized (section 8) housing in my area. Appalling.

But that is not a problem of not enough drug testing. It's a problem of not enough law enforcement.

To borrow a favorite argument of the anti-gun control folks, more laws and regulations are not the answer. Better enforcement of existing laws is the answer.

BrianY
01-22-2015, 07:54 PM
If I'm not paying for their drugs, I really couldn't care less.

but you ARE paying for their drugs. The taxes that you pay pay their salaries. They're spending your money exactly the same as folks on welfare are spending your money. If it offends you that your tax dollars are funding welfare queens's crack addictions, it should also offend you that your tax dollars are funding Senators' coke habits. In terms of cash flow from you to them, there's no difference.

Bob Adams
01-22-2015, 07:56 PM
Really? Whatever. Goodnight.

Donn
01-22-2015, 07:57 PM
In terms of cash flow from you to them, there's no difference.

Sure there is. Drug-using income earners pay taxes, too.

Ian McColgin
01-22-2015, 08:02 PM
Like, for example, any drug conviction in a section 8 housed family - kid, uncle, whatever - means eviction. Period.

The problem is that people think they see what they think they see and make assumptions from there. There certainly is grifting and there is drug use among the poor and some poor are on welfare. For those who want to see it that way, they know that all those welfare bums are dopers.

Example: Back when I was doing my Christmas "find a poignant poor person" work I had the Cape Cod Times reporter chat with one family. At the time the Times thought it well to spare the family's privacy by masking the name and a couple of details. The week after the story ran, the editor told me of visits from six (really, six) different people who claimed they knew who the story was about and it wal all lies and she was a cheat and a bum and so on. Not one of them had the actual family name right.

So, you see what you see but I favor sociometric studies and good anthropology over anecdote, even anecdote based on living in the neighborhood.

Curtism
01-22-2015, 08:05 PM
Turn that around for a second. Does this mean that it is also "perfectly logical" that those who contribute a lot and who are not a drain on public resources should be allowed to do all the drugs they want?

if the standard we use to decide if people should be drug tested is the amount of public resources they consume, why shouldn't we test congressmen and other government officials? After all, their salaries and benefits represent a significant drain on public resources. I guess these folks should get a pass because they contribute something to society...although that's debatable with most politicians these days. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that we're getting something out of them in return for our public resources. That must mean then they should be able to as many drugs as they want -at least as long as their contributions to society continue outweigh the drain they impose, right?

They tried that here as well, except they didn't test officials or even upper manglement. Someone who is in a position to be burning up real resources. They tested a bunch of state employees making under $30k per year.

Of course the courts and public pressure via the press stopped that nonsense in like fashion. The litigation was quite costly and another spectacular fail it was.

This angle is a loser and I can't believe they expect to get any traction simply by trying it in another state. It's mind numbing in itself, who the hell needs drugs?

Bob Adams
01-22-2015, 08:09 PM
Some of you bleeding hearts should come spend some time in my neighborhood. I've got a spare bed or you can sleep on the boat. Any takers?

Curtism
01-22-2015, 08:17 PM
What kind of boat? :)

BrianY
01-22-2015, 08:18 PM
Sure there is. Drug-using income earners pay taxes, too.


Ahhh...I get it now. As long as the recipient of our tax dollars pays taxes, there's no need to test them. It's ok if they do drugs. It's only the folks that don't make enough money to pay taxes but who receive public funds that shouldn't be allowed to do drugs. Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:

Bob Adams
01-22-2015, 08:19 PM
What kind of boat? :)

42 Post Sportsfish. Plastic Fantastic.;)

Curtism
01-22-2015, 08:58 PM
42 Post Sportsfish. Plastic Fantastic.;)

Perfect, I'd be right at home. but can we wait for some more favorable weather? My boat shoes aren't fitted for snow studs.

Seriously though, the drug trade is long and storied down here and it's not the welfare folks who are causing the problems. Trust me. They may be a portion of the end result/buyers market, but the reality is being perpetuated by the guys who drive daddy's 500SEL to high school, the upper crust who are cashing in on this "drug war", and thus the real consumers. Y'ever try supporting a serious drug habit on what a welfare recipient takes home? Think about it.

Trust me, people who are moving the vast majority of drugs aren't street people or welfare recipients, it's the affluent. Show me some attempt to go after them ad we'll be getting somewhere.

Duncan Gibbs
01-22-2015, 09:11 PM
To reiterate (and believe me there was a move to do the same here):

It would seem to me from the data from the WSJ suggest that because so few were caught out that the cost of the programme would have been far greater than the money saved by busting a drug using welfare recipient.

Benefit vs cost. It's a pretty basic business analysis that business managers make when determining the course of action to see if it's worthwhile.

Which drugs are covered? Does it matter if the welfare recipient grew their own? What about tobacco and alcohol? Is the cost of legal actions and legal challenges covered in the benefit/cost analysis?

It sounds so good, and probably feels so good to bust people for doing things you don't like with such blunt instruments as random drug testing. But if it's not worthwhile in terms of costs saved, lives turned backwards and broader, unintended costs to the community then why do it?

To further Jamie's comment that there is nothing random about the way in which your social security works, and that the subjects of testing have plenty of warning, then it would point to the whole programme being nothing other than a total and utter white elephant.

Such a programme HAS to be effective and it HAS to save money and pay its own way. If it does not meet these basic litmus tests then it's not worth pursuing.

John Smith
01-22-2015, 09:28 PM
I have nothing against the IDEA of drug testing welfare recipients for drugs. It's tax money they just might be buying drugs with. Issues yes Ian..problems yes Ian. The chances of corruption yes Ian but, again, the idea is, to me sound.

States have done this. It costs a lot of money to do the testing, and almost no one fails the tests. It may have seemed like a good idea, but we now have evidence it is not.

John Smith
01-22-2015, 09:29 PM
Come to Cherry Valley anytime Ian. As is I have very little faith in the gov.'s Social Services Departments in this area. They often don't want to fix problems because by doing so, they might lose their jobs.

Probably not funded sufficiently to solve the problem.

John Smith
01-22-2015, 09:31 PM
Wellfare, foodstamps, and the like are a net benefit to society. Cutting them off to anyone who needs them hurts society as a whole. Even if you hate the poor, they provide unmatched economic stimulus.

Food stamps are a subsidy to the food industry. Welfare money that gets spent is a subsidy to whatever industry it is spent in.

John Smith
01-22-2015, 09:32 PM
No, Norman, it is because such persons, above all others, are the most vulnerable to drug problems and associated crime, and in fact deserve to be incentivized in some manner to embrace a drug free life and the dignity and opportunity that comes with it.

As usual, the Left shows their penchant to keep persons mired in poverty and addicted to illegal narcotics, fighting any incentive whatsoever that these persons might improve their lives or share in opportunity or personal accountability and dignity...:rolleyes:

Like raising the minimum wage to a reasonable figure?

Sky Blue
01-22-2015, 09:35 PM
like raising the minimum wage

Yeah, that'll do so much to lift people out of poverty...:rolleyes:

Sky Blue
01-22-2015, 09:36 PM
One of the most sweetly endearing things about Norman is how he starts these partisan troll threads and then becomes incensed when conservatives take the bait. :)

I love Norman. :)

Duncan Gibbs
01-22-2015, 10:06 PM
No comments?


To reiterate (and believe me there was a move to do the same here):

It would seem to me from the data from the WSJ suggest that because so few were caught out that the cost of the programme would have been far greater than the money saved by busting a drug using welfare recipient.

Benefit vs cost. It's a pretty basic business analysis that business managers make when determining the course of action to see if it's worthwhile.

Which drugs are covered? Does it matter if the welfare recipient grew their own? What about tobacco and alcohol? Is the cost of legal actions and legal challenges covered in the benefit/cost analysis?

It sounds so good, and probably feels so good to bust people for doing things you don't like with such blunt instruments as random drug testing. But if it's not worthwhile in terms of costs saved, lives turned backwards and broader, unintended costs to the community then why do it?

To further Jamie's comment that there is nothing random about the way in which your social security works, and that the subjects of testing have plenty of warning, then it would point to the whole programme being nothing other than a total and utter white elephant.

Such a programme HAS to be effective and it HAS to save money and pay its own way. If it does not meet these basic litmus tests then it's not worth pursuing.

S.V. Airlie
01-22-2015, 10:08 PM
Probably not funded sufficiently to solve the problem.Well, SS seems to have a big staff. But, if A sees something needing investigation at House B, A can't do anything about it..Mona Lisa is an example. SServices check on my neighbor's apartment. cme out after finding everything fine. I looked at her and asked whether the apartment reeked of cat piss. She said yes. It's really bad. I looked at her and said it's a friggin' health hazard, do something. She said, I can't! The next day, she called me and told me she reported it annonomously. That's ALL she could do.

Ian McColgin
01-22-2015, 10:23 PM
The federal and state laws regarding section 8 are fact, not anecdote.

It is true that I gave an anecdotal example of why anecdotes are not reliable. One of life's ironies.

S.V. Airlie
01-22-2015, 10:30 PM
Ian, my old apartment was not classifieds section 8 although HUD paid Mona Lisa's rent. A year before I left, the owner tried to have her evicted. Lawyers the whole ancelada. I saw the eviction notice, the court orders stuffed in the mailbox fore a year. She didn't care and just said We will see if I get evicted. Well, after a year she is still there. After a year and a half she's still there. The people left the apartment under her because of the stench and it hasn't been rented to anyone since.

Ian McColgin
01-22-2015, 10:39 PM
Section 8 pays for apartments. Perfectly normal to have market rate and seciton 8 units in the same place.

There are many many many bad tenant stories. I have been a tenant, a tenant's advocate before housing authorities and preparing cases for district court, and I've been a landlord. I have never seen a valid landlord case that was properly prepared that failed though sometimes ingenious argument could drag things out sixty days or so. I have seen numerous valid landlord cases that were sloppily prepared by idiot landlords or their even more idiot attorneys who lost to the most elementary proceedural counter measures. Somewhere there is a teflon coated tenant from hell but I've not found him or her.

Jamie, I don't know the facts of your horrible neighbor but at that bad she is the landlord's fault. If she's section 8 then the rent is coming in and the landlord simply does not care for anything else.

S.V. Airlie
01-22-2015, 11:47 PM
I don't know the details; whether HUD pays the landlord directly, whether HUD pays the total amount of the rent or not. I do know that the rent is consistantl6y late; not a couple of days but, a couple of months. I was talking to the guy one day who manages the apartment building aqbout5 this women including her drug use. A classmate (old) came in and listened for a few minutes and then asked us, Is LM still using drugs at her age? She knew 8instantly who was being discussed. One day, I caught her 16yr old daughter smoking weed behind this thousand gallon propane tank in the back yard. Talk about a deer in a car's head lights.:) She's been in rehab for 2 years off and on. So, evicted for drugs not a chance in hell Ian. I left, my neighbor left and THIS woman IS STILL there.

Bob Adams
01-23-2015, 06:24 AM
Good morning all. Off to work. Oh yeah, work that subjects me to drug testing. So I can pay taxes. Seems to me you should be subject to testing to receive those taxes.

Ian McColgin
01-23-2015, 08:04 AM
I favor random drug and alcohol tests for all people whose job performance directly affects public safety - transportation, law enforcement, medicine, etc. After the fact tests, like B&A following a traffic stop for a violation that could easily be DWI or other arrests are also warrented.

Drug testing welfare recipients has been proven to do three things: Catch almost no one, create a climate of judgemental repression playing to the worst of petty prejudice, and give public monies to politicians' friends.

slug
01-23-2015, 08:18 AM
The employer decides on substance abuse testing policy.

When the tax payer is your employer, they have the right to enact substance abuse testing.

No one forces employees to take the test. They can find a job elsewhere.

Norman Bernstein
01-23-2015, 08:36 AM
One of the most sweetly endearing things about Norman is how he starts these partisan troll threads and then becomes incensed when conservatives take the bait. :)

Incensed? Not at all. These 'partisan troll threads' are a fascinating phenomenon, because they seem to drag out the REAL personal character attributes of many conservatives... which are often far, far less flattering than their superficial stances might suggest. It's especially gratifying when it manages to expose the ones espousing 'Christian' values.

S.V. Airlie
01-23-2015, 08:48 AM
Sorry6 Ian, random doesn't happen. My neighbor who was often tested and knew exactly when he was going to be tested. Hell, I even knew when as he told me. He wasn't into drugs though so he didn't care. His girlfriend had a rep though, she would have cared.

slug
01-23-2015, 08:52 AM
Yah..thats how it works .....you knw the time frame for random testing.

even if flawed , testing sends a strong message...

BrianY
01-23-2015, 09:30 AM
Good morning all. Off to work. Oh yeah, work that subjects me to drug testing. So I can pay taxes. Seems to me you should be subject to testing to receive those taxes.

So, I guess you DO agree that in addition to folks on welfare, we should also test everyone else who "receives those taxes" including members of congress and all other state and federal employees.

S.V. Airlie
01-23-2015, 09:36 AM
I suppose there should be some members of congress who should be tested. A positive test would explain their actions a lot better.

John Smith
01-23-2015, 09:47 AM
Yeah, that'll do so much to lift people out of poverty...:rolleyes:

It would be a beginning.

John Smith
01-23-2015, 09:50 AM
Ian, my old apartment was not classifieds section 8 although HUD paid Mona Lisa's rent. A year before I left, the owner tried to have her evicted. Lawyers the whole ancelada. I saw the eviction notice, the court orders stuffed in the mailbox fore a year. She didn't care and just said We will see if I get evicted. Well, after a year she is still there. After a year and a half she's still there. The people left the apartment under her because of the stench and it hasn't been rented to anyone since.

Let's agree the system has flaws. I'd be inclined to not allow Section 8 people to have cats or dogs. Reasoning would be a couple of things. If they cannot afford to pay their own rent, they cannot afford to feed a cat or a dog. Second issue would be the damage to the apartment that dogs and cats (and some other pets) can do.

John Smith
01-23-2015, 09:52 AM
Good morning all. Off to work. Oh yeah, work that subjects me to drug testing. So I can pay taxes. Seems to me you should be subject to testing to receive those taxes.

Do you want to spend several thousands of your taxes on drug testing to find 1 person who tests positive out of 100?

John Smith
01-23-2015, 09:53 AM
I favor random drug and alcohol tests for all people whose job performance directly affects public safety - transportation, law enforcement, medicine, etc. After the fact tests, like B&A following a traffic stop for a violation that could easily be DWI or other arrests are also warrented.

Drug testing welfare recipients has been proven to do three things: Catch almost no one, create a climate of judgemental repression playing to the worst of petty prejudice, and give public monies to politicians' friends.

Some years ago there was an ad on that was quite impressive. It said something to the effect that 45% of drug use is in the ghettos. Who's using the other 55%?

John Smith
01-23-2015, 09:54 AM
The employer decides on substance abuse testing policy.

When the tax payer is your employer, they have the right to enact substance abuse testing.

No one forces employees to take the test. They can find a job elsewhere.

Taxpayers don't employ Congress?

S.V. Airlie
01-23-2015, 10:04 AM
Let's agree the system has flaws. I'd be inclined to not allow Section 8 people to have cats or dogs. Reasoning would be a couple of things. If they cannot afford to pay their own rent, they cannot afford to feed a cat or a dog. Second issue would be the damage to the apartment that dogs and cats (and some other pets) can do.John. She has TWO cats and one big dog. The maintenance guy managed to get into her apartment one time. Other than the fact he couldn't stand being in it for more than five minutes, he estimated the damage done would be more than 10 grand. That was a year ago!

John Smith
01-23-2015, 10:09 AM
John. She has TWO cats and one big dog. The maintenance guy managed to get into her apartment one time. Other than the fact he couldn't stand being in it for more than five minutes, he estimated the damage done would be more than 10 grand. That was a year ago!

Like I said, I'd not allow them to have pets. One of the flaws in the system.

I've also known a couple of people in Section 8 housing that kept their apartments very clean.

Is there anything man creates that someone won't abuse? The question is how to help those who need the help and eliminate the abuse.

S.V. Airlie
01-23-2015, 11:11 AM
I don't think she wants help except what the gov. gives her.I gather she's a good artist. Does she try to sell any pieces? Not that I can see. She has a van sitting there, unregistered, unlicensed, uninspected, and not running. When she moved in, the theory was she needed the van to go to art exhibits, sell her artwork etc. Didn't happen. The tires are going flat.

BrianY
01-23-2015, 12:09 PM
I don't think she wants help except what the gov. gives her.I gather she's a good artist. Does she try to sell any pieces? Not that I can see. She has a van sitting there, unregistered, unlicensed, uninspected, and not running. When she moved in, the theory was she needed the van to go to art exhibits, sell her artwork etc. Didn't happen. The tires are going flat.

I sympathize with your situation and understand how awful it must be, but again, this is a LAW ENFORCEMENT issue and not a "drug testing" issue.

S.V. Airlie
01-23-2015, 01:02 PM
I sympathize with your situation and understand how awful it must be, but again, this is a LAW ENFORCEMENT issue and not a "drug testing" issue.The law here is a joke. Two town cops who don't touch/bother tourists,(heaven forbid!) don't get involved and just pass out parking tickets to the residents. They drive nice new cars though!

S.V. Airlie
01-23-2015, 01:06 PM
Hell, I left a few notes on her door.
Asking her to
Get rid of the cat stink which has permeated the entire building
Put lids on the trash cans to keep flies out.
To get rid of old crap she puts out on the porch.

What happens? She calls the cops and THEY visit me.

Boater14
01-23-2015, 03:04 PM
drug testing if you receive taxes.....line up the bankers and entire auto industry. great idea.

slug
01-23-2015, 03:12 PM
Hell, I left a few notes on her door.
Asking her to
Get rid of the cat stink which has permeated the entire building
Put lids on the trash cans to keep flies out.
To get rid of old crap she puts out on the porch.

What happens? She calls the cops and THEY visit me.

really discouraging to have a bad neighbor.

one trick my dad showed me was the bee hive routine. Hang the bee hives all around the perimeter of her house. These friendly bees will buzz her into insanity. The guys in white coats will then come haul and her off to a better institution. .

S.V. Airlie
01-23-2015, 03:15 PM
Actually I hope I have two by June. However, my landlord is all for them.:)

G.Sherman
01-23-2015, 03:22 PM
Let's drug test every corporate executive working for General Electric every week and suspend government subsidies payments by $1,000,000.00 per violation. Now you're talking some cash... it's easy to resent the under-priveledged, nobody dares take on the corporations or the investment banker corp.