Drug test + welfare = about darn time! (Page 2)
motherfingsuperwoman: Guess posting links is against rules, but if you google florida welfare testing many hits pop up to new links.
KrAsH: I googled it and got heaps of info..
Those who need to be tested have to pay for it themselves,then will be reimbursed after they are shown to be clean.
“The maximum amount that a person can get is $300-something dollars for a family of four. <<< Would it not just be easier to pay their rent,electricity and gas and with the leftovers leave them some cash to find work etc Would be cheaper then the 1.8 million dollars to test them.
Can see a lot of people in florida stating they are jehova witnesses <<< Far as i know you cant get anything out of them,especially blood for blood testing.
As for getting pass p!ss testing,having worked in construction that has strict drug n alcohol testing here in oz,guys used to just get someone clean to p!ss in a condom (you cant watch them actually p!ss here,you can stand behind them)
How do we know they use condoms if we cant watch them i hear you say,well because one guy came back clean but female and pregnant and he confessed to it lmao
FogofWar: I've heard of it happening in Florida here in Canada, it was on our news. The farthest it has gone here so far is discussions. As far as I know; no where in Canada has implemented such a policy.
They don't watch us that close either....they stand behind as well Krash...but the way we do it; there is NO warning. You don't have time to slip a condom full of someone else's piss on. The moment they tell you they are testing; you are standing under surveillance until you go. You cannot slip into a stall somewhere either.
Again; it's not fool proof; but it is better than nothing.
chronology: @ Krash. I was talking to a Hairdresser who had come back from Australia a few days ago. She was telling me how the Hairdresser she knew in Oz had some kind of Privacy Contract or something (I was not paying that much attention) with her customers not to allow hair to be taken away and tested for drugs. Hair is as good in most drug testing as urine (piss to you fog). Again am not sure if this is an Aussie Law that protects Australians, or a private agreement with her customers (she seems to have prominent heads to chop at). I have never heard of anything like this in England, in Hollywood it would be standard Privacy protection. Few people know that a drug test as good as a urine sample, (piss sample fog), can be taken from a lip salivar mark on a glass or cup recently sipped at by the person being tested.
Nicotina2: As long as the gov't is helping ppl get off drugs, it makes sense.
However, the reality is that if the gov't just kicks ppl off welfare due to drug addiction the only thing that will happen is a rise in crime.
Costing tax payers far more.
Much better to give a hand up and not a hand out.
I doubt ppl wake up and think "Hey, I'm gonna be a crak addict today."
Give ppl an incentive to get clean and remain so, treat them with respect.
To just kick ppl off welfare is a "quick fix" that in the long term fixes nothing.
LiptonCambell: >>>Much better to give a hand up and not a hand out.
Huh? Isn't this instance, though, a "hand up", not a handout, meaning free drugs paidfor by the tax payers?
How is that not a handout?
Nicotina2: If the gov't instates programs to help addict become clean then it is a hand up. If the gov't stops payments if a person tests positive then the addict will still go and get drugs. With no income, the person would in all probability resort to crime. Your tax dollars will still be spent on things such as law enforcement, court, jail, etc.
It makes economic sense to help people, through whatever programs work best, to get off welfare. One of these ought to be drug rehab.
The entire economic impact must be taken into account.
dave3974: the problem is that the welfare bill is unsustainable , kicking people off for drug taking is a fair way of reducing it -but in the uk it would proably be against their human rights.
the drug agenda is awkward the uk government can not make up its mind wether to tolerate it
evidenced by the soft penaltys and easy going approach to cannabis, or try to prosecute it ,
surely either zero tolerance or legalisation is the best approach
younlee: i dont think the 'right to take drugs on the taxpayer' is covered by the human rights act!!
And cannabis was re-classified back to catergory B.
FogofWar: Better for addicts to take responsibility and help themselves.
Yes, crackheads do wake up and decide to be an addict. Every person has a choice; and they made theirs. I have to live with the decisions I make; good or bad; and so do they. If you are addicted; it was your decision to do so.
I don't know about in the US, because your health care is entirely different; but here, we do have rehab centres that you can check yourself into. If I were an addict depending on welfare; and I knew this law was being passed; I would CHOOSE to confess; and go to rehab myself. The government has no problem helping those who will help themselves. Those that won't even help themselves are a burden to society; and yes; giving them money in the form of welfare is a hand-out. Forcing them into rehab so they can ignore it and go back to their life as an addict isn't a hand-up. Those who succeed in rehab are those who WANT to be there; not those who are forced to be.
FogofWar: If we weren't so dependant on our government taking responsibility for us; we wouldn't need such a law in the first place. We as humans have to pick up the slack and be mature enough to take responsibility for ourselves and our own actions. Time to quit blaming the government; and saying they need to help us...start by helping yourself.
dave3974: the re classification of cannabis has been a disaster , many of vthe morons that smoke it think it is naerly legal , the stronger types skunk etc bear little resemblance to waht was smoked in the 60`s .
The uk government approach is confused
LiptonCambell: >>>If the gov't instates programs to help addict become clean then it is a hand up.
How do you suppose you force someone to go clean? Otherwise, you'll have people who honestly just follow the required tests, fail them, and then still collect.
>>>With no income, the person would in all probability resort to crime.
So we're paying people to not break the law now? Isn't that a society under hostage?
>>>So better to have addicts resort to crime as opposed to being helped to get off drugs?
What difference are you suggesting? That, instead of losing Welfare support for a positive drug test, they be put into rehab? What happens if they simply go back to drugs? Is there no ultimatum to resort to?
Nicotina2: The government is already involved in this situation though. You have to look at what options are best for society. It's all good and well to say people ought to be responsible for themselves, most adults are. In the US there is high unemployment rates and not everyone can get a job.
It seems we are quick to vilify the poor. I highly doubt it's the cost of welfare that has the USA in so much debt.
The drug problems are real and to just cut a person off any form of help if they test positive is another way of sticking your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. Pretend right up to the point where the crime starts to part of your daily life.
No one can force an addict to quite, it is much better to take the opportunity to help the addict recover and have them become productive members of society.
Nicotina2: I posted before seeing your post Lipton.
If the gov't is to introduce drug testing then the cost of testing must be made economically viable, at the very least.
This is an area that needs to be addressed by people who are much more qualified than I.
It seems reasonable to offer the option of rehab to those who test positive.
Society is always paying for people not to break the law or enforce the laws of the land. Not every person on welfare wants to be on welfare. Do you know of anyone who lives in a ghetto by choice? I would not want to live under those conditions. Many people are living just a couple of pay cheques away from the welfare line.
It isn't a case of society under hostage, more one of what is the best way to decrease the total cost of crime.
I do not know what the best thing to do with those who relapse. I'm not specialized in that area.
It seems to be obvious that imposing a law that results in a person who is an addict loses welfare and ends up on the streets is not in the best interest of society.
We really need to look at the implementation of any policy and asses the full costs.
IamEggman: I dont know anything about how these drug tests work.
Does it include alcohol? If not does that mean it is fine to be an alcoholic, but not a drug addict?