Drug tests for Welfare

[Ifreann]

No, because states that have tried it found that most welfare recipients passed the drug test. I think the cost of administering the test was enough so they didn't save money.

We've no idea how many people on welfare WOULD do drugs if not for the possibility of being drug-tested hanging over their heads, though.

New plan. Say we're going to make everyone in receipt of welfare take a drugs test, but then don't actually do the tests. Take a urine sample and then throw it away.

[Caracasus]

No, because states that have tried it found that most welfare recipients passed the drug test. I think the cost of administering the test was enough so they didn't save money.

We've no idea how many people on welfare WOULD do drugs if not for the possibility of being drug-tested hanging over their heads, though.

Annd that's exactly the kind of question people are going to be asking - regardless of how fair it is to ask. Poor people can never, ever win. Welfare recipients might be on drugs? Let's test them. Most of them aren't? Well, they probably would be if they weren't going to be tested.

[Imperializt Russia]

No, because states that have tried it found that most welfare recipients passed the drug test. I think the cost of administering the test was enough so they didn't save money.

We've no idea how many people on welfare WOULD do drugs if not for the possibility of being drug-tested hanging over their heads, though.

You're gonna need to start backing up the notion that people just stopped doing drugs because "damn, might get tested" rather than, y'know, maybe very few of them actually used drugs.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

so the middle class can feel righteous and superior to welfare recipients? fuck them

[Khadgar]

We've no idea how many people on welfare WOULD do drugs if not for the possibility of being drug-tested hanging over their heads, though.

New plan. Say we're going to make everyone in receipt of welfare take a drugs test, but then don't actually do the tests. Take a urine sample and then throw it away.

Randomly declare a few people failed the test then demand they pay for a test to prove their innocence before letting them collect again. Now throw away that sample, pass say 80% of them and fail 20%.

[Risottia]

Drug tests should be used for people on welfare.

Yes.
On the day when also will be tested for drugs people who get tax rebates or write-offs, or tax-exempt status, for them or their organisation/company.

[Gauthier]

We've no idea how many people on welfare WOULD do drugs if not for the possibility of being drug-tested hanging over their heads, though.

New plan. Say we're going to make everyone in receipt of welfare take a drugs test, but then don't actually do the tests. Take a urine sample and then throw it away.

People will quickly figure out drug tests even Keith Richards, Ozzy Osbourne and Gary Busey can all pass.

[Novorobo]

We've no idea how many people on welfare WOULD do drugs if not for the possibility of being drug-tested hanging over their heads, though.

New plan. Say we're going to make everyone in receipt of welfare take a drugs test, but then don't actually do the tests. Take a urine sample and then throw it away.

And if rumours start that they're bluffing?

[Liberaxia]

Unnecessarily invasive.

[Caracasus]

New plan. Say we're going to make everyone in receipt of welfare take a drugs test, but then don't actually do the tests. Take a urine sample and then throw it away.

And if rumours start that they're bluffing?

It doesn't matter. The aim isn't to uncover people on welfare who are on drugs. It's to provide another level of humiliation to people who are poor enough to be on welfare and to reassure people that their tax money isn't being spent on anyone they don't like.

[USS Monitor]

If we want to test people to save money its a losing proposition. If we want to test people to ensure public funds aren't being used to buy drugs let's start with politicians.

Cos if a politician personally uses drugs, that totally means they're embezzling public money to buy them?

[USS Monitor]

No, because states that have tried it found that most welfare recipients passed the drug test. I think the cost of administering the test was enough so they didn't save money.

We've no idea how many people on welfare WOULD do drugs if not for the possibility of being drug-tested hanging over their heads, though.

Then they would have been on drugs before the testing was introduced. If they were addicts, they'd have a hard time stopping in time to pass the test. If they're not addicts, the drug use won't prevent them looking for work.

[Shaggy Dog Story]

If we want to test people to save money its a losing proposition. If we want to test people to ensure public funds aren't being used to buy drugs let's start with politicians.

Cos if a politician personally uses drugs, that totally means they're embezzling public money to buy them?

No. But I assume they used their salary to pay for them.

[The Nihilistic view]

No, just work out an account system where cash can't be withdrawn and the card is onlt valid for certain purchases if you want to stop it being used for drugs.

[Yorkers]

First things first, I'd strip welfare users of the right to vote. Secondly, I'd close the borders and deport illegals so that welfare users can be compelled to go out and get jobs. Thirdly, I'd raise the minimum wage to something they can live off of, so that they can get off of welfare entirely, and also have enough money to stay off the streets out of crack dens, and then they can spend their money on consumer products to help the economy.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

First things first, I'd strip welfare users of the right to vote. Secondly, I'd close the borders and deport illegals so that welfare users can be compelled to go out and get jobs. Thirdly, I'd raise the minimum wage to something they can live off of, so that they can get off of welfare entirely, and also have enough money to stay off the streets out of crack dens, and then they can spend their money on consumer products to help the economy.

You're funny.

[Novorobo]

And if rumours start that they're bluffing?

It doesn't matter. The aim isn't to uncover people on welfare who are on drugs. It's to provide another level of humiliation to people who are poor enough to be on welfare and to reassure people that their tax money isn't being spent on anyone they don't like.

You wouldn't know that.

[Imperializt Russia]

First things first, I'd strip welfare users of the right to vote. Secondly, I'd close the borders and deport illegals so that welfare users can be compelled to go out and get jobs. Thirdly, I'd raise the minimum wage to something they can live off of, so that they can get off of welfare entirely, and also have enough money to stay off the streets out of crack dens, and then they can spend their money on consumer products to help the economy.

Are there not flat benefits in the US? There are in the UK. Literally everyone is on some form of "benefit" in the UK, from £20pw (per child) Child Benefit to half of London (probably more since that phrase was popular) being on Housing Benefit because rents in the capital are beyond a fucking joke.

[Woodstead]

New plan. Say we're going to make everyone in receipt of welfare take a drugs test, but then don't actually do the tests. Take a urine sample and then throw it away.

This really gives a new flavour to "not a pot to piss in". I'd also support this plan for that very reason.

[MERIZoC]

No, cause people have every right to get high as fuck.

[Union of Confederate Socialist Republics]

Assuming people on welfare can afford drugs.

[Grave_n_idle]

If we want to test people to save money its a losing proposition. If we want to test people to ensure public funds aren't being used to buy drugs let's start with politicians.

Cos if a politician personally uses drugs, that totally means they're embezzling public money to buy them?

They wouldn't have to be embezzling it, and more than the welfare recipient would be embezzling their welfare.

But it's that whole class-war rich-junkie-is-better-than-poor-junkie-just-because thing, again.

[Internationalist Bastard]

No, mainly because many who suffer from drug addiction also need welfare.

[Grave_n_idle]

Assuming people on welfare can afford drugs.

Actually, no - because what is being discussed is whether or not there is a controlled substance ina test, not whether the person can be proved to have bought it.

That can be a major distinction - according the the OP premise, you would be stripping people of necessary assistance even if they'd never spent any money on 'drugs', IF it could be shown to be in their system.

Someone gave you a gift of medication? Stripped of welfare.

Exposed to a drug? Striped of welfare.

Drink spiked? Striped of welfare.

Lab error? Stripped of welfare.

It's not just a pointless and vindictive idea - it's ridiculously open to abuse.

[Galloism]

We've no idea how many people on welfare WOULD do drugs if not for the possibility of being drug-tested hanging over their heads, though.

New plan. Say we're going to make everyone in receipt of welfare take a drugs test, but then don't actually do the tests. Take a urine sample and then throw it away.

That would be cheaper. We could hire the poor to take the samples. They get to dress in lab coats and act like nurses, but don't really have to do anything except take samples and throw them away.