States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

[JaggedEdge]

Agree or disagree? Personally I think they should test for everything including weed and if you test positive, revoke the benefits. The way I see it, if you are collecting tax payer money to live, you can't afford $25-100 a quarter. The only exception being if you live in a state that has legalized medical use and have a prescription.

Drugs are a luxury and should be used by those who can afford them.

From FoxNews.com: (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510707,00.html)


Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

(http://health.blogs.foxnews.com/category/dr-mannys-notes/)
The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.


Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.
"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site â?? notwithmytaxdollars.com â?? that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"


Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.


Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.


On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.


A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.
In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.


"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.


Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.


There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.


Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.
"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."
Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.


Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.


In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.
The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.


But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
At least six states â?? Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia â?? tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.


Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.
They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.

[Breukelen advocaat]

For actual welfare recipients, it's probably a good idea, but I think that people collecting unemployment insurance should be not be required to participate in drug testing. Unemployment insurance is not the same thing as "welfare", as the recipients worked and got laid off usually through no fault of their own - and they paid into the system from their salaries, along with employers.

Plenty of Americans are now, and will soon be, getting their first taste of unemployment benefits. It would be totally unrealistic to test them all, even in Floriduh.

[40oz]

I disagree. There's nothing like kicking a man when he's down like telling him he will get no longer be able to afford food because he is addicted to heroin. We all know how easy that habit is to drop. Its as easy as quitting smoking, right?

[Breukelen advocaat]

Actually, smoking is considered by many to be harder to quit than heroin.

Why should we give welfare payments to junkies? A better solution would be to legalize and regulate all drugs, and have treatment centers set up for addicts who wish to kick the habit. Continuing to enable drug addicts in their never-ending lifestyle is not solving any problems, it's only creating new ones.

[bigtopsfinn]

How about cigarettes and alcohol? Those are drugs also... Do they even have tests for these? Well, once everyone has their personal microchip implanted, they can regulate what you buy and how much :wtf:

[killerweed420]

On paper it sounds like A good idea, but in reality it will only hurt people. I would not have a problem if they drug tested to try and get hel[ for addicts but if its just to turn them over to leo and boot them out of the system I'm against it.
Its the same age old issue. Should me make laws outlawing every potential drug available or should we just use education to inform people of the dangers?

[40oz]

Actually, smoking is considered by many to be harder to quit than heroin.

Either way, my point is that people don't intend to be addicts. Nobody shoots up or smokes anything with the intention of becoming dependent on the activity. Those people need help and denying them welfare would be (in my opinion) illegal discrimination.

Ricky lost his foot to diabetes because he ate too much junk food but he gets approved for welfare. His friend tom who has a crack smoking problem got denied. Makes no sense.



Why should we give welfare payments to junkies? A better solution would be to legalize and regulate all drugs, and have treatment centers set up for addicts who wish to kick the habit. Continuing to enable drug addicts in their never-ending lifestyle is not solving any problems, it's only creating new ones.

Yea well at the rate we're going now we'll lock all the junkies in a hole in the ground before that happens. I agree that the best way to combat the drug problem is treatment, not punishment, but unfortunately there are still a couple generations of people alive that don't believe that.

Basically what you are suggesting is to take away their means for food and let them wallow in their own hopeless situation while we sit here and wait for the laws to change.

[JaggedEdge]

Either way, my point is that people don't intend to be addicts. Nobody shoots up or smokes anything with the intention of becoming dependent on the activity. Those people need help and denying them welfare would be (in my opinion) illegal discrimination.

Ricky lost his foot to diabetes because he ate too much junk food but he gets approved for welfare. His friend tom who has a crack smoking problem got denied. Makes no sense.



Yea well at the rate we're going now we'll lock all the junkies in a hole in the ground before that happens. I agree that the best way to combat the drug problem is treatment, not punishment, but unfortunately there are still a couple generations of people alive that don't believe that.

Basically what you are suggesting is to take away their means for food and let them wallow in their own hopeless situation while we sit here and wait for the laws to change.


How, if you are an addict with a job and they find out they have a right to fire you. Why shouldn't we have the right to pull welfare funding if they can't stay clean.

Nobody asks to become an addict? Don't do stupid shit. I know I have an addictive personality, so aside from cigs, I stay away from highly addictive substances.

It's called personal responsibility. If you aren't responsible enough to not use addictive drugs, why should we be responsible for supporting your lifestyle.

Rockstars can do all the cocaine and heroine they like. Someone living in a ghetto of trailer park parasitically surviving off other citizens can't.

[40oz]

How, if you are an addict with a job and they find out they have a right to fire you. Why shouldn't we have the right to pull welfare funding if they can't stay clean.

For one I don't think they should have a right to fire someone anyway just because they are addicted to something. As long as they can still do their job of course.

Pulling welfare funding from someone with a drug problem won't solve anything, it will just make things worse for the addict as well as society who has to deal with that desperate person in the streets.



Nobody asks to become an addict? Don't do stupid shit. I know I have an addictive personality, so aside from cigs, I stay away from highly addictive substances.

It's called personal responsibility. If you aren't responsible enough to not use addictive drugs, why should we be responsible for supporting your lifestyle.


Personal responsibility is good and everything, but people are stupid and they will make stupid desicions. This whole attitude of us vs them isn't healthy. I know some people do take advantage of the welfare system, but honestly what can you expect? Some people will take advantage of any kinda of help they are given. Does that mean we should stop helping everyone?

What if someone has kids but because they also have an illegal drug in their system they can't get food for them? Drug testing for welfare is too black and white. It makes a distinction between what kind of irresponsible behavoir is ok, and what kind isn't. If something like this passes, then all the drunks and winos will be alloud on welfare but a hard worker who is struggleing to get by who might like to enjoy a joint now and then will be shit out of luck.

[JaggedEdge]

Personal responsibility is good and everything, but people are stupid and they will make stupid desicions. This whole attitude of us vs them isn't healthy. I know some people do take advantage of the welfare system, but honestly what can you expect? Some people will take advantage of any kinda of help they are given. Does that mean we should stop helping everyone?

Yup, that's exactly what I would like to see. I don't agree with the welfare system. I disagree on every level with FDR's "New Deal."


What if someone has kids but because they also have an illegal drug in their system they can't get food for them? Drug testing for welfare is too black and white. It makes a distinction between what kind of irresponsible behavoir is ok, and what kind isn't. If something like this passes, then all the drunks and winos will be alloud on welfare but a hard worker who is struggleing to get by who might like to enjoy a joint now and then will be shit out of luck.

Seeing as their drug addiction is the result of their being unable to afford food for their kids, the state should take them away. People on welfare should not be having kids anyway.

And no they won't, someone who likes weed can quit until they find a new job. Boohoo, they won't be able to get high for a few months. Life is just terrible... I'm sorry, but when you accept federal money you are also accepting more federal control in your lives. That's how it works.

[gypski]

If citizens can be randomly drug tested to receive benefits from the government, then elected officials should also be randomly drug tested because they are receiving benefits from the people. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And a win (sic), win (sic) situation. :thumbsup::jointsmile:

[JaggedEdge]

And ultimately, it's up to the employer to choose what their policy is regarding drugs. Some places will send you to rehab and give you a chance to get clean, others will fire you. It is their personal choice. You sign a contract agreeing to just that when you start most jobs.

[JaggedEdge]

If citizens can be randomly drug tested to receive benefits from the government, then elected officials should also be randomly drug tested because they are receiving benefits from the people. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And a win (sic), win (sic) situation. :thumbsup::jointsmile:

I agree.

[40oz]

Yup, that's exactly what I would like to see. I don't agree with the welfare system. I disagree on every level with FDR's "New Deal."



So what is your view on the situation? Look the other way? Pretend there isn't a poverty problem?

[JaggedEdge]

So what is your view on the situation? Look the other way? Pretend there isn't a poverty problem?

Nope, but did the new deal solve the poverty problem? No. It only exacerbated the Great Depression.

[bigtopsfinn]

If citizens can be randomly drug tested to receive benefits from the government, then elected officials should also be randomly drug tested

AMEN.

[thedeadone]

as much as I do not agree with most forms of wellfare, in no way do I hope that the government can take away money because of a drug test. That is an invasion of ones freedom.Remember----give them an inch and they will take YOUR mile!!!!!!!!!

[JaggedEdge]

as much as I do not agree with most forms of wellfare, in no way do I hope that the government can take away money because of a drug test. That is an invasion of ones freedom.Remember----give them an inch and they will take YOUR mile!!!!!!!!!

That argument doesn't work. When they pay people to do nothing, you grant them the right to be invasive.

I don't see how it is an invasion of freedoms. If you are collecting money for the government, why shouldn't strings be attached. If they required a chip be implanted in you in order to receive welfare (not unemployment) I see nothing wrong with it. If you don't want the chip, don't take the money.

[slavetopot]

How about cigarettes and alcohol? Those are drugs also... Do they even have tests for these? Well, once everyone has their personal microchip implanted, they can regulate what you buy and how much

Personally this drug testing is offensive, you NEVER see wealthy CEO's dropping their pants to pee in a cup. I would be more concerned with all those rich a%^ that just ripped off billions in ponzi scams, than worrying about if a welfare person is smoking a joint. I am sure there will come a time when they will regulate our life's, that is if you are not in the top 5% of the wealthy. The whole drug testing thing is disgusting, and once again, they only test the working stiffs, not the one's that actually handle the real money of the business, no they can have cocktails at lunch and figure out how to make more money off the backs of the working man.

[Unknownfigure]

Agree or disagree? Personally I think they should test for everything including weed and if you test positive, revoke the benefits. The way I see it, if you are collecting tax payer money to live, you can't afford $25-100 a quarter. The only exception being if you live in a state that has legalized medical use and have a prescription.

Drugs are a luxury and should be used by those who can afford them.

From FoxNews.com: (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510707,00.html)

I agree with you. But the thing is, if you're on welfare, you are almost positively not smoking anything thats worth 100 a quarter. At least, never in my experiences anyway. When you cant afford the good stuff, you tend to find the green bricks that float around. Not that bad, and eases the stress caused by problems related to having to be on welfare in the first place. Everything IS connected.

So in essence, I actually DISagree with the notion to drug test welfare recipients. Many of the recipients are drug users, several of harder drugs. If their particular substance is addictive, drug testing for welfare would definately cause a crime spike in more urban environments, though it may not be of outstanding significance.

Along with it being somewhat immoral, denying help to someone who is unable to help themselves.

[Breukelen advocaat]

One thing that nobody mentions is putting all people on welfare to work. This has been done before, even in NYC. They can clean streets and parks, and do a lot of other jobs - not necessarily menail ones. Having a narcotics habit does not necessariy make one incapable of doing anything - the amount of great musicians who were/are addicted is proof of that. There are addicts in other fields as well, who can function.

[JaggedEdge]

One thing that nobody mentions is putting all people on welfare to work. This has been done before, even in NYC. They can clean streets and parks, and do a lot of other jobs - not necessarily menail ones. Having a narcotics habit does not necessariy make one incapable of doing anything - the amount of great musicians who were/are addicted is proof of that. There are addicts in other fields as well, who can function.

I would still have a problem with welfare, however if they were required to do 40 hours a week of menial labor, it would be beneficial on two levels. So it may be a reasonable solution to attempting to reform entitlement programs.

1. They would be providing some kind of service to the tax payer.

2. They wouldn't be getting a free and easy ride and would be more likely to try and find a job in the private sector. I imagine McDonalds would be better than cleaning streets, buildings, etc for welfare and food stamps.

[slavetopot]

getting a free and easy ride

Why is it that we always attach the least powerful in the world, while we praise the rich and powerful, who are the one's that are getting free handouts left and right. As the U.S. Congress debated welfare policy, the media spotlight focused on the need to cut spending to the poorest people in the nation. At the same time, there was no or minimal coverage of policies that send billions of government dollars to corporate interests from oil companies to agribusiness to firms producing arms. We need to stop the welfare for the very rich before you start cutting out the very little money that people receive on welfare. They are not the ones getting the free and easy ride, some of these very rich get more money off the government in tax cuts in one week than some get their entire life. But no one says a thing about that, we tuck our tail between our legs and go and attach people that have no power and barely enough to eat. Very sad indeed.
"The real difficulty is with the vast wealth and power in the hands of the few....It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations."

[GoldenBoy812]

Why is it that we always attach the least powerful in the world, while we praise the rich and powerful, who are the one's that are getting free handouts left and right.

I assume you are truly referring to AIG? What was the alternative?


As the U.S. Congress debated welfare policy, the media spotlight focused on the need to cut spending to the poorest people in the nation. At the same time, there was no or minimal coverage of policies that send billions of government dollars to corporate interests from oil companies to agribusiness to firms producing arms.

Not that i am agreeing, but who has taken the biggest hit in wealth/assets? It definitily was not someone relying on government assistance.


We need to stop the welfare for the very rich before you start cutting out the very little money that people receive on welfare.

But what if that lead to the loss in middle income employment? That is the end result is it not; so do we punish the middle class while trying to "do what is right"?



They are not the ones getting the free and easy ride

Are you saying businesses and highly productive individuals do not provide the majority of the tax dollars necessary to finance the welfare state? If not, then do explain.


, some of these very rich get more money off the government in tax cuts in one week than some get their entire life.

But that was their earnings. How can they get money off the government when it was theirs to begin with?


But no one says a thing about that, we tuck our tail between our legs and go and attach people that have no power and barely enough to eat. Very sad indeed.
"The real difficulty is with the vast wealth and power in the hands of the few....It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations."

But the people, not the corporations, elected Barack Obama. I know of very little individuals who are truly wealthy and supported this guy. Even the savior himself knows this is not a zero sum game, that cannot be improved by taking away someone's property to give it to another person who is less productive.

There is a reason we bailed out the banking system and AIG. The alternative would have been total chaos and complete breakdown (WWIII)....

[JaggedEdge]

Why is it that we always attach the least powerful in the world, while we praise the rich and powerful, who are the one's that are getting free handouts left and right. As the U.S. Congress debated welfare policy, the media spotlight focused on the need to cut spending to the poorest people in the nation. At the same time, there was no or minimal coverage of policies that send billions of government dollars to corporate interests from oil companies to agribusiness to firms producing arms. We need to stop the welfare for the very rich before you start cutting out the very little money that people receive on welfare. They are not the ones getting the free and easy ride, some of these very rich get more money off the government in tax cuts in one week than some get their entire life. But no one says a thing about that, we tuck our tail between our legs and go and attach people that have no power and barely enough to eat. Very sad indeed.
"The real difficulty is with the vast wealth and power in the hands of the few....It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations."

First of all, I don't agree with our government sending money to corporation, organizations, or anything else you can come up with. One of the only exceptions being our military.

Although I don't condone handouts to big corporation, they at least provide something to our society. What does that Sulleman bitch and her kind contribute to society other than 10 minutes of entertainment?

I don't think the government should spend money on anything other than things that are beneficial to the majority of the population. If you disagree with that you need to support Libertarianism. You can't make everyone happy in a country of this size, which is why states need to be responsible for all things not granted to the federal government via the Constitution.

[JaggedEdge]

I assume you are truly referring to AIG? What was the alternative?

As I understand it, we the tax payer, are share holders in this company. If our investment began before the initial investment we should try and save them. I believe however, they were a completely private company before the government invested out money into them; in that case, we should have let them fail. It's part of a free market.

Seeing as our money is now invested in them we should do everything in our power to get our money back.

*EDIT* Other than the above, I agree with you.

[slavetopot]

The people who hold the real wealth in this country are not looking out for your best interest, they are looking to make more money. If we are going to cut out welfare than let's start at the top. Not only do they get tax breaks but also other little goodies.

Corporate welfare describes financial or other form of government assistance to a corporation provided free or at a below-market rate. Unlike social welfare, it is rarely need-based. Much of U.S. corporate-welfare policy is embedded in the tax code, which supports certain corporate actions over others through tax expenditures, deductions and credits. Unlike budget items, tax expenditures are not approved each year but continue until Congress votes to end them.

The largest corporate-welfare payments go to the wealthiest corporations. These corporations are often among the biggest campaign donors to candidates of both major political parties.

Example of corporate welfare.

Research and development is a major cost in many industries, yet much of such costs for new drugs, new weapons systems and nuclear power are paid for by the federal government. For example, Taxol, an anti-cancer drug developed by the National Cancer Institute, was licensed to Bristol-Myers Squibb. While the company contributed virtually nothing to Taxol's testing and development, it now markets it wholesale at 20 times its manufacturing price generating billions in profits including more than $100 million a year in Medicare payments.

Taxpayers, through Pentagon-run arms bazaars, pay the advertising budget of arms manufacturers, then provide foreign aid to customers like Colombia, Israel and Saudi Arabia on condition they buy U.S.-made weapons. Such arms proliferation then is used to justify future government research-and-development expenses for more sophisticated weaponry.

Does welfare to exporters of weapons enhance the common good? Why not insist that corporations pay market rate for what they receive from the government?

The savings-and-loan scandal of the late 1980s amounted to a $500 billion corporate-welfare bailout of failed savings and loans, which had engaged in risky, speculative, even criminal business activities. To encourage overseas investments in high-risk nations, corporations are able to purchase federally-backed insurance at below market rates. Tobacco companies and others seek to cap corporate liability costs related to harmful products, yet they continue to seek government subsidies to export the same products.

Such measures amount to a socialization of risk even as corporate profits stay privatized. If corporations were forced to pay back bailouts, buy insurance at market rates and accept full liability for their products, they might change their risky and destructive practices.

Once again we are looking at the wrong welfare system, you are going for the poorest part of society, because it is easier to blame someone that has no power. In fact focusing on the poor is exactly what they want, you are busy worrying about someone who gets $15 dollars of food stamps, and not even seeing the real problems, the ones that are making billions. Just I stated above, the federal government made the discovery for the new cancer drug, and instead of giving it freely to all in need, the big corporations take it and mark it up and make billions of dollars in profit off sick and dying folks.

I don't see how corporate welfare benefits any of us.

[GoldenBoy812]

As I understand it, we the tax payer, are share holders in this company. If our investment began before the initial investment we should try and save them. I believe however, they were a completely private company before the government invested out money into them; in that case, we should have let them fail. It's part of a free market.

Seeing as our money is now invested in them we should do everything in our power to get our money back.

*EDIT* Other than the above, I agree with you.

The ripple effects it would have sent throughout the global financial world would have been worse than 1929, and possibly worse than 1720. Basically, they did not have the liquidity to pay out $30 billion worth of claims at a single time frame.

Why might you ask? The assets they have were in majority, the SPMBS they insured against default. Once these defaults began to exponentially surface, the pool in which payments can be drawn against dried up as they were worth pennies on the dollar.

It would have bankrupted 10% of every financial institution in the world.

[GoldenBoy812]

The savings-and-loan scandal of the late 1980s amounted to a $500 billion corporate-welfare bailout of failed savings and loans, which had engaged in risky, speculative, even criminal business activities. To encourage overseas investments in high-risk nations, corporations are able to purchase federally-backed insurance at below market rates. Tobacco companies and others seek to cap corporate liability costs related to harmful products, yet they continue to seek government subsidies to export the same products.

When it was all said and done, the resolution trust corporation lost $131 billion in taxpayer money. The alternative would have been thousands of bank failures across the US. If it is the poor you are concerned about, what kind of dent would this have put in the welfare system, as it is dependent upon tax revenue to fund welfare?


Such measures amount to a socialization of risk even as corporate profits stay privatized. If corporations were forced to pay back bailouts, buy insurance at market rates and accept full liability for their products, they might change their risky and destructive practices.

How many "savings banks" do you see anymore?


Once again we are looking at the wrong welfare system, you are going for the poorest part of society, because it is easier to blame someone that has no power. In fact focusing on the poor is exactly what they want, you are busy worrying about someone who gets $15 dollars of food stamps, and not even seeing the real problems, the ones that are making billions. Just I stated above, the federal government made the discovery for the new cancer drug, and instead of giving it freely to all in need, the big corporations take it and mark it up and make billions of dollars in profit off sick and dying folks.

I don't see how corporate welfare benefits any of us.

The issue is whether people who receive tax payer money should be using it to buy "vices", specifically illicit drugs and not whether corporations are greedy, swindling entities.

Also, do you have a credible link that confirms your stance that BMS received the rights for nothing?

[slavetopot]

The War on Drugs has become a war on the poor. Instead of helping lift the destitute out of poverty with compassionate and sensible economic policies, drug laws target the poor, trapping them in a vicious cycle of poverty and disempowerment. Drug testing welfare recipients is just one example of how our drug laws single out the poor.

Myth 1 - Welfare recipients are more likely to use drugs than non-welfare recipients, thereby justifying random drug testing for welfare recipients.

Fact 1 - A wealth of evidence demonstrates that welfare recipients and other adults use drugs at similar rates.

According to a 1996 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, differences between the proportion of welfare and non-welfare recipients using illegal drugs are not statistically significant. In each case, the national average for drug use fell within the range of the welfare population that has been found to use illegal drugs.

Before the Michigan policy was halted, only 10% of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. Only 3% tested positive for hard drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines. This is similar, if not lower, to rates of illicit drug use in the general population.

More parents with an income 300% or more above the poverty line have used drugs than parents whose income is below the poverty line.

Myth 2 - Mandatory drug testing programs are an easy way to make sure state welfare money is not being spent in the wrong way.

Fact 2 - Many states initially considered mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients, but did not implement them for various reasons, including financial considerations.

New York and Maryland originally intended to require random drug testing for those receiving welfare. They discarded their drug testing plans after finding that a program of questionnaires is more cost-effective.

Louisiana passed a law in 1997 requiring drug testing for welfare recipients. However, a task force set up to implement the law decided that more limited drug testing of individuals identified by a questionnaire is more cost-effective than mandatory drug testing.

Certain counties in Oregon experimented with drug testing on some welfare recipients. The process was halted when it was found that drug testing was less effective in identifying drug abuse than through less invasive methods.

Alabama decided against drug testing because it found that focusing on job training programs was a more effective method of moving individuals off of welfare.

Iowa decided against drug testing welfare recipients since it could not include a test for alcohol abuse, which is more prevalent than illicit drug abuse. The state found other methods to be more cost-effective.

Myth 3 - Drug use among those on welfare often leads to continuing unemployment and child neglect and abuse. Testing for drugs is the best way to find and fix these problems.

Fact 3 - A focus on drug testing distracts from other problems that contribute to unemployment and child neglect more than drug use. For example, far more welfare recipients have psychological disorders than drug problems. Additionally, drug testing does not differentiate between drug use and drug abuse. A positive result in a drug test does not necessarily identify a drug problem.

A study published in January 2001 by the University of Michigan found that drug testing is not an efficient or cost-effective way of testing for psychological disorders. Data analysis concluded that 4% of those on welfare were seen as drug dependent. Yet, 7-9% tested positive for drug use, despite not showing any drug dependence problem. Even more overwhelmingly, 21-22% did not test positive for drug use, but exhibited signs of alcohol dependence or psychological disorders.

26 states have chosen to use alternative methods to drug testing, including questionnaires and observational methods. These methods are not only less intrusive, but more effective. An Oklahoma study found that a questionnaire was able to accurately detect 94 out of 100 drug abusers. The questionnaire was also useful in detecting alcohol abusers, something drug tests fail to accomplish.

Myth 4 - Welfare drug testing is a limited use of drug testing laws. Drug testing of welfare recipients could not be applied to other groups.

Fact 4 - If random drug testing for welfare recipients was permitted, it could eventually lead to a vast expansion of drug testing.

In halting the implementation of Michigan's drug testing law, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients ""could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.""

It is surprising you have no problem with the very wealthy stealing and drugging, and yes taking your hard earn money, but OMG don't let anyone poor come knocking on my door. Wake up, don't believe the propaganda they sling, telling you how the most needy of this nation is living off your tax dollars, the fact is, they get very little money, putting all the money that goes into TANF is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the welfare that goes to the wealthy 1% of this country, why not start drug testing them, they want freebies they should be subject to the same rules as the rest of us. That of course won't happen, it sickens me that they are getting away with this. If we want to save money once again start at the top, that is where the most money is given away, your hard earned tax money, so they can ride in private jets, send their children to the best schools, while vacationing in Europe. Yet we are focusing on the very poor. We need to stand together and say stop this madness and focus our eyes on the 1% of the population who are running this whole show.

[slavetopot]

Interested in the great taxol giveaway here is some information on that little gem.

The Great Taxol Giveaway (http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/05/mm0592_08.html)

Economics
The Great Taxol Giveaway
by Daniel Newman

EACH YEAR, 12,500 WOMEN in the United States alone die from ovarian cancer. To public health advocates, women's rights activists and the friends and families of those who have suffered from ovarian cancer, the disease's high incidence and mortality rates constitute a national health emergency. But for Bristol-Myers Squibb, the crisis represents a golden opportunity. The pharmaceutical corporation exercises exclusive control of taxol, an experimental drug which shows promise in treating ovarian cancer.

If taxol continues to perform well in clinical trials, Bristol-Myers stands to earn billions of dollars. Patients are already clamoring for the drug, and its price will be high. Zola Horovitz, vice president for business development and planning at Bristol-Myers, says, "Taxol will probably cost more than any oncology product that's ever been developed."

In a sense, this is not remarkable. By their very nature, pharmaceutical corporations capitalize on people's illnesses to make profits.

What is noteworthy about the taxol case is that Bristol-Myers Squibb is poised to make so much money for having done so little. It did not discover, develop or test the drug. The U.S. federal government did all those things. Nor does Bristol-Myers own the land where the Pacific Yew tree, from which taxol is derived, grows. The U.S. government owns much of that property, and the company is paying little or nothing for access to the trees that grow on it.

The tale of how Bristol-Myers came to gain control of taxol is a startling story involving the exploitation of a loophole in a federal law, a rapidly spinning revolving door between business and government, short-sighted public officials and an aggressive, greedy company. Representative Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, and a lonely public interest group are trying to halt the government's virtual giveaway of taxol, but it is not clear what effect they will be able to have.

Public investment, private profits

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) developed taxol over several decades, conducting its first studies of the substance in the late 1960s. NCI has spent more than $12 million on taxol research, tests and clinical trials to date, and it plans to spend at least $23 million more.

In the words of Samuel Broder, director of NCI, "NCI was totally responsible for [taxol's] development" until 1991. Researchers first discovered taxol's medicinal value through a government-financed screening program of hundreds of natural products. As well as initially collecting the yew bark, NCI has done all biological cell screening, chemical purification, isolation and identification, large-scale production and dosage formulation of taxol. NCI has done the toxicology, filed and documented an Investigational New Drug application with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and sponsored all clinical studies of the drug.

NCI's work has shown that taxol has tremendous potential. In clinical trials, taxol effectively treated ovarian cancer in 30 percent of patients, even when other chemotherapy had failed. The drug binds tumors, arresting their growth and sometimes shrinking them. Taxol also shows promise in combating breast and lung cancer, and NCI plans to further test the drug for about 30 other cancer indications.

Ultimately, the drug may prove to be among the great success stories of publicly financed cancer research.

But virtually all of the financial benefits from taxol will accrue to Bristol-Myers, as a result of agreements between the corporation and three government agencies. The agreements cede control of the drug, and the tree which contains it, to the drug company.

"The agreements are extraordinary because they give near-total control of a life- saving plant species to one drug company, and because they provide exclusive, federally funded technology to Bristol-Myers Squibb," said Wyden during a recent congressional hearing investigating the taxol agreements.

The giveaway of taxol - and NCI

The agreement between NCI and Bristol- Myers, signed in January 1991, has in effect turned the taxol-researching departments of the government agency into an arm of the private pharmaceutical firm. NCI will cooperate exclusively with Bristol-Myers in bringing taxol to market, and will refuse to show data from its trials to anyone besides that firm.

In 1989, NCI advertised for a private sector collaborator to bring taxol to market. Of the four firms that applied, NCI chose Bristol-Myers, already the market leader in cancer drugs. The resulting agreement, formally known as a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA), defines how NCI and Bristol-Myers will collaborate to bring taxol to market.

The CRADA gives Bristol-Myers exclusive access to government-funded taxol research. "All new studies and raw data ... shall be maintained as proprietary and confidential," the CRADA states. "NCI shall make the raw data available exclusively to Bristol-Myers Squibb for use in obtaining regulatory approval for the commercial marketing of taxol."

The confidentiality provision applies not only to government researchers, but also, for example, to university scientists who receive NCI contracts for taxol research. Researchers are permitted to publish the results of their investigations, but only if they do not disclose the underlying data - the detailed, clinical data the FDA requires before it will approve the marketing of a new drug.

The exclusive access Bristol-Myers gains to NCI research virtually ensures that Bristol-Myers will be the first to receive marketing approval for taxol.

NCI defends exclusive agreements like the one with Bristol-Myers on the grounds that they are necessary to bring promising drugs to market quickly. "It has been our experience that pharmaceutical companies require the assurance of some exclusive rights to an agent before they will expend the considerable resources necessary to develop the agent" through marketing approval and distribution, the director of NCI, Samuel Broder, wrote Wyden.

But James Love, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP), dismisses Broder's assertion, at least as it applies to taxol. "The exclusivity isn't needed," he says. "Why is Rhône-Poulenc trying to break into this market? They were the losers in the taxol bidding. If they are willing to proceed, despite the Bristol-Myers monopoly on the government bark and research, it can hardly be argued that exclusivity was needed for taxol to be developed." Rhône-Poulenc is developing taxotere, a compound closely related to taxol.

If Bristol-Myers is first to market with taxol, the firm will win a marketing monopoly due to the FDA's designation of taxol as an "orphan drug." For seven years, no other firm will be allowed to sell taxol for ovarian cancer. With no competition, Bristol- Myers will be free to set prices as high as it dares, fettered only by a weak pricing clause in the CRADA that NCI has no criteria to enforce.

The "fair pricing clause" in the CRADA, obtained by Multinational Monitor under the Freedom of Information Act, reads: "NCI has a concern that there be a reasonable relationship between the pricing of taxol, the public investment in taxol research and development, and the health and safety needs of the public. Bristol-Myers Squibb acknowledges that concern, and agrees that these factors will be taken into account in establishing a fair market price for taxol." This will allow Bristol-Myers to set taxol's price without any reference to its costs in developing and producing the drug.

The National Institutes of Health (of which NCI is a part) reserves the right to intervene if it determines that Bristol-Myers' price for taxol is not "reasonable." But, according to the pricing clause, an acceptable price for NCI could be one which reaps windfall profits for Bristol-Myers at the expense of cancer patients.

And gigantic windfall profits are almost guaranteed. While Bristol-Myers' Horovitz says taxol will be the most expensive oncology product ever - meaning it will cost patients at least several thousand dollars per treatment - sources at NCI report that NCI has brought taxol from yew tree bark to medicinal form at a cost of approximately $1,000 per treatment. Bristol-Myers' production expenses are almost certain to be lower than NCI's, since the company will produce taxol in greater quantities.

Behind the giveaway

The giveaway of taxol may have been fostered by Dr. Robert Wittes, who has spun through the revolving door between NCI and Bristol-Myers Squibb with amazing speed. In the late 1980s, Wittes oversaw the clinical trials of taxol in his position as associate director for cancer therapy evaluation at NCI. He then left NCI to work for Bristol-Myers, becoming the firm's senior vice president for cancer research. After a stint of less than a year at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wittes returned to NCI in August 1990, this time as chief of its medicine branch, which conducts in-house research.

Wittes refused to be interviewed for this article and did not respond to the single written question, "Did you assist Bristol-Myers Squibb in the preparation of its taxol CRADA proposal?" Bristol-Myers did not return repeated phone calls or answer written questions concerning Wittes.

Love asserts Wittes was instrumental in helping Bristol-Myers win control of taxol. "It seems clear that Dr. Wittes gave Bristol-Myers a huge advantage in preparing for the CRADA bid," he says. Love, who calls Wittes "the mystery man of the taxol story," thinks Wittes should be required to disclose more about his relationship with Bristol-Myers. "We would like to know what Bristol-Myers paid Dr. Wittes for his role in preparing the taxol CRADA, but no one in the government is willing to make him answer that question."

In addition to Wittes' potential conflict of interest, more systemic problems also helped foster the sweetheart arrangement between Bristol-Myers and NCI. Neither taxol nor the idea for using taxol to treat cancer is patentable, since both have been in the public domain for decades. But Bristol-Myers will gain monopoly marketing rights for taxol under the Orphan Drug Act, passed in 1983 to encourage drug companies to develop and market drugs for rare diseases. For diseases affecting small numbers of patients, Orphan Drug Act supporters believed, granting market exclusivity might provide enough financial incentive for pharmaceutical firms to develop treatments in which they otherwise would not have been willing to invest.

Ovarian cancer qualifies as a rare disease under the Orphan Drug Act, even though it is the fifth-leading cause of death among women cancer victims, and even though one out of 70 U.S. women will develop this disease during her life. Ovarian cancer has an estimated client population of 164,000 - large enough for Bristol-Myers to earn huge profits, but well under the 200,000-patient cutoff in the law.

While the drafters of the law were well-intentioned, in practice drug corporations have manipulated the Orphan Drug Act to earn monopoly profits on drugs they would have brought to market even without guaranteed exclusivity. TAP's Love says, "A drug company can drive a Brink's truck through the loopholes in the Orphan Drug Act."

One major problem is that once designated an "orphan" by the FDA, a drug retains that status - and the company which controls it maintains exclusive rights to it - for seven years, irrespective of how much the drug earns for the company. (A bill proposed by Senator Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, would create a $200 million cap, so a drug would lose orphan status once it earned that amount.)

Perhaps an even more serious problem is that corporations can file for a very narrowly defined treatment group and later add new orphan designations for different applications of the same drug. Known as "salami slicing," this practice enables drug companies to market a drug to more than 200,000 patients - the Orphan Drug Act's cutoff point - and still maintain orphan status.

For example, the FDA granted Bristol-Myers orphan status for taxol as an ovarian cancer treatment. If the drug is later approved for other "orphan" diseases, Bristol-Myers will remain taxol's exclusive marketer, even if the total patient population for taxol is over the 200,000 patient limit.

Calls for reform and restraint

Wyden and TAP are trying to shine light on the taxol giveaway, hoping they can mount enough pressure to have the agreement rescinded or to extract guarantees that Bristol-Myers will not gouge women with its taxol prices. Wyden's tough questioning of both NCI and Bristol-Myers officials at congressional hearings on taxol have undoubtedly been an important step in this direction.

Wyden and TAP are also calling for fundamental reforms in the Orphan Drug Act. In addition to supporting Metzenbaum's $200 million cap on orphan drug earnings, TAP is calling on Congress to ensure that orphan drug prices maintain a reasonable relationship to the controlling company's costs, not just to what the market will bear. It is requesting that Congress require a corporation controlling an orphan drug to disclose its revenues from sales of the drug and its costs incurred in developing, manufacturing and marketing the drug. TAP has also suggested that Congress and the FDA reconsider the policy of automatically granting exclusive rights to orphan drugs.

Despite Wyden and TAP's best efforts, legislative action seems unlikely. Even if Congress were to pass reforms to the Orphan Drug Act, President Bush would probably veto them; in 1990, Bush vetoed modest amendments to the Orphan Drug Act which would have removed AIDS drugs' orphan designation. However, NIH has indicated some willingness to rethink its fair-pricing policy; this may be taxol patients' best hope for affordable treatment.

Bound and gagged

Meanwhile, NCI-Bristol-Myers cooperative efforts continue apace, and it will be very difficult to derail them. The CRADA gives Bristol-Myers the right to terminate its agreement with NCI if it determines that developing taxol will not be commercially successful. NCI can terminate the agreement only if it determines that the company "has failed to exercise best efforts" in commercializing the drug.

NCI also agreed not to help any other company develop taxol, virtually forever. The agreement states, "NCI agrees to refrain from assisting any commercial party other than Bristol-Myers Squibb for the commercialization of taxol during the term of this CRADA, and during any period thereafter in which Bristol-Myers Squibb is engaged in the commercial development and marketing of taxol." NCI is bound by this clause as long as Bristol-Myers does not abandon the drug and "public health needs are adequately served."

If the CRADA were terminated, Bristol-Myers would have equal voice with NCI in determining what happens to all data, studies, raw material and taxol supplies.

The new bark collecting season began with spring weather, and NCI is continuing its taxol trials. "Barring unforeseen delays," says Zola Horovitz, the Bristol-Myers official, "the Food and Drug Administration could approve taxol for treatment of refractory ovarian cancer in early 1993."

[WhiskeyTango]

For actual welfare recipients, it's probably a good idea, but I think that people collecting unemployment insurance should be not be required to participate in drug testing. Unemployment insurance is not the same thing as "welfare", as the recipients worked and got laid off usually through no fault of their own - and they paid into the system from their salaries, along with employers.
Plenty of Americans are now, and will soon be, getting their first taste of unemployment benefits. It would be totally unrealistic to test them all, even in Floriduh.

I agree 1000% I am pulling un-employment now. Not my choice. Thats just how the economy is. I also have 2 grow rooms going now, jeebus knows unemployment isnt supporting my family. So according to thread starter, I shouldn't receive my benefits any longer cause I smoke? I call bullshit...
Tell my newborn daughter that she has to go hungry cause her daddy medicates. FUCK legal medical states. Who is ANYONE to tell me I cant smoke? I cant medicate myself?
Sorry for the rant guys:angry3:...lol

good vibes

[WhiskeyTango]

One thing that nobody mentions is putting all people on welfare to work. This has been done before, even in NYC. They can clean streets and parks, and do a lot of other jobs - not necessarily menail ones. Having a narcotics habit does not necessariy make one incapable of doing anything - the amount of great musicians who were/are addicted is proof of that. There are addicts in other fields as well, who can function.


For one I don't think they should have a right to fire someone anyway just because they are addicted to something. As long as they can still do their job of course.

Pulling welfare funding from someone with a drug problem won't solve anything, it will just make things worse for the addict as well as society who has to deal with that desperate person in the streets.



Personal responsibility is good and everything, but people are stupid and they will make stupid desicions. This whole attitude of us vs them isn't healthy. I know some people do take advantage of the welfare system, but honestly what can you expect? Some people will take advantage of any kinda of help they are given. Does that mean we should stop helping everyone?

What if someone has kids but because they also have an illegal drug in their system they can't get food for them? Drug testing for welfare is too black and white. It makes a distinction between what kind of irresponsible behavoir is ok, and what kind isn't. If something like this passes, then all the drunks and winos will be alloud on welfare but a hard worker who is struggleing to get by who might like to enjoy a joint now and then will be shit out of luck.

cannnnnuh I giiiiitah an amennnnnah!
good vibes

[JaggedEdge]

I agree 1000% I am pulling un-employment now. Not my choice. Thats just how the economy is. I also have 2 grow rooms going now, jeebus knows unemployment isnt supporting my family. So according to thread starter, I shouldn't receive my benefits any longer cause I smoke? I call bullshit...
Tell my newborn daughter that she has to go hungry cause her daddy medicates. FUCK legal medical states. Who is ANYONE to tell me I cant smoke? I cant medicate myself?
Sorry for the rant guys:angry3:...lol

good vibes

We can eliminate your problem by continuing to try and reform our drug laws. I don't agree with them either. However, I have stopped smoking before, why can't you in order to protect your family in these tough economic times. It is up to you if you choose to start a grow op, although I fail to see how, if you get arrested, you will be able to continue to provide for your family.

By the way, she wouldn't have to go hungry if you chose your daughter over your cannabis use. Assuming they did implement this, you could get food stamps by simply not smoking, allowing your young child the food she needs.

Instead of bitching about the laws, why don't you do what's in the best interest of your family. If you get busted with two grow rooms, I fail to see how that is beneficial to your daughter.

Have you tried applying at Taco Bell, Burger King, etc? They tend to hire more often than positions in what ever field you may be in. Have you exasperated all possible avenues of finding employment?

[JaggedEdge]

Slavepot,

The reasons you mention are exactly why I feel our tax dollars should not be invested in these things. Alternative fuels, pharmaceuticals, etc.

It is up to the corporations to do so on their own.

[JaggedEdge]

Sorry, I missed the alloted edit time. I simply want to clarify. I don't support drug tests for unemployment either considering these people had been paying into the system for an extended period of time. At least in most cases. If you were making so little you got your taxes back at the end of the year, it is a bit questionable, but overall I don't agree with that.

[slavetopot]

WhiskeyTango,
I support you 100%, I was diagnosis with MS, also have been a diabetic since I was a kid, they handed me narcotics like candy the last straw was the liquid morphine. Every time they treated the MS, my diabetes would get worse, it was a nightmare. I threw the narcotics away and started to smoke, got busted on a drug test at work and was fired. But if I would have stayed on the narcotics I would still have a job. I just could not do hard drugs like that, talk about addiction, but hey they are legal. It is a sad state of affairs, marijuana helps with my illness, but I have paid the price for using it. In 10 years of work I only missed one day, ONE DAY, always did my work professionally and still nothing matter but the drug test. Even my reviews were top rate, none of it matters, the only thing they saw was the drug test. I know now that I will use fake urine, but the damage is done. I hate the way this whole thing made me feel. Why marijuana is still illegal is beyond me, aspirin is perfectly legal but if you take 20 of those suckers that will be your last headache. I too am growing it and taking a risk, but it is that or go back and start on a dose of strong narcotics, which when I was on all that mess I hardly knew my own name. The whole thing is absolute B%lls&it. These companies that test us are making a ton of money, that is what this is all about, money.

[JaggedEdge]

WhiskeyTango,
I support you 100%, I was diagnosis with MS, also have been a diabetic since I was a kid, they handed me narcotics like candy the last straw was the liquid morphine. Every time they treated the MS, my diabetes would get worse, it was a nightmare. I threw the narcotics away and started to smoke, got busted on a drug test at work and was fired. But if I would have stayed on the narcotics I would still have a job. I just could not do hard drugs like that, talk about addiction, but hey they are legal. It is a sad state of affairs, marijuana helps with my illness, but I have paid the price for using it. In 10 years of work I only missed one day, ONE DAY, always did my work professionally and still nothing matter but the drug test. Even my reviews were top rate, none of it matters, the only thing they saw was the drug test. I know now that I will use fake urine, but the damage is done. I hate the way this whole thing made me feel. Why marijuana is still illegal is beyond me, aspirin is perfectly legal but if you take 20 of those suckers that will be your last headache. I too am growing it and taking a risk, but it is that or go back and start on a dose of strong narcotics, which when I was on all that mess I hardly knew my own name. The whole thing is absolute B%lls&it. These companies that test us are making a ton of money, that is what this is all about, money.

If he has a medical condition like yourself, I would retract the above posts, however if it is simply for recreational use, or a non-debilitating problem like mild back pain or depression, I stand by what I said. I think it is bullshit as well that people with medical conditions are punished for using and growing a natural drug to alleviate their pain.

*Edit* I forget this site has moved drastically to the medical side of cannabis use since I used to frequent it. Less recreational users and more medical ones. Granted I think a fair amount are recreational users with cards, there are now a lot more with actual medical problems that would benefit greatly from legalization.

[GoldenBoy812]

The War on Drugs has become a war on the poor. Instead of helping lift the destitute out of poverty with compassionate and sensible economic policies, drug laws target the poor, trapping them in a vicious cycle of poverty and disempowerment. Drug testing welfare recipients is just one example of how our drug laws single out the poor.

Myth 1 - Welfare recipients are more likely to use drugs than non-welfare recipients, thereby justifying random drug testing for welfare recipients.

Fact 1 - A wealth of evidence demonstrates that welfare recipients and other adults use drugs at similar rates.

According to a 1996 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, differences between the proportion of welfare and non-welfare recipients using illegal drugs are not statistically significant. In each case, the national average for drug use fell within the range of the welfare population that has been found to use illegal drugs.

Before the Michigan policy was halted, only 10% of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. Only 3% tested positive for hard drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines. This is similar, if not lower, to rates of illicit drug use in the general population.

More parents with an income 300% or more above the poverty line have used drugs than parents whose income is below the poverty line.

Myth 2 - Mandatory drug testing programs are an easy way to make sure state welfare money is not being spent in the wrong way.

Fact 2 - Many states initially considered mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients, but did not implement them for various reasons, including financial considerations.

New York and Maryland originally intended to require random drug testing for those receiving welfare. They discarded their drug testing plans after finding that a program of questionnaires is more cost-effective.

Louisiana passed a law in 1997 requiring drug testing for welfare recipients. However, a task force set up to implement the law decided that more limited drug testing of individuals identified by a questionnaire is more cost-effective than mandatory drug testing.

Certain counties in Oregon experimented with drug testing on some welfare recipients. The process was halted when it was found that drug testing was less effective in identifying drug abuse than through less invasive methods.

Alabama decided against drug testing because it found that focusing on job training programs was a more effective method of moving individuals off of welfare.

Iowa decided against drug testing welfare recipients since it could not include a test for alcohol abuse, which is more prevalent than illicit drug abuse. The state found other methods to be more cost-effective.

Myth 3 - Drug use among those on welfare often leads to continuing unemployment and child neglect and abuse. Testing for drugs is the best way to find and fix these problems.

Fact 3 - A focus on drug testing distracts from other problems that contribute to unemployment and child neglect more than drug use. For example, far more welfare recipients have psychological disorders than drug problems. Additionally, drug testing does not differentiate between drug use and drug abuse. A positive result in a drug test does not necessarily identify a drug problem.

A study published in January 2001 by the University of Michigan found that drug testing is not an efficient or cost-effective way of testing for psychological disorders. Data analysis concluded that 4% of those on welfare were seen as drug dependent. Yet, 7-9% tested positive for drug use, despite not showing any drug dependence problem. Even more overwhelmingly, 21-22% did not test positive for drug use, but exhibited signs of alcohol dependence or psychological disorders.

26 states have chosen to use alternative methods to drug testing, including questionnaires and observational methods. These methods are not only less intrusive, but more effective. An Oklahoma study found that a questionnaire was able to accurately detect 94 out of 100 drug abusers. The questionnaire was also useful in detecting alcohol abusers, something drug tests fail to accomplish.

Myth 4 - Welfare drug testing is a limited use of drug testing laws. Drug testing of welfare recipients could not be applied to other groups.

Fact 4 - If random drug testing for welfare recipients was permitted, it could eventually lead to a vast expansion of drug testing.

In halting the implementation of Michigan's drug testing law, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients ""could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.""

It is surprising you have no problem with the very wealthy stealing and drugging, and yes taking your hard earn money, but OMG don't let anyone poor come knocking on my door. Wake up, don't believe the propaganda they sling, telling you how the most needy of this nation is living off your tax dollars, the fact is, they get very little money, putting all the money that goes into TANF is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the welfare that goes to the wealthy 1% of this country, why not start drug testing them, they want freebies they should be subject to the same rules as the rest of us. That of course won't happen, it sickens me that they are getting away with this. If we want to save money once again start at the top, that is where the most money is given away, your hard earned tax money, so they can ride in private jets, send their children to the best schools, while vacationing in Europe. Yet we are focusing on the very poor. We need to stand together and say stop this madness and focus our eyes on the 1% of the population who are running this whole show.

I think you are missing the point though. This thread is not about "helping" people get off welfare, it is about filtering out those who decide to spend welfare proceeds which fund operations that tax payers are forced to fund against (war on drugs).

You keep referring to wealth (rich poor) and the ability to help the less fortunate as a zero sum game. In doing so, you cannot be further from the truth.

[Breukelen advocaat]

WhiskeyTango,
I support you 100%, I was diagnosis with MS, also have been a diabetic since I was a kid, they handed me narcotics like candy the last straw was the liquid morphine. Every time they treated the MS, my diabetes would get worse, it was a nightmare. I threw the narcotics away and started to smoke, got busted on a drug test at work and was fired. But if I would have stayed on the narcotics I would still have a job. I just could not do hard drugs like that, talk about addiction, but hey they are legal. It is a sad state of affairs, marijuana helps with my illness, but I have paid the price for using it. In 10 years of work I only missed one day, ONE DAY, always did my work professionally and still nothing matter but the drug test. Even my reviews were top rate, none of it matters, the only thing they saw was the drug test. I know now that I will use fake urine, but the damage is done. I hate the way this whole thing made me feel. Why marijuana is still illegal is beyond me, aspirin is perfectly legal but if you take 20 of those suckers that will be your last headache. I too am growing it and taking a risk, but it is that or go back and start on a dose of strong narcotics, which when I was on all that mess I hardly knew my own name. The whole thing is absolute B%lls&it. These companies that test us are making a ton of money, that is what this is all about, money.You ar a perfect example of somebody that is being screwed over. The absoulute insanity of it is that you were not seeking a handout, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were willing and able to work, but got fired because of politics and stupid drug laws. I've had similar injustices happen to me, including some for reasons that had nothing to do with the drug laws. They force people to do whatever they have to do to survive, because there is little choice.

I am currently on another extension of unemployment - they lay off the good people that are getting older, and hire inexperienced young ones, or foreigners, that they can pay less. Fortunately, I do not need a job anymore, and I am not going on any interviews ever again with back-stabbing employers. The perfect job for me is to work for six months, get laid off again, and collect for a year. :jointsmile:

[haole007]

it shouldn't be a crime to be poor.

eliminate giving people on assistance CASH.

vouchers for rent.
vouchers for restaurant food.
vouchers for public transportation.
vouchers for educational/ vocational training.
vouchers for child care.

just because an employee signs something to give up his/her 4th and 5th amendment rights doesn't make it RIGHT.

if we are serious about legal marijuana, whether medicinal, recreational, or both. we MUST NOT condone ANY drug testing.

drug testing is part of the problem, along with prisons for people with substance abuse issues.