Should you have to take a drug test to get TANF?

The 'War on Drugs' has been a colossal and expensive failure http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43248071/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/.

Incarceration and punishment hasn't worked, won't work and has only made the situation worse--it has trampled over individuals, both guilty and innocent, and is an affront to the rights guaranteed to all US citizens.

As soon as the so called religious right wing of the GOP recognizes that morality cannot be legislated, particularly with 'victimless' crimes, this unenforceable unconstitutional attack on individual liberty will cease.

Rap

Yes, I think that a drug test is justified. I would hate to think that taxpayers are paying out their hard earned money, so another person can use it to get high.

I think that the government needs to be careful to whom they give the money, if the parents are irresponsible. There is always the chance that the designated individuals would misuse the funds, but it is a matter of the better of two possible solutions. If the parents are addicts, you KNOW that the kids will have the benefit of little of the money.

Yes definitely! That TANF money could go towards a drug habit, and I don't
think this is fair to either tax payers or others who are in desperate need
of assistance.
As for birth control, that's a different subject altogether, but I would not
make it mandatory for TANF recipients to take birth control, however, I would make it available at no cost. Ultimately it is still the choice of a woman to either have children or not, and how many - same goes for abortion: it is the woman's choice. I don't think government should interfere here, regardless of receiving welfare or not.

My strong bias is no for similar reasons to Rap Rap, but my practical self knows - or thinks I know as I don't no how that money is allocated - that the money can be badly misused. So then I veer towards yes. Stuck in the middle again, considering.
I wonder if there is a third answer, such as no drug tests but monitoring the family, but that's invasive too, and expensive on the face of it besides.

I was just reading something about how expensive it is to be poor.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor

A train of thought was started by the "addict" thing. Some people are undoubtedly addicts. But there are other people who might not be addicts in any real sense, just people without the best possible judgment who did inhale at the party last Friday.

When I worked with people who were on various types of social services and were trying to get a job and become responsible, it was a long process, lasting at least months and sometimes years. They didn't instantly learn everything they needed to know -- there were often damaging habits and a lack of responsibility. Lots of reasons, from inadequate education to bad family environments, much more.

A lot of the progress was two steps forward, one step back. Then another three steps forward -- I saw so many people genuinely turn their lives around in lasting ways, but it usually wasn't a quick or easy process.

I'd hate to think of these people being tested at some point on the way and losing their kids' benefits. That would have seriously derailed many of my clients' progress. (And a significant percentage of them didn't have anyone else they could designate to receive benefits on their kids' behalf. The kids' dads often were the ones with serious drug issues.)

So of course that brings up the question, if they knew they'd lose benefits if they did inhale (or whatever), would they not do it in the first place? I just don't think so.

Couldn't agree more. Even just reading the question made me a little queasy....but I don't think it's been suggested.

On the drug testing, dunno. Hate to see kids deprived of basics because of a parent's drug habit. If that's discovered, though, they'd probably be better off in a safer environment.

They did a test program and found that those using drugs was a very very small fractions of the people applying for this aid in Florida.

To me this is just a way to made some drugs testing firm who had given campaign contributions wealthy at the tax payer expense.

More GOP nonsense to aid the well connected.

Lots of info here

So, now, in Florida, an applicant has to have a spare $50 (or more?) to pay for a drug test and then hope to pass it as part of the application process? I guess that's one way to reduce the number of people applying for aid.

Agreed. Someone is making a bunch of money off of this testing.

I thought of that too, but forgot about false positives..

I think it's going to take a lot more than just that. The WH drug czar is in the news today pushing back hard on that 'drug war has failed' report. He thinks legalizing it will actually make it "harder to keep our communities healthy and safe".

Gotta convince him first.

I can't believe that nobody is discussing the fact that this 'plan' is going to make Gov. Scott millions and millions of dollars, personally.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/gov-rick-scott-solantic-and-conflict-of-interest-whats-the-deal/1161158

The guy is nothing but a ******* criminal, it's amazing that FL was stupid enough to elect him.

Cycloptichorn

that's really ugly...

Well, I knew this had to be based on lining somebody's wallet. Now we know who. What a joke on the people of FL.

Unbelievable!! They should impeach him! Retirees of Florida, get going!!

I think that if you cant be trusted with money, you cant be trusted with children either. The "have someone else receive the money in your name" doesnt make sense.

That really is disgusting.

The whole mode of thinking is wrong. You feed kids by feeding kids, not by allowing kids the vicarious thrill of watching the adults in their hoods ODing on taxpayer-funded drugs and hoping that will inspire the kids to grow or kill food for themselves...

There is no impeachment of Governors in FL, to the best of my knowledge.

The guy truly is a scumbag, the more I find out about him, the more repulsive he gets.

Cycloptichorn