23
   

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

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 04:57 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

How can you say this, Cyclo? It happened right in our own backyard in
California!


Well, I have a higher opinion of California than I do Florida. Not only that, but we had a recall mechanism that is far more effective than FL - you'll never get 2/3rds of the Leg. to vote to recall a GOP member. Never.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 04:59 pm
@CalamityJane,
Quote:
I am sorry, but if you're receiving government assistance you have to obey by their rules, just as employees have in a corporate setting where they're subjected to drug testing prior to hiring. I don't see a difference here, really.


You choose whether or not to work for a company; most who receive assistance from the government aren't choosing to do so.

Hey, I got an idea: let's start mandating drug tests for anyone who gets a tax break at all, say, the Home Mortgage interest tax break. After all, if you need assistance from the government, we should make sure you're not using drugs. Right? I mean, it's important to make sure our money isn't being wasted. And just think of the kids in those homes.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 05:34 pm
I think it's very interesting that CJane and I seem to feel very similar about this issue.

As far as I know, we're the only two on this thread whose daily life is effected by children whose birth families didn't do a very good job. Both of us had to go through EXTENSIVE evaluation to become parents. Peeing in a cup for the sake of your kid seems like not a big deal at all.

Maybe that's why I just can't be convinced that this is some horrid thing to ask people to do.

I'm still fence sitting but I'm feeling more comfortable with it.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:04 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
Maybe that's why I just can't be convinced that this is some horrid thing to ask people to do.


No problem when there is no indications there is a drug problem in the tested group and seem only a means for politicians to transfer public money to their supporters?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:05 pm
@boomerang,
Do civil rights, the right to privacy, not matter to you at all? Or do those rights cease to exist when you fall on hard times?

What about people who have no kids? Why should they have to take drug tests?

Cycloptichorn
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:10 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
They cease to exist when you adopt a child.

But yes, those things matter to me. I'm just not going to knee-jerk into a position that this is entirely a bad idea.
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:11 pm
@BillRM,
I'm trying to talk about the idea, not the man.
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:19 pm
@boomerang,
Yes boomer, the circumstances we've gone through in adopting a child
and seeing what it does to a child - having substance abusers as parents -
I couldn't possibly think differently.

My main concern is the child, not the drug users themselves. I don't give
a hoot if they're ruining their life, but the minute they have a child dependent on them all bets are off.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  6  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:21 pm
@boomerang,
Whether it's this (wo)man or a different one, I find it hard to separate the idea from the motivation. What's the motivation to make all applicants to TANF pay for a drug test?

First, if they need TANF then chances are they can't pay for a drug test - even if it will eventually be reimbursed through their support payments. Second, who benefits? Does this benefit the kids in these families? How? Does it benefit the taxpayer to potentially pay for thousands (tens of thousands?) of blood tests to find a few positives? Who benefits? The person doing the testing is the only person who benefits as far as I can tell.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:26 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

They cease to exist when you adopt a child.


Sorry, but they do not. It's fundamentally wrong to say that your civil rights cease to exist because you choose to adopt a child, and even worse to compare this to people who are getting assistance from the State for some reason.

Quote:
But yes, those things matter to me. I'm just not going to knee-jerk into a position that this is entirely a bad idea.


You didn't answer my question: what about people who don't have kids? EDIT: Actually, I see we're talking about TANF, which usually (but not always) means families with children.

Even more than that: what exactly do you think is going to happen, here? That folks who smoke marijuana (and let's not kid ourselves - 99% of who they catch with these tests are marijuana smokers), have kids, and then get caught, are suddenly going to be cut off? Their kids are going to be cut off? This is somehow preferable?

Cycloptichorn
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:26 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
What? Your right to privacy exists only on paper, Cylco. The minute you
get a social security number, the data entry on your file has started. Civil rights? Drug use is against the law, and in doing something illegal your civil
rights are forfeited, Cyclo. Federal assistance program is for the people in
need who truly have fallen on hard times for whatever reason.

A drug habit is costly and anyone who chooses to spend money on their drug habit instead of supporting their children, should not receive financial aid, nor should they be allowed to care for their children until they've completed a drug rehab program. The minute one chooses to engage in illegal activities, your civil rights are limited.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:29 pm
@CalamityJane,
Quote:
Drug use is against the law, and in doing something illegal your civil
rights are forfeited, Cyclo.


Absolutely and 100% false. I mean, you say this, but legally, you're wrong. Even IF you've committed a crime, your civil rights still exist.

There's not even a question that what you just said is wrong. You might WANT that to be true, but it just isn't.

Who is going to take care of the kids in question here? The State? How much is that going to cost? I think you guys really, really haven't thought this through very well.

Cycloptichorn
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:30 pm
@JPB,
No, they should not have to pay for a drug test - that's utterly ludicrous and
part of the FL governor's shady deal.
I am for it that TANF recipients should receive drug testing, but
against having them pay for it. This service should be free of charge!
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Do you actually live in the real world, Cyclo? Yes, prisoners do have certain civil rights, but Federal law and the laws and courts of each state, differ on the scope and limit of civil rights for prisoners.
Prisoners, and parolees and even former prisoners, do not have the same civil rights as persons who have not been convicted of a crime.
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:39 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Who is going to take care of the kids in question here? The State? How much is that going to cost? I think you guys really, really haven't thought this through very well.


False, we (boomer and I) have lived through it. These kids become children
of the state, they're in the social service system, either live with relatives
or foster parents and depending on the parents unwillingness to regain their
parental rights, they're freed up for adoption.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:40 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

Do you actually live in the real world, Cyclo? Yes, prisoners do have certain civil rights, but Federal law and the laws and courts of each state, differ on the scope and limit of civil rights for prisoners.


Prisoners have been convicted of a crime. You're talking about people who have been convicted of no crime in any court of law - yet you are pre-judging them and throwing their rights out the window.

I do live in the real world, and here, that's a pretty shitty thing to do.

Quote:
Prisoners, and parolees and even former prisoners, do not have the same civil rights as persons who have not been convicted of a crime.


What about people who haven't been convicted of any crime, but who have lost their jobs and need help? They don't deserve the same rights as you and I, and instead should be subject to intrusive and expensive tests? What more, tests which are not really effective or useful or save money for anyone?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:42 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Who is going to take care of the kids in question here? The State? How much is that going to cost? I think you guys really, really haven't thought this through very well.


False, we (boomer and I) have lived through it. These kids become children
of the state, they're in the social service system, either live with relatives
or foster parents and depending on the parents unwillingness to regain their
parental rights, they're freed up for adoption.


Wow, sounds like that's going to save tons of money for FL. And all for what? Because the parent smoked a joint last week? I repeat - you haven't thought the implications of this through.

Scott, when he signed the measure, claimed he did so to 'save money for the taxpayer.' What you describe will cost much, much more than any possible savings.

Cycloptichorn
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:48 pm
Cyclo, you seem to forget that taking drugs is against the law. If you engage
in criminal activity, you have to live with the consequences.
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:50 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo, I agree that Scott has done so to further his own monetary interests,
and any drug testing should be free of charge, that doesn't mean however,
it should not be done!
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  4  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 06:50 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

No, they should not have to pay for a drug test - that's utterly ludicrous and
part of the FL governor's shady deal.
I am for it that TANF recipients should receive drug testing, but
against having them pay for it. This service should be free of charge!


There's no such thing as free of charge. Somebody is going to pay for these tests. It's either going to be the applicants or the taxpayers. Let's say there are 300 applicants/month and the tests cost $50 plus overhead costs of another $25 (probably low). That's $22,500 per month ($270,000/year) just in testing costs even if they don't find anyone who tests positive. What's the benefit to the taxpayer to pay those $$$ for testing just to "potentially" find people who test positive for drugs?
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/28/2022 at 04:41:32