23
   

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

 
 
CalamityJane
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 09:17 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
If they tested everyone with children for marijuana in the 60's or 70's, we'd have had a major housing problem.


Unfortunately, nowadays marijuana is replaced by much stronger drugs
and the amount of people who are into meth-amphetamines is steadily rising. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/map/
Methamphetamine is a highly addictive drug that affects the brain and
central nerve system. Chronic meth users develop a very violent behavior,
are delusional, homicidal and suicidal. You do not want meth users around
children, period.
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 01:57 am
@CalamityJane,
Quote:
Chronic meth users develop a very violent behavior,
are delusional, homicidal and suicidal. You do not want meth users around
children, period.


And such users are how common with special note of being around children as all drugs use in the people seeking aid including the far more common and to me harmless marijuana use was rare in test groups.

If we are going to test the poor in need of state help when there is no indication that such people are more likely to be drug users then the rest of society then all parents should be tested and we could all buy stock in drug testing firms.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 04:42 am
@CalamityJane,
Quote:
Unfortunately, nowadays marijuana is replaced by much stronger drugs


So you are claiming that pot smokers are running to stronger drugs?

L;ove that kind of thinking....................
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  5  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 06:19 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

JPB wrote:
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?


Yes, JPB, it will cost the taxpayer as well, but we cannot think in those terms, as a prisoner cost us plenty of tax dollars too, yet we find it necessary
to separate him from society. We also send drug users to rehab centers
on tax payers money without knowing if indeed it will benefit this person in the long run - the states do it anyway!

It's not just to find out who "potentially" is testing positive, I would hope
it is a first step to get social services involved and monitor any and/or all
children in that household where drugs play a prominent role.


Of course we can think in those terms. Let's look at the motivation behind doing the testing from those who support it. I'm going to quote Phoenix - but this isn't just Phoenix, this could be my sister in FL, my other sister in FL, or any number of other Republicans I know who want to make DAMN sure that their tax dollars don't go to support someone's drug habit.

Phoenix32890 wrote:


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.



This is NOT about getting help to drug addicted parents who come to the State for help. This is to make DAMNED sure that tax dollars don't go to support someone's drug habit, even if it costs them much more in tax dollars in testing all applicants to make sure that doesn't happen. This is emotional. It's sold to the conservative taxpayer as a good thing -- keeps those hard earned tax dollars out of the hands of folks who are going to shove 'em right up their arms or noses (quote = one of my sisters) while, all the while, the ones selling this crock of crap to the taxpayer is making damned sure they find a way to benefit from this new state expenditure. It's a scam. And they fall for it every time someone thinks that some low-life scum is going to get something for nothing on their dime.
JPB
 
  5  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 07:12 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

This is emotional. It's sold to the conservative taxpayer as a good thing -- keeps those hard earned tax dollars out of the hands of folks who are going to shove 'em right up their arms or noses (quote = one of my sisters) while, all the while, the ones selling this crock of crap to the taxpayer is making damned sure they find a way to benefit from this new state expenditure. It's a scam. And they fall for it every time someone thinks that some low-life scum is going to get something for nothing on their dime.


I actually had this discussion with one of my siblings who just happens to be a FL Republican like the folks who drafted and passed this bill. She honestly doesn't care (and said as much) that it's going to cost her a quarter or a dollar to make sure some good-for-nothing addict doesn't get his/her paws on her nickle. And, yet, she'll be the first one screaming about government waste and deficits. Keeping her nickle out of the hands of scum is worth whatever it costs to prevent it. When I pointed out the financial opportunity she was giving to those who were pushing to make this law a reality she replied with a, "Welcome to America - Land of Opportunity" type response. She doesn't care. She (and others like her) just want to make sure that her "hard earned tax dollars" don't end up in the hands of those who are unworthy.
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 07:57 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:



... it's amazing that FL was stupid enough to elect him.

Cycloptichorn


The voters were senile folks who've soaked up too much sun.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  3  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 08:15 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:


I actually had this discussion with one of my siblings who just happens to be a FL Republican like the folks who drafted and passed this bill. She honestly doesn't care (and said as much) that it's going to cost her a quarter or a dollar to make sure some good-for-nothing addict doesn't get his/her paws on her nickle.


( just quoting you to make a point, not aiming my argument at you Smile )


Soooo.............
I wonder if these people ever stop to think how silly that argument is when they vote for, financially donate to and endorse presidents, vice presidents, cabinet members, city council members, judges, mayors and such who have been or currently ARE doing drugs themselves?
George W Bush. Admitted coke head.

Oh but wait! he doesnt count.

Newt Gingrich..

Oh wait again.. he doesnt count..

I could list dozens. But that is too much thinking for some people who just really wanna put it to the people they can publicly judge, demonize and hate freely with no consequence. The drug user.
drug users are the scum of the earth according to them and all that is wrong with this supposed system.No matter how much so called funding is tossed out the window for other things, money that is 'lost' or used for bullshit purposes. No. Lets point the finger at the drug addict and make THEM the sole problem for a failing system as if a scattered few can really be responsible for billions of dollars. Funny, the people some of those who vote and support to remove assistance from families fall into that drug user category, but blinders are applied for those.



And just for the record, im simply playing devils advocate here. I dont endorse drug users getting public money to directly pay for their habit... but i do not stand by the idea of possibly depriving their family members based on public personal judgment either. Just because one person thinks those who do drugs are ****, does not mean that their kids or other dependents should be denied help. Doing drugs is an idiot thing to do and really messes up your body, destroys families and is just..well.. STUPID. But, in a free country, we have the right and freedom to do just that to ourselves, learn from our consequences or die from the action. Its a freedom. Just like it is a freedom to head down to the bar and have a beer....or two...or ten. Alcohol IS the number one used drug in this country by the way and most people who want to argue that drug users should be denied help, removed from society and otherwise black-labeled, sit down to beer , wine and hard liquor themselves. Lovely how we choose to judge others huh.

I think we need more intensive interview processes for TANF instead of just a hand written, one meeting decision. And if it is determined there is a really bad drug problem, abuse issue, neglect or what have you, THEN appoint a benefactor for that money so that the household that addict is representing GETS the help it needs. There are ways of bypassing just handing out cash to people with out investigating what they are doing first.

But...that still brings out the question of ' Do you really WANT the government to be able to decide if you get help or not, when the help is right there'.. ? meaning, you can get cash help because there are programs for it, but if you really need it, your ability to get it is left up to ...government? to tell you if you are worthy of it?? ...Ehhhhh...

The decision is always based on a HUMANS decision. What if that person isnt religious, but knows you are and just decides to say no to be a dick to you? What if that person denies the wrong family because they messed up the files? Dont say that doesnt happen, that people dont do bad things just because they want to. Arent we not discussing the free choice of doing drugs here? People DO crap just because they want to. It will always be that way. We can play the what if game here forEVER on either side. But do you really want GOVERNMENT to decide what YOU may need for your family ? To deem your family worthy of food? Or money? or any assistance they openly offer?
My answer to that is a hell no.
But I also realize that I have to apply for help and that application can be denied...so..yeah..government does decide. Bah. No winning there.

.....but to simply, completely deny them based on drug use, to ASSUME all are guilty just because they are applying and demand they prove themselves otherwise and snub nose people based on that alone is just wrong.
This is a free country, a country where we are all supposed to be equal , funny how that idea is tossed out the window when we think someone 'less than ' may be getting help from us in a really round about way huh.


A more extensive interview process will HELP to ensure that the consequences of drug use, sexual abuse, neglect and other issues are not impeding the family from getting what they need. We also need to start paying attention to the foster family system too for example.

Most people do not know that fostering a child brings in MUCH more money to a family then a simple one time TANF benefit does. And that foster families have a statistically higher abuse and neglect rate when it comes to the specific people ' just in it for the money'. ( no. not all families are in it for the money, im pointing out the very specific ones who are, just like pointing out the drug users in TANF) Drugs are not always the issue there, so the same question will not apply, but the concept of and ability to abuse the system is just as prominent.


oh yeah..
bella dea made a good point to me about 5 seconds ago.

Where is the test for laziness?
Lazy people make up a higher percentage of those on welfare then we care to admit. Laziness is a choice and something NO ONE should support. You want to really plug the financial drain ? Test for that.
THERE is the bigger answer.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 08:19 am
@CalamityJane,
Do you somehow think I don't know about methamphetamine?
Or that none of the rest of us care about children's welfare?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 08:26 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

ossobuco wrote:
If they tested everyone with children for marijuana in the 60's or 70's, we'd have had a major housing problem.


Unfortunately, nowadays marijuana is replaced by much stronger drugs
and the amount of people who are into meth-amphetamines is steadily rising. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/map/
Methamphetamine is a highly addictive drug that affects the brain and
central nerve system. Chronic meth users develop a very violent behavior,
are delusional, homicidal and suicidal. You do not want meth users around
children, period.


Too bad you can lay off Meth for 3-4 days and pass tests like this, whereas marijuana stays in the system for a month or more. That's why tests like this catch primarily marijuana smokers, and are mostly useless at catching folks who do harder, more dangerous drugs.

Cycloptichorn
ehBeth
 
  5  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 08:27 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:
You do not want meth users around
children, period.


this testing isn't going to separate children from the drug users. that is not its purpose.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 08:33 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

You do not want meth users around
children, period.


parents with add, and adhd who take speed prescribed by their doc would fall into that category too.

just because someone uses drugs ( street drugs) doesnt mean they are more likely to harm a child.
Statistically , family members and family friends are the majority when it comes to sexual attacks vs the random stranger on drugs or drug addicted family member.
CalamityJane
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 08:53 am
When has this become an ode for drug users?
I happen to live in a border town, San Diego, and the children who are in our
social service system due to drug use of their parents is plentiful. When I was still heavily involved with social services due to the adoption process, 80 % of kids in the system had drug abusing parents and related abuse thereof. I am sorry, but I do not see drug use as a nonchalant hip thing to do, on the contrary, any drug user will cost us taxpayers far more in the end - rehab, severe health problems, unemployment, childcare etc. etc. - the list is endless.

Now if these parents who apply for TANF have to get a drug test prior to
receiving financial aid, tough luck! My main concern is the children involved whose parents are drug users. I've seen the damage that it can cause to children first hand, and I've seen how much more it will cost us
to take care of these poor children, and they're the ones who are still
fortunate enough to get into the system, there are plenty who fall in between the cracks while their parents do crack.
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 09:03 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:
Now if these parents who apply for TANF have to get a drug test prior to receiving financial aid, tough luck! My main concern is the children involved whose parents are drug users.


Terrific about your concern. The parents won't get financial aid. That doesn't necessarily mean they will lose the children - or if they do, it simply means more financial drag on the system.

The people who have developed the plan to test as part of the TANF app process are not interested in the children. They're interested in reducing TANF payments.
BillRM
 
  8  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 09:05 am
@CalamityJane,
So before any one can take their children home from the hospital the parents should need to submit to a drug test?

Why should only poor people in need of government help be selected out for this testing if is such a damn good idea????????

Oh do not try to float the idea this population is more likely to be drug users without giving links to such studies as the studies I am aware of do not show any such connections.

Spending resources at 50 dollars a person for little or no gain for the society is crazy at the same time we are cutting back fundings for aiding children across the board.

0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 09:10 am
@CalamityJane,
I think the point here is that the proposed remedy doesn't solve the problem.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  6  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 09:10 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
They're interested in reducing TANF payments
.

Given that the vast majority of those tested will pass and the TANF will then picked up the cost of testing it not likely to save a dime.

It all about funneling money to the drug testing companies.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 09:11 am
@shewolfnm,
shewolfnm wrote:

parents with add, and adhd who take speed prescribed by their doc would fall into that category too.


Yes of course. Parents (it's rarely both) who are diagnosed with adult ADD or ADHD should receive proper medication from a reputable physician and can bring this documentation when receiving TANF. I doubt that anyone will receive a free pass to use street drugs.

Drug users not necessarily abuse children sexually, but the milieu they're
associating themselves with, could. It's safe to say though that drug users
neglect their children severely and damages resulting from neglect, malnourishment and other abuse is just as detrimental to a child as sexual
abuse.
CalamityJane
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 09:14 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Too bad you can lay off Meth for 3-4 days and pass tests like this, whereas marijuana stays in the system for a month or more. That's why tests like this catch primarily marijuana smokers, and are mostly useless at catching folks who do harder, more dangerous drugs.


You are wrong! There are very sophisticated drug testing devices out there
that can detect traces of substance abuse (also alcohol) for quite some time.
CalamityJane
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 09:15 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
Terrific about your concern. The parents won't get financial aid. That doesn't necessarily mean they will lose the children - or if they do, it simply means more financial drag on the system.


Yes, I realize that your concern is not primary geared towards the childrens'
welfare.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 09:21 am
@CalamityJane,
My concern in this thread is your apparent inability to grasp that the proposed testing has nothing to do with future outcomes for the children.

 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/25/2022 at 10:50:54