Missouri To Drug Test Welfare Recipients

PFDPFD Senior MemberPosts: 1,202 Senior Member
Well, we been talkin' about it:


"Governor Jay Nixon signed the bill into law Tuesday that states people who test positive or refuse to be checked and fail to complete a substance abuse program will lose their benefits for three years. All it’s going to take is the suspicion that there is reasonable cause to suspect illegal drug use."


http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/07/13/missouri-to-drug-test-welfare-recipients/
That's all I got.

Paul

Replies

  • avmechavmech Senior Member Posts: 858 Senior Member
    Florida just instituted drug testing too.
    NRA Benefactor Member
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,651 Senior Member
    Who is going to pay for this??
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,662 Senior Member
    This part of the article chaps my backside,
    "Critics on the other hand say the legislation singles out one group of people for no reason and my be unconstitutional."

    I'm sure that quite a few of us have to pass random drug tests to keep our jobs, I know I do. But the blood suckers, that suck off the gov welfare teat are crying because to get their gov dole, they might actually have too as well... WELL BOOOOO FREAKIN' WHO :fiddle:
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,651 Senior Member
    I play the random drug testing. I'm all for this, but I just don't see how this is doable. It's going to cost a fortune to enforce something like this.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,662 Senior Member
    The article says the gov estimates 2.3 million cost.... in the grand scheme of welfare costs, that's a drop in the bucket. I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't save the state more than that from the folks being suspended for failing it
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • farm boyfarm boy Senior Member Posts: 987 Senior Member
    I wish my state would institute this policy.
    I am afraid we forget sometime that the basic and simple things brings us the most pleasure.
    Dad 5-31-13
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,651 Senior Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    The article says the gov estimates 2.3 million cost....

    Government estimates. That has always worked out well.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,050 Senior Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    The article says the gov estimates 2.3 million cost.... in the grand scheme of welfare costs, that's a drop in the bucket. I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't save the state more than that from the folks being suspended for failing it

    It'll have to do better than it has done in other states. FL tried the same thing several years ago.

    It cost more to test the recipients than the suspending welfare saved. They also found out that welfare users had a lower incidence of drug use than the employed population.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,352 Senior Member
    So, let me get this straight...

    I'm not only supposed to pony up for the giveaways in the first place, but I also have to dig in for testing (rememeber, they're on welfare and can't be expected to pay for that themselves) which will almost certainly involve taxpayer funded rehab-because it just wouldn't do to knock somebody off the Uncle's teat without giving them multiple chances-AND I'll also have to chip in for enforcement. Sounds great, where do I sign up?:roll:


    Sorry, but this is one of those things that sounds GREAT, is a step in the right direction and will fix a lot of problems...but it never will. The best way to 'fix' welfare is to get at least half-and likely a lot more-of the folks who are on it OFF. Permanently. We've created a living breathing monster, one that is more than smart enough to game the system...and it's starting to realize that it has some real power. Sounds like a good time to kill it.

    Instead of Welfare, let's make it WORKfare. You want money? Pick up a broom. Or empty a trash can, or fill a pothole, or trim some grass. Frankly, I could care if you want to pump yourself full of whatever. We'll sweat it out of you by the end of the day, I Garrontee! :devil: The only criteria for continued 'welfare'? Did you show up for work? On time? Did you do what you were supposed to? If you can answer yes, yes and yes, you get paid! Simple enough...so it would probably never work.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,050 Senior Member
    The FL plan is that if the person initially pays for the drug test themselves. If they pass, the state reimburses them. Fail, no reimbursement. But, prior studies and pilot programs have indicated that only about 4-5% of those on welfare use drugs because they actually can't pay for the stuff. At that rate, the state will put out more money in reimbursement and paying for the program than it will "make" in denying benefits.

    Also, if the person denied benefits is a parent (or two) with young children, that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,258 Senior Member
    At one time, the state of Alaska had a ridiculously low welfare payment, basically just enough to keep a person from starving to death. It was designed that way to encourage those too lazy to work to leave the state, and don't come back. The idea that society owes these parasites a comfortable living, for themselves and the kids they produce, is ridiculous! Work or starve, with serious physical or mental disability the only exception! (And I don't mean some sort of ficticious "stress" illness!)
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 10,725 Senior Member
    The FL plan is that if the person initially pays for the drug test themselves. If they pass, the state reimburses them. Fail, no reimbursement. But, prior studies and pilot programs have indicated that only about 4-5% of those on welfare use drugs because they actually can't pay for the stuff. At that rate, the state will put out more money in reimbursement and paying for the program than it will "make" in denying benefits.

    Also, if the person denied benefits is a parent (or two) with young children, that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms...

    Yep, that is about it, 4-5% of the people cause 99% of the problems for the rest of us, were just adding another Dept. to the Dept. of Women, Children, and Happy Thoughts.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,258 Senior Member
    ............about 4-5% of those on welfare use drugs because they actually can't pay for the stuff.

    The professional welfare leeches I've known personally are making enough money off the books to support their lifestyle, drugs and all, and a lot of them are selling food stamps, claiming dependents they don't have, and gaming the system in a lot of other ways. No matter whether there's a positive financial gain from drug testing or not, these people are the ones who need to get booted out of the system for no other reason than the reputation they give the truly needy folks!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,050 Senior Member
    Okay, so why don't we institute a program to actually get rid of these people? Otherwise, we're just throwing money away doing something that will make us feel good, but is financially irresponsible at a time when EVERYONE'S budget it tight.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,050 Senior Member
    Maybe. But how many votes are really bought in the "professional welfare" category? What percentage of the folks are doing that? How much money are we spending on them?
    Overkill is underrated.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,258 Senior Member
    If the public school students I've encountered over the past 30+ years are any indicator, there's plenty of them. How about the 37-year-old, 300-pound woman who enrolled in my Vo-Tech auto mechanics class because she couldn't read and write well enough to pass the entry exam for Practical Nursing? "You knows I ain't gonna be no mechanic- - - - -I just goes to school to get ma check!" At least she was honest about it, and she did make a pretty good shop foreman for the two years she gamed the system in my shop. The snot-nosed gangbanger wannabes in the class didn't stand a chance when Maggie hauled their butts out the back door for an attitude adjustment!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,352 Senior Member
    I'm not too awfully worried about the 4-5% of recipients who are on drugs. That group will tend to wind up on the public dole other ways, like ending up in prison. The ones who bother me are the folks (happens a lot here in WI) that 'lose' their quest card and sell it to somebody else for cash. what they do with that cash is anybody's guess, but it sure doesn't go for food. Why not? How do these folks live? Well, they go down (more likely call) the local office and explain that they 'lost' their card-again-and that they need a replacement. Guess what happens then? They get one! And when they 'lose' that one? Well, heckfire! We better get them another! And another, and another.....

    The problem with welfare as it sits is that-like almost any bureacracy-it is set up to simply justify it's existence. First, identify a 'problem'. Second, come up with a 'solution' to said problem. Third, ignore negative consequences of 'solution' because of all the 'good' the solution does. Fourth, go to higher-ups and tout positive effects of solution and point out how much more 'good' could be done "If only"... Sixth, repeat as necessary.

    I work at a grocery store on weekends, stocking shelves, bagging, doing parcel pickup etc. I get to see the walfare folks on a regular basis. Mostly, the folks who are on the programs are there out of a true need. They lost their job, or maybe were hurt and still can't get back out there or whatever. However, it's pretty obvious that a significant portion (I won't say 'most', but it's a bunch) don't 'need' this. Young, unwed mothers who made a mistake-multiple times-families who come in and 'pool' their cards and buy lots of stuff on sale-large numbers of single items...think 30 pork loins and you get the idea-lots of folks who 'no habla' but apparently understand enough to be able to get the card in the first place...things like that.

    Now, I took the job to make a little extra flip, but frankly I like the work. What I don't like is seeing a goodly part of each check going to a government that doesn't seem to care enough to want to be a good steward of what they are given. I see the folks who come in and use the card to buy stuff that I don't buy on a regular basis (not because I can't, but beacuse I try to spend smartly) wearing clothes that I won't call 'better' than mine, but certainly cost more than mine...and then load the bags into the back of a vehicle that is sure as shootin' a LOT better than mine. Often times with Illinois tags...another weakness in the Wisconsin bureacracy.

    The folks with the 30 pork loins? They run a 'business' out of their rental...make a killing selling a dinner to locals. Eight bucks a plate. I hear the sandwiches are quite tasty. I salute their entreprenurial spirit, but the fact is they use MY money as seed money to grow their 'business' all while not paying a red cent back into a system that pays their way! The really great part is that it's not just food, they also get section 8 housing and assistance with ALL bills, including cellphone, lights, heat and water. So, basically the taxpayer is giving them everything they need, plus a little more. They're not getting rich, but they ain't doin too bad...
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    I play the random drug testing. I'm all for this, but I just don't see how this is doable. It's going to cost a fortune to enforce something like this.

    Funded by Barak H. Obama's Health care reform, and the buget bill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and our current tax dollars at work,,you know for the good of a "Drug Free America" I forget who said that, Ragen I think?
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Here's a pretty good article by Bob Lonsberry:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2681732/posts

    This pretty much says it all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^^^^
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • DeanCDeanC Member Posts: 156 Member
    I'd rather we drug tested congressmen. It would be cheaper and probably more effective.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,764 Senior Member
    DeanC wrote: »
    I'd rather we drug tested congressmen. It would be cheaper and probably more effective.

    Drug testing would catch a few congresscritters, but you'd be better served checking them with a breathalyzer. If you watch C Span after lunch, most of them appear to be falling down commode hugging drunk. Don't let them vote if they blow a positive, and NO legislation would get passed after lunch due to failure to have enough sober members for a quorum!
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • gunrunner428gunrunner428 Senior Member Posts: 1,018 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    The snot-nosed gangbanger wannabes in the class didn't stand a chance when Maggie hauled their butts out the back door for an attitude adjustment!
    Jerry

    What I wouldn't give to see something like that! Thanks for sharing, Jerry!
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,582 Senior Member
    If the money spent in testing is in the neighborhood of what is saved giving a handout to those that indulge it is good enough for me.

    I rather my money is used to test those in need/want of aid than in helping even a few of those to get high but still I don't believe in handouts unless you are 100% mentally or physically capable of working, if you can get on line you can man a broom, paintbrush, whatever. aid should only be given in trade for work.
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.