Posted on Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 3:26 p.m.
Drug screens considered for Michigan's welfare recipients
By AnnArbor.com Staff
Michigan officials are considering drug screening recipients of welfare benefits, according to a Detroit News report.
Michigan's Department of Human Services wants to roll out a program requiring drug screening for individuals who receive aid from the Family Independence Program. That program provides financial support for pregnant women and low-income families with children, the report said.
Recipients who fail the screening — a process that could be as simple as questions asked on an application form — would be required to undergo mandatory drug testing, according to DHS.
Comments
hank
Sun, Jan 1, 2012 : 3:37 p.m.
I'm for drug testing as long as its even handed not just put upon the poor. One poster suggested this should apply to any contractor applying for state or federal work as well,I agree. I wonder how many licensed stock brokers would like a drug screening test on any given Monday? Drug addiction is not limited to any social economic status just covered up better.
Arborcomment
Mon, Jan 2, 2012 : 12:48 a.m.
Sounds good Hank. Latest info I could find is from a survey by the Society for Human Resource Management (2006). Survey showed 84% of their members firms tested for new hires and 39% perform random tests after a hire. So, we could use the same percentage for those applying for benefits. <a href="http://www.theledger.com/article/20070206/NEWS/702060387" rel='nofollow'>http://www.theledger.com/article/20070206/NEWS/702060387</a>
hank
Sun, Jan 1, 2012 : 2:37 p.m.
The party of small gov't has lost its way. Social issues seems to be the only concerns for Lansing not job creation. Still over 10% unemployment in the state.
Townie
Sat, Dec 31, 2011 : 2:57 p.m.
How about testing all those 'job creator' business owners who got $1.8 billion of our money -- make it a condition (along with documentation of jobs created - how silly...) for getting the money I'll be a ton of them would pass on the money rather than be tested... Of course, the way the giveaway was set up no one in state gov't can tell us who they are (how about posting a list)?
Deb Anderson
Sat, Dec 31, 2011 : 2:12 p.m.
I work for the University of Michigan, funded in part by taxpayer money; how come we aren't singled out too and tested? Because we have jobs? Hate to break this to anyone but drug abuse doesn't recognize socio-economic strata, race, age, or gender. Ultimately this notion of drug testing the poor would harm the most vulnerable ones of all -- the kids. The entire notion of testing welfare recipients is not the answer, the answer is empowering these individuals to get out of the welfare trap and provide an affordable education, affordable housing, providing substance abuse programs, and giving them an opportunity and goal to shoot for rather than the hopeless situation they are already in. Politics aside, I think we are all better than that as a society, rather we should be. Instead of more punishment, what's so wrong about reaching out and lending a hand instead of pointing fingers?
Michael K.
Sat, Dec 31, 2011 : 3:04 a.m.
This was done in Florida. 1) Tests showed that fewer than 2% tested positive - a lower number than the general population (estimated to be 7%) 2) It was ruled unconstitutional. Now, I want every home owner who receives a tax break - from the government - tested for drugs, including alcohol. Let's go further - search the house. they test positive, seize the house, lock them up. Alcoholism and drunk people are violent, killers on the road, have no morals, and are ruining our society! ********************* 2% of Welfare Recipients Fail Drug Tests in Florida September 6, 2011 at 11:59 am Ed Brayton You may remember that Gov. Rick Scott of Florida instituted drug testing for all welfare recipients in that state on the premise that it would save the state money by not having to pay benefits to those who were on drugs. And guess what they found out? Welfare recipients use drugs at a lower rate than the rest of the population — and by a pretty significant margin
jns131
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 8:26 p.m.
Wasn't there another state that tried this and got shot down by the upper courts? If this is true, then this too will get shot down as well. I am totally all for this and making sure the money goes where it truly needs to go.
Paul Epstein
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 8:16 p.m.
This is somewhere between inane, idiotic, ridiculous and utterly absurd. These should-be-unconstitutional drug screens are essentially a test to see if someone has smoked weed in the past month or not. There is a total disconnect here, as marijuana's putative causes of social and personal ills continues to be presumed and assumed, but never proven (because it is nonexistent). This is just another case of "punish, punish, punish" those who are at or near the bottom of the economic totem pole. Typical. So much for "liberal Ann Arbor, judging from these highly endorsing comments. Hmmm, lets see. Is it "Ann Arbor, Texas"? "Ann Arbor, Alabama"? Yeah, liberal. Right!
The Black Stallion3
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 5:01 p.m.
Thank God someone is finally taking this giving of tax payer money seriously. I do not want my tax dollars going to drug addicts. I have to take a drug test to keep my job, I have to stay drug free if I want to support my family, why would I not expect the same consideration from the people that I am giving my hard earned money to every week? This only makes sense to have something like this in place, it is called responsibility people, responsibility.
dogpaddle
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 4:50 p.m.
After skimming through the 190+ comments on here (hmmm, this is obviously a hot button issue), I'm surprised no one questioned a welfare mom who legitimately qualifies for the Michigan Medical Marihuana. If she (or he) does qualify due to a debilitating condition like cancer/chemo or AIDS and gets the most relief and able to function thanks to their occasional toking, will they then be kicked off welfare even though the state basically gave them permission to smoke weed?
Enso
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:45 p.m.
I love these articles. I love watching Republicans argue for the 'nanny state!'
The Black Stallion3
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 7:42 p.m.
Keep guessing.....you are leaning left
Enso
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 7:31 p.m.
Let me guess, you don't count cutting taxes on the rich as entitlements.
The Black Stallion3
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 4:59 p.m.
I love these articles, I love watching the Democrats argue for the "entitlement state"
Mike
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:18 p.m.
You have the freedom to not accept the welfare money and do drugs. Nobody is taking that choice away from you. There are strings attached anytime you get a hand out or take out a loan. I'm sure if your parents were going to help you out financially and knew you were taking drugs they would stipulate that you had to stop taking drugs. Why does this have to be mixed in with racism and beating up on the poor? it's just common sense.
The Black Stallion3
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 5:07 p.m.
Very well said Mike...........too bad it is so hard for some to understand.
Gordon
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:32 p.m.
Societies develop program for the could of the population because everyone benfits from the Health & Welfare of it's citizens. That does not include illegal drugs. Nor should it include alcohol. Can we successfully legislate agasint some activities - apparently not given the size of our prison population which is another form of Welfare for some. I would think that the rule should be recipents should be free of drugs. Yes, the kids are harmed, have been harmed, and nothing succesful seems to stop the cycle. I vote in favor because parental disicpline is needed and can't be done under the influence. The worst of all decisions is the beginning.
Enso
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 1:29 p.m.
How about all the contractors that receive state money? Shouldn't they be drug tested too? Florida recently did this, found that less than 2 percent of people on welfare tested positive for drugs, and ended up costing the state a lot more than they expected. The last thing MI needs right now is to spend even more tax payer money on something that will not only be deemed illegal by any court in this country, but that is useless.
motorcycleminer
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 1:24 p.m.
About damn time....lots of comments about the cost .... if it's $ 70 and finds a user it saves 100 X that for those of us paying the tab... and for all the liberal boo hooers , it might actually create some real jobs instead of the " recovery / union stimulus bs " that our tax $$$ is being dumped into now ...
hank
Sun, Jan 1, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
It was your crew that wanted to dump the auto companies (real jobs) and that is the only thing improving the economics of Michigan. The short spelling for hypocrite is GOP.
u812
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 11:40 a.m.
Lily's mom is right on the money! the GOP is licking there chops with the thought of starting a War with Iran, How many Trillion and lives will that cost.
hank
Sun, Jan 1, 2012 : 2:56 p.m.
The war profiteers are hyperventilating over the prospect of a war with Iran.
glimmertwin
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 9:14 a.m.
Until this society is ready to just "let some people go" I doubt this will help much. There must be an ultimate end to a problem, and this country just can't do that. Sink or swim, shape up or die, but that will never happen here.
hank
Sun, Jan 1, 2012 : 2:59 p.m.
Sounds like you would have loved living in Germany in 1936.
Blanch DuBois
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
Well put glimmertwin.
Monica R-W
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 5:56 a.m.
I almost decided to let my thoughts stay in my head on this one but, since I will be writing about this on my blog tomorrow....here I go: 1.GOPer line- Its' my money their getting. Let's test them. If the kids lose, so what.... 1 A. Its all of our money, including theirs if they have a job that pays minimum wage and receive some form of TANF benefits. In fact, DHS rules mandates single mothers with children to HAVE A JOB after 6 months of having a child or lose benefits together. 2. GOPer line- If the Mother is buying drugs with her welfare money, the kids lose anyway....so who cares. 2 A. That's true. But other effects happen to those same children like losing food -i.e. w/ Bridge Card's (insert...GOPer line...they are probably selling those anyway so who cares) and Medicaid benefits. Its' morally wrong to make a innocent child suffer with a illness like severe Asthma, Sickle Cell Anemia or worse a childhood Cancer disease without treatment, due to the sins of the Mother. 3. GOPer line- They are all just drug addicts anyway, having babies, getting money off my tax dollars. 3 A. The (insert poor African-American Mothers with kids in the GOPer mind of thinking) average Mother receiving assistance has two children, work F/T at a near minimum wage job, all while attending school to better their overall situation. This is a FACT! Also, all colors of the ethical rainbow receive TANF assistance. Not just poor "black" women w/ children. 4. GOPer line- No one under no circumstances they have access (insert GOPer thinking- regardless of ability to pay, rape, incest or save the life of the Mother) have access to a abortion.or, for that instance pregnancy prevention services w/ my tax dollars. 4 A. Yet, when those same Mother's have children & fall on hard times, these same GOPers complaint about how their tax dollars are "being used". That's talking out of both ends with nothing but hot air coming out. Treating fellow Americans like rotten eggs...the GOP W
Monica R-W
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 8:41 p.m.
Les Miserables, Enslaving individuals? What... Do you know what TANF stands for? Temporary-Assistance-for-Needy-Families. In other words the assistance is meant to be temporary. Slavery and the awful ramifications Southern Conservative 'Masters' put upon a group of individuals , based on their ethic background, who were mandated to stay on a plantation against their will, was not meant to be Temporary. Nice try at a badly thought out analogy but, it failed. Next.... Also, to acclaim Rape and Incest a "Democracy Party Sin", is ridiculous at best and frankly insulting at worst. How does the widely known Democratic value of allowing a woman the right to choose, fit into the known GOP talking point of legalized abortion shouldn't be allowed under no circumstances? Not even in cases to the life of the Mother...channeling GOP Presidential Candidate Rick Perry's latest flip-flop here.... Les, no manner what fail strategies you type to try and spin the facts....they are....the GOP want to mandate single Mothers of all colors of rainbow to have children against their choice, then cut off any temporary assistance programs for those children after their born. It's the ironic nature of the GOP talking out of both ends with nothing but hot air coming out. Kind of like your reply :).
Arborcomment
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 7:35 p.m.
We should probably all stop what we are doing today and patiently await the blog from on high.
Monica R-W
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 6 a.m.
Corrections- Insert "Should have access"....Remove double "have access" in line 4. Insert-The GOP Way! in last sentence.
Lily'sMom
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 4:56 a.m.
What angers me most about this discussion is that Republicans have been successful at demonizing groups of people, once again. First, it was the teachers, then fire fighters, police officers, nurses, etc. and look how many people suddenly felt that teachers can't teach, firefighters sit on their duffs all day while collecting 'huge' salaries, nurses only care for themselves, not their patients, ad nauseum. Just the solution to get the middle class off the backs of the real crooks- Big Money, banks, corporations. Then it happened: neighbors were pitted against neighbors, private employees hated public employees, and folks without benefits suddenly felt their friends shouldn't have benefits, either. Just reading these comments, the assumptions now are that all welfare recipients are drug users. Now, let's all yell and scream at welfare recipients. It doesn't matter why then ended up on welfare and what they may be trying to do to get off welfare, they all use drugs! Not with MY tax dollars! We hear that unemployment benefits are being cut because there is "too much fraud" and undeserving people are receiving benefits. Solution? Go after the fraud, don't cut from legitimate claims! Welfare fraud? Spend funds on tracking down fraud! Don't cut from legitimate recipients. What about veterans receiving benefits and also abusing drugs and alcohol? They're next. Then the disabled... Republicans are thrilled at what they have discovered. They can beat down the middle and poor classes until they all hate each other and they only want for themselves. If drug testing is found to be necessary, then do random testing on all people receiving government benefits. The "welfare queen" era ended a long time ago, but people don't forget. I don't want my tax dollars supporting war of any kind. So, who cares? Wake up folks. Stop drinking the proverbial kool-aid. Look what has happened to our society and realize that some people are very happy with
Lily'sMom
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 11:12 p.m.
I did. I wasn't referring to you, was I?
Sparty
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 4:38 a.m.
This was tried in FL and failed as unconstitutional. Snyders approval rating is 19%. The lowest in the nation is held by th Governor of Florida, also a new republican.
Loopy
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:47 a.m.
Rules are only for little people. Those of us not on welfare can do what we please, as long as we don't get caught. Right? Even if drug testing people on public assistance saves less money than it spends on the drug testing, it's really about sticking it to people we think we're better than. And that's the truth.
Loopy
Sat, Dec 31, 2011 : 1:47 a.m.
No, thecompound, that is not what I was saying. It's the opposite of what I was saying. People are complaining that welfare cases cost them a lot of money and they assume they're all doing drugs. The statistics don't bear this out. The tests that you want to enforce will cost more money without solving the drug problem. Do you want to spend more money to drug test just so you can feel like you're sticking it to people on welfare because you resent them? Most of them aren't on drugs, but because you suspect they are, you're willing to spend any amount of money to prove it.
thecompound
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 1:28 p.m.
So are you saying if it costs a lot to enforce something, then we shouldn't?
The Black Stallion3
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:40 a.m.
Loopy. stay calm and listen to your right side, I am not a junkie, drunk or anything close, I am a tax payer that does not appreciate working to give money to people who use it for drugs or alcohol. I am sorry if that does not agree with you but that is how I look at it. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things, think about it.
Arborcomment
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:39 a.m.
loopy, 1) using welfare benefits to purchase drugs IS welfare abuse. 2) using welfare benefits to purchase drugs means those funds were not used to feed the children (unless they made a special kind of brownies).
Loopy
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:33 a.m.
So...you are willing to pay more for a drug testing program than the cost of public assistance, just to make a point, in case someone might be doing drugs?
Loopy
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:31 a.m.
And you still did not address my comment about people NOT on welfare doing drugs (or alcohol, or otherwise misbehaving). "Normal" people cost us quite a lot of money through their recreational misbehavior, too. We just don't starve out their children when they screw up, in some sort of misguided effort to correct them (and their kids, in the process).
The Black Stallion3
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:31 a.m.
Loopy............don't lean so far left that you fall over, it is time to stop the nonsense of supporting the use of drugs payed for with our tax dollars........makes perfect sense to me.
Loopy
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:28 a.m.
You know what, Black Stallion? The truth is you have no idea where your tax dollars go. But as long as there are few people who you're sure you look down on, it will satisfy your frustration if you think you can thwart them. You probably already know that they tried this drug testing in Florida and found that about 2% of recipients tested positive. But at what cost to taxpayers? You are willing to pay more for this drug-testing fiasco to take out your frustrations on the poor than to actually do anything about drug dependency or welfare abuse. It's an easy "fix" that feels like power without actually solving any problem. The right-wing raison d'etre.
The Black Stallion3
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:10 a.m.
That still does not justify my tax dollars paying for their drugs. I work hard for my money and I deserve the right to know where it is going just as you should.
Loopy
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:59 a.m.
I'm coming from the absolute hypocrisy that just about everybody I know, which are people NOT on welfare, have done some form of illegal drug at some point in their lives. If you say you don't know anyone who has done coke or smoked pot or driven buzzed on alcohol ever in their life, then congratulations on your monastery. This bill does NOTHING to save taxpayers money. People just like to stick it to the people one rung below them on the miserable ladder we call the middle and lower-middle class. That is why we worship people who make tens of millions of dollars because we fantasize that we are more like them than the people whose cars won't start and who need food stamps to feed their kids. But those of us saying we've never experienced illegal drugs are just plain lying. We just don't think the "poor" deserve the drugs. The hypocrisy makes me sick. And no, I don't use any drugs, personally. I just hate liars.
The Black Stallion3
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:55 a.m.
Ho can you say "Rules are only for little people" Laws are laws whether you consider yourself little or big. Where are you coming from with such a statement?
Homeland Conspiracy
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:43 a.m.
Will "they" be testing for alcohol??? or is it OK to be a drunk with kids...just don't smoke a joint. What's next? Only Brown eyed ppl can get welfare or overweight ppl can't get welfare... where does it stop?
Arborcomment
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 7:31 p.m.
My goodness, you're absolutely right Homeland! Your "testing for alcohol" would imply use and not nessecarily a direct purchase. My apologies for following your argument to a literal/logical conclusion.
Homeland Conspiracy
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.
Funny I don't see anything about buying alcohol in my comment...maybe you read the wrong comment
Arborcomment
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:26 a.m.
They already "test" for alcohol Homeland. If you are on public assistance for food (WIC and the like) you can not use those benefits to purchase alcohol, tobacco and other items. The debit issued is tied to purchases and merchants caught allowing purchases of such items on WIC cards are subject to criminal prosecution. So, if you are not to use public assistance for alcohol purchases, why not drugs?
snapshot
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:32 a.m.
So which "druggie" is in a position to do more harm? A welfare recipient or a doctor or a teacher or a public employee like a cop, firefighter, social worker, or any government worker, including elected official.........I'd say all of the above and they receive taxpayer monies and benefits for things like.....drug addiction. Folks always like to kick the little guy. All "selectively moral giants" in favor of this violation of civil rights and decency that they would strongly oppose through their union reps and lawsuits should hang your judgmental heads in shame.
Arborcomment
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:19 a.m.
Snap, the majority of the career fields you cite are subject to drug testing either as a condition for employment, or as random tests during their employment and have been since the early eighties. Where have you been?
The Black Stallion3
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:34 a.m.
So, should we make homicides legal if the little guys are doing it?
John Q
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:27 a.m.
Amazing how so many of our right-wing commenters don't have a basic understanding of the 4th Amendment. The government doesn't have a right to subject you to a drug test without a basis for thinking that you're doing drugs. Unless you assume that all welfare recipients do drugs, there's no basis for testing all of them. Not only is a waste of taxpayer dollars, it's not constitutional. "But I have to be drug tested for my work!" So what? Your private employer isn't the government. If the government can establish a basis for doing invasive searches for welfare recipients, the same rationale should apply to Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries. But most conservatives don't care about protecting actual constitutional rights, unless it's gun-related.
Arborcomment
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 7:25 p.m.
John q, try reading my comment again, then get back to us. There is a difference on criminal proceedings and testing/continued testing for employment/continued employment (as in getting paid).
John Q
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 6:55 p.m.
The US Supreme Court doesn't agree with your position on the 4th Amendment.
Arborcomment
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:15 a.m.
john q, for criminal prosecution the 4th (and 5th) amendment applies. Your tying these amendments for this proposal is dead wrong. The government can and does do drug testing on their employees, military service members, government contractors, members of public health, safety, transportation and many others. This is a condition of employment (i.e. getting paid) and you are subject to dismissal for a refusal to take, or failing, a drug test. Medicare and Social Security are an entitlement, earned through taxes paid on earnings. If you would take the time to read some of the comments, you'll note that many agree that 100% testing is overkill. Random sampling, as practiced by the federal government (beginning in the Carter administration by the way) has been suggested.
John Q
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:13 a.m.
These drug testing schemes are nothing but a political talking points for right-wing politicians. They don't save money.
The Black Stallion3
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:29 a.m.
So you are not interested in helping these people? You also do not seem to care about where your tax dollars are going. Why?
leaguebus
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:21 a.m.
The Slicksters war on poor kids continues. He and his Republican buddies lack of compassion is amazing. Must be an inverse relationship between money and compassion. Every one of the Republican candidates for president want to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, and so on and they are all rich.
Arborcomment
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:46 a.m.
If insisting on personal responsibility and proper use of public funding for the intended purposes (for the poor kids) rather than a drug habit is "war" so be it. I suppose you favor WIC funds to be used for alcohol and tobacco purchases? If not, tell me the difference.
The Black Stallion3
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:26 a.m.
Are you joking? Please back up your accusations with facts instead of fiction.
Left is Right
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 12:50 a.m.
Can't imagine this would be very effective. It's a game after all--there will be an appropriate response. Cutting assistance seems like the wrong move (and I'm pretty fiscally conservative). Assistance in reducing abuse (including alcohol) seems like a better option.
Andy Price
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 12:47 a.m.
They did this in Florida, and only 2.5% tested positive. And then a federal judge blocked the law. So if we want to waste time and money, not to mention kick the poor around some, let's do it!
Arborcomment
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 12:59 a.m.
It is not "kicking around the poor". It is a requirement for my job to submit to random drug testing. It is a requirement if I wish to continue employment and to be PAID (after tax dollars are removed of course) If those being PAID welfare benefits wish to continue being PAID (from above tax dollars), then they should stand in line for the stall just like me.
jjc155
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 12:17 a.m.
I look at it this way. There are not to many jobs/careers out there where u do not have to take atleast a pre-employment drug screen and many more that have random screens that continue after that. What is the difference between getting up and going to work every morning and keeping yourself clean to assure that the money keeps flowing and getting welfare and keeping yourself clean to make sure the money keeps flowing???? Nothing except the comfort in which the person "works" in, ie; cubicle etc vs livingroom couch infront of the TV. Testing (at application and randomly during the period of which money is dispursed) AND creditable proof of job seeking, should be a requirement at a MINIMUM.
Nephilim
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 12:47 a.m.
I'm sorry, your straight up logic and shining intelligence with an added flavor of realistic beliefs will not be tolerated round these parts jjc!
David Briegel
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:52 p.m.
Willing to put poor people on the street while there is not one single bankster in jail for destroying our economy. In fact, they are doing the very same crimes they did before!
bornblu
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 7:01 p.m.
David; I am shocked it took you this long to iterject the banksters, your timing is slipping.
David Briegel
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 1:53 a.m.
There is only one party, the Banksters Party!
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:57 p.m.
And you keep voting for the same party!
David Briegel
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:50 p.m.
Just another foolish example of the TeaPublicon not so Brave New World. Drug tests good, Health Care bad! Social Workers to help people deal with the stressful issues of poverty, unemployment and parenthood = evil govt bureaucrat employees with too many benefits! Everything is black and white, right and wrong, no grey areas? Starving children? No problem, they had a "right to this life" in your Brave New World! The kids are on their own!! It is only the unwanted fetuses that have rights! Just further evidence of the failed right wing policies that have destroyed our nation! Celebrate, Celebrate, not one thing to stimulate jobs! And jobs would help to solve the problem.
jcj
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 4:15 a.m.
How about it David? How would you handle the "gray" area?
Arborcomment
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 12:16 a.m.
David, when tax dollars are used to pay the unemployment benefits for someone who fails a drug test when applying for employment, you may wish to continue to subsidize that life choice. If so, I suggest you start a fund site. Call it "Dave's Drugs for Deadbeats" or something. I'll be happy to give a buck or two just for the chuckle factor.
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:56 p.m.
And your solution David would be..what?
Ypsi_Wings_Fan
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:47 p.m.
Glad to see people living on the government dime are being asked to be responsible, at least for the time they are requiring assistance. I don't even think pot should be illegal, but I don't think you should be spending your money on it if you need monetary support from the government.
Gramma
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:37 p.m.
For everyone concerned about their tax dollars, this would cost more to implement than giving assistance to the small percentage of "welfare" recepients who use drugs. A woman who just left her abusive husband may not have money for the drug test. The mother who just lost her job at K-Mart or Sears may need the little money she has left to buy food til the assistance starts and not be able to buy food and pay for a drug test. Drug tests can give false positives and need to be redone. The FIA would probably need extra staff to handle drug tests. Unless you do hair samples, it is nearly impossible to be certain the urine received is actually that of the person being tested. Yes, even if you're in the bathroom with him/her. I think it would be a serious violation of rights to randomly observe people urinate. (Who really wants to observe?) Most drug tests for jobs are not observed. Therefore, there is no way to know whose they are. It is also difficult for me to understand why this particular form of "welfare" is of such concern. Disregarding all other types of possible discrimination, this testing would be gender biased, as most recipients of family welfare are women. Maybe the double standard is the cause of all the concern.
Michigan Man
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:45 a.m.
Gramma - I know healthcare quite well - Very recently was Practice Administrator of large multiple location psychiatry/addiction medicine practice - The administration of an office based drug drop is really VERY VERY inexpensive - a little urine in a cheap plastic cup is all that is needed for immediate and preliminary testing results - one of the easier office based procedures I have ever observed. Office did NOT need anyone extra to administer or secure results - millions of safe, legal and efficacious drug drops are performed daily in the good old US of A!
John Q
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:20 a.m.
Wrong Black Stallion. The proposal requires welfare recipients to pay for the test whether they pass or not. How about getting informed and sharing facts, not disinformation.
Arborcomment
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 12:07 a.m.
Not the most entertaining job in the world, but yes grams, people ARE in the restroom with you with an open stall door while you provide your sample. It is a condition of employment in many professions (as in getting paid), just like it should be a condition for getting paid welfare benefits. They need to do some serious tweaks on the details on how and who pays, random sampling, etc.
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:43 p.m.
Sorry.You obviously have not been tested for drugs lately.........it is very easy to tell if someone is cheating......believe me, very, very easy. The State will pay if the test is negative, you only pay if it is positive, stop putting a spin on this law....thank you.
eyeonthenews
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:34 p.m.
I doubt they would be very effective. I know of people having others, like their children, give specimens in a clean medicine pill bottle and carried it in for a court ordered drug test. They carry it in their pants pocket and simply pour it into the specimen cup when they get inside the restroom. There's hardly a fool proof way to do this unless it's by drawing blood and that is the costliest method.
snoopdog
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:43 p.m.
Long overdue , cannot wait to hear folks try and say this is wrong because it isn't. I am tired of my tax dollars going to folks who use the money to do drugs instead of feeding their children or abusing their unborn. Good Day
Sparty
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 7:27 p.m.
How hilarious .... Black Stallion accuses Gramma about playing a race card and it's not even mentioned. Talk about paranoia. Why it's not blocked by the moderators I can't even imagine as I'll bet that mine will be. ROFL.
John Q
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:19 a.m.
I'm waiting for drug testing for seniors on Medicare and Social Security. Those are government benefits. Shouldn't those people be tested too?
Arborcomment
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:59 p.m.
Grams would be surprised what's already out there. If you are a government contractor, your company already has this requirement. If you are a interstate truck driver, pilot, bus driver, cop, fireman, DEA officer, and many others -yes. These are in addition to private companies and their own employment procedures.
Gramma
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:39 p.m.
BS3, I did not say anything at all about race.
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:35 p.m.
Oh for heavans sake gramma.............can we please leave the race card out of this? Please.
Gramma
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:25 p.m.
Again, does this includes anyone who receives any benefit from tax dollars? We all do in various ways. Or is it aimed only at the poor?
Arborcomment
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:32 p.m.
One hopes this can go smoothly. Makes no sense to pay welfare benefits (including unemployment compensation), encourage recipients to get off welfare, then be rejected for employment because they fail a potential employer's drug test, and continue to pay via the benefit cycle all over again. Questions remain: seems over half of the full article is chock full of reasons why it can't be done, ACLU on the prowl etc. This should head back to the courts again and seek a reversal of the ban on random tests and the ban on initial testing when applying. It is a condition of employment for many employees in initial screening and/or random on-the-job tests. Why the same is not the case for those applying or receiving welfare benefits?
Arborcomment
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:54 p.m.
grams, a random "sample" of the population - not 100%. It is how the federal government has done it for years for employees and those in military service starting in the early eighties.
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:46 p.m.
Gramma.......you are looking for every excuse in the book.........this is about welfare and it is time we cleaned it up.
Gramma
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:43 p.m.
Unemployment recipients could be stoned when they call in on MARVIN. Michigan eliminated going to the enemployment office weekly to reduce costs of unemployment. Shall we go back to standing in the long lines, who now additionally, have to give urine samples?
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:31 p.m.
Absolutely Gramma....Why not?
Gramma
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:24 p.m.
BS3, Does this include corporate executives of the car companies, banks, and so on and so, that receive your tax dollars?
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:38 p.m.
I agree, it is time for the tax payers to be heard. All we want is to know that the people we are paying our tax dollars to are using it wisely and not buying drugs with it,,,,,,,,,,,,,sounds very responsible to me.
apples
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:30 p.m.
How will this help with the treatment for people? How will services be restored for families that need this type of help?Why not spend the money and help on treatment since funds are so limited!
Gramma
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:55 p.m.
Research by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (governmental) has found that supporting families of young children (not just financially) is the biggest deterrant to drug use and that interdiction (arrests) is the least effective. The studies also indicate that the DARE program leads to more marijuana use than in control groups. Most monies go to interdiction. That's an interesting thing to think about.
girlhunter
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:25 p.m.
THis is a great idea!!! Finally .. we the tax payers get a say in how the tax money is spent! I know there is alot of opposition .. like.. We do not want the children to suffer, me either! But if the parents are into drugs and have been using the "welfare" system to buy them.. then the kids are not getting what they need to begin with! THis could be a win-win program if done right!I am all for it!
John Q
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:17 a.m.
Let's waste a lot of money to drug test people who are not taking drugs! Sounds like a great use of taxpayer money!
hut hut
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:23 p.m.
So you want to help get a few people off drugs? A worthy cause, imo. But let's throw them off welfare first and cut money for treatment programs and health care as many conservatives want. Now tell me, how is this going to help people, what will it cost, who is benefitting and who's going to pay for it?
hut hut
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 1:13 a.m.
@Heisman. Let's walk this through for this one circumstance. You stop someone from getting an assistance check because they fail a drug test (paid by you). They have little or no legal income and probably lack the liquid assets to pay for the test that they failed? What next? Pay for their prosecution and subsequent jail time and/or impact on the legal system (pd by you)? Rinse Repeat?
hut hut
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:57 p.m.
Tell that to my mother. She's on Medicaid, gets a small SS check and a small check from the STate of Florida. She also smokes a little pot now and then. We spoke the other day and altho she hasn't smoked or used anything illegal in a while, she's scared that what little she get s could be taken away by a false positive.
Spencer Thomas
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:15 p.m.
I can only hope that screening will lead to placement in treatment rather than ostracizing them. But I doubt it.
Joe_Citizen
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:10 p.m.
No, this will take way too much money to do. It cost some $70 an hour plus the cost of the test to have a nurse taking samples, and how many people are collecting right now? Also where does our freedoms lie any way? Are we going to allow the government to control what we as a free person decide to do. "So what" that you have to take a drug test to have a job, I don't want addicts building my car and such, but where does the line get drawn. Our country is already ruled over by the fat corps anyway, so where do we stop them from this new world order. I'm not for drug use or alcohol for that matter. Why did the line get drawn with drugs, and what about alcohol, that's a drug, and one of the worst ones for them selves and others. This should be included if there is such a thing going to happen. If we take addicts off of welfare the rate of crime will go up and so will our insurance rates. Remember, financial stability is a tit for tat, situation and we are going to pay the amount anyway. To pay for a criminal in our prisons cost some $180-$280 a day to keep one prisoner in Michigan. $180 x 365 = $65,700.00 a year to keep a prisoner. The grant money for rehab is nill, and using addicts don't care who's feet they step on or what laws they break to get their fix each day. I say don't do this because it will have problems, like a domino effect.
simply amazed
Tue, Jan 3, 2012 : 4:48 p.m.
You are correct on the suboxone Joe. My friends son 'learned' how to do heroin while in rehab for cocaine. In rehab 90 days back on drugs within 2 days of being out. Switched to heroin however. Then got suboxone for the heroin addition, but started shooting that up and now he's hooked on suboxone. Without insurance, the heroin is cheaper than the suboxine.
Joe_Citizen
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.
I do agree that these people need to spend their our money wisely. But, the fixes of heroin abuse are also addiction, unless they can get sober, and the chances of a heroin addict staying sober for a year is 1/2 of %1. The answer to this riddle is to put these addicts on Methadone or Suboxone, in which we have to pay for too. Methadone being very cheap to produce, and Suboxone, which cost much more. Both are working well and it is just as addictive as heroin. The problem with heroin is that once an addict tries it, it feels so good they want to stay there. There is no easy solution and I say just give it away.
Mike
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:18 p.m.
Also where does our freedoms lie any way? Are we going to allow the government to control what we as a free person decide to do. You have the freedom to not accept the welfare money and do drugs. Nobody is taking that choice away from you. There are strings attached anytime you get a hand out or take out a loan. I'm sure if your parents were going to help you out financially and knew you were taking drugs they would tipulate that you had to stop taking drugs. Why does this have to be mixed in with racism and beating up on the poor; it's just common sense.
John Q
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:16 a.m.
Crime is not on the rise but let's not let facts get into a conversation that has little to do with the facts and is almost entirely about pandering to political prejudices.
Joe_Citizen
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:36 p.m.
Where, I live in a high crime, and low employment area. I guess you just jumped the gun and did not read the whole of my post, because if you did, that means you saw that I'm against this rule because it will not do any good but make things even worse. This is the problem with any decision, it kind of fixes one thing but then you need to look at both side. If one pushes something in then something comes out. Our cup has run over, and there is no more room for such stupid rules. I say decriminalize drugs and give them away for free. This will take some %90 of the prison population, out of the quota.
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:17 p.m.
So your saying our current system works? Where is it that you live that is safe from crime? Crime is on the rise not falling, we must hold people accountable before this country falls, and it will.
hut hut
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:06 p.m.
Illicit drug use among the general public in Florida has been determined to be at least 7%. Florida has been testing welfare recipients for a while after electing their incredibly unpopular Republican governor. Go here for the facts. <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/09/06/2-of-welfare-recipients-fail-drug-tests-in-florida/" rel='nofollow'>http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/09/06/2-of-welfare-recipients-fail-drug-tests-in-florida/</a> Testing Florida welfare recipients for illicit drug use reveals users in the 2% range. Obviously lower than the general public. "Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year." The testing gets done each month for each recipient. The only people making money from this are the manufacturers of the drug test kits. The taxpayer are footing the bill and not getting much bang for their buck. I wonder what the drug test makers lobbyist makes and how much they give to politicians campaigns? It's good business for them. Many of the people who support drug testing for welfare recipients are the same people who tell us that government spends too much money. They're also the people who are telling us we need less government interference in our lives. For no other reason, Politicians do it for their base voters, telling them they their touch and have zero tolerance. So how do they square their opinion on drug testing welfare recipients with their political positions? Pure hypocrisy.
thecompound
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 1:55 p.m.
It seems the hypocrisy is that you think those who are in favor of this are just being judgmental towards welfare recipients yet you are basing your judgment on the fact that you have a family member who has used drugs while receiving welfare benefits.
Arborcomment
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:48 p.m.
Hut, I wrote nothing about limiting testing to certain ages or groups. A random test is just that - random. Many employers including the federal government do random testing as a condition for continued employment (thus to be paid) The same could be done for those receiving welfare benefits (especially unemployment) to be paid.
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:08 p.m.
Hi Johnny............are you watching Fox news now.............good.............I am so proud of you. Call me later.
johnnya2
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:55 p.m.
Black Stallion, if you are going to spout lies like "Most Florida citizens are older than 70 years" you really have zero credibility to speak on any issue. We will take the 2010 Census data. The % of population OVER 65 is 17.1. The % under 18 is 21.3. But go ahead and spew your misinformation, Fox News would be proud.
hut hut
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:54 p.m.
That would be unconstitutional to limit drug testing to only welfare recipients under a certain age. It's all or nothing when it comes to making sure that the taxpayers aren't getting ripped off. And my mother DOES get a small welfare check because her Social Security isn't very much and she's on Medicaid. She was a stay at home mom for most of her "working" years and only had small part time jobs. She also smoked some pot once with me.
Arborcomment
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:51 p.m.
Then you randomize the test to a percentage of those receiving benefits. Enough to provide a sample (insert pun here) for statistical purposes, and enough to provoke thought about getting caught. Agreed, a 100% test regime looks like a bureaucratic boondoggle.
hut hut
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:35 p.m.
I think that seniors over 70 should be able to use recreational drugs and get a welfare check. Especially my mother.
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:34 p.m.
And just how do you propose we do this? I am listening.
hut hut
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:29 p.m.
If I follow you (and not willingly) you're saying that most drug users on welfare are not seniors but poor minorities? If so then drug testing welfare recipients primarily targets poor people and minorities. But I think (and know) that there are seniors on Florida who get a welfare check and I bet more than a few of them use illicit drugs, be they recreational street drugs or prescription. So let's test Granny for pot or meth? So what's your point Black Stallion?
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:14 p.m.
Most Florida citizens are older than 70 years........now we know where the comparison comes in. Not really a fair shake for drug testing there is it?
Peter
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:37 p.m.
This was done in Florida, and it was a huge waste of money, not to even get into the issues with race, income equality, and targeting the poor.
Peter
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:28 a.m.
The concept of a 'welfare queen' is the gold standard of dog whistle racism. 'The race card' is right up there with it.
John Q
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:14 a.m.
He's noting that many people push drug testing on groups that are primarily made up of minorities but oppose it when the people being tested are largely white.
cinnabar7071
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:47 p.m.
Peter are you saying only people of certain races do drugs? I hope thats not what you're, that just wouldn't be right on any level.
Mike
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:13 p.m.
I was wondering when the race card would be played............thanks for not disappointing
Bear
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:23 p.m.
Putting people into desperate situations will certainly help our society as a whole (not). The money spent on drug testing is money wasted. People in desperate situations turn to desperate actions. Plan on seeing a rise in crime and subsequently, a rise in jail/prison population. Our society already boasts a track record of one out of every three citizen 23 & under having been arrested at least once in this country. Let's just divest ourselves of any last shred of decency & compassion we have. This comments section seems to be full of people who have nothing but disdain for their fellow human beings and seem to puff themselves up by putting others down. Ruralmom brings up a real issue with this. But let's just spend money on controlling people instead of empowering them to do better for themselves. And when a fellow human being messes up, let's trample them underfoot, rather than giving them a hand and helping them to their feet. Have you no shame? Some of the comments here show zero compassion and less than zero sense.
average joe
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:09 p.m.
TBS3- I don't see what you mean by a mix-up, unless the names have been mixed up by AA.com., But thanks..
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:51 p.m.
Joe..........Pardon me but I think you got my comment and bears mixed up
average joe
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:48 p.m.
Along with what grye says- Being threatened to be removed from welfare because of a drug problem may be the first step to overcoming the drug problem. @ Bear-" But let's just spend money on controlling people instead of empowering them to do better for themselves" 'Empowering' people by giving them welfare so they can buy drugs?
grye
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:37 p.m.
Did you consider that the drug screening could be beneficial in identifying a problem that may be systemic to their current situation? Overcoming the drug problem may be the first step to getting off welfare and becoming a productive member of society again.
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:28 p.m.
So why would we continue to help them buy drugs and ruin their lives? Why not discover the ones that need help and help them? Not reward them for doing drugs.
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:19 p.m.
Thank God someone is finally taking this giving of tax payer money seriously. I do not want my tax dollars going to drug addicts. I have to take a drug test to keep my job, I have to stay drug free if I want to support my family, why would I not expect the same consideration from the people that I am giving my hard earned money to every week? This only makes sense to have something like this in place, it is called responsibility people, responsibility.
Gramma
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:11 p.m.
Actually, there are so many ways to get a clean drug test when you're using that it's a worthless venture. This could lead to illegal body searches and strip searches, which certainly should not be a requirement for receiving economic help.
average joe
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:58 p.m.
Bear-"And isn't forced drug testing actually relieving people of having to be responsible for themselves? " In this case, no. They know they better stop doing it, or no welfare. And since they know this, they have to be (or will learn fast) responsible for their actions.
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:46 p.m.
Bear..Are you joking or what...Don't you want to help these people? I can not believe you do not care if they have a drug problem and you want to continue funding this activity. Please consider the benefits of helping these unfortunate people kick their habit...........come on Bear........where is your compassion?
Bear
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:30 p.m.
So, black stallion, you are saying that if you didn't have to take a drug test, you would do drugs? And isn't forced drug testing actually relieving people of having to be responsible for themselves? They are forced into a certain type of action, not doing it willingly, so where is the responsibility? And I wouldn't be thanking God for another government intrusion into people's lives. I believe God is more generous than you are and would be thinking that you are taking his name in vain by invoking it in the manner that you do. We all pay taxes, but short-sighted people think that their tax money is the only money that matters and that their opinion reflects the opinion of everyone else. I don't mind that my tax money goes to help others less fortunate than I. Apparently you do. This only makes sense. (dripping with sarcasm)
yohan
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:14 p.m.
How about also drug screening the State Senate and House members, their employees and employees of the Governor's office? They also receive state money.
thecompound
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 1:46 p.m.
Yes, anyone who receives----post office workers, teachers, VA workers, etc....
jjc155
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 12:20 a.m.
Definatly, I'll even volunteer to hold the cups for free!
Gramma
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:08 p.m.
I am certain that many would not pass. We should also include a breathalyzer test before they can be seated in chambers for the day. After all, alchohol is the number 1 drug of abuse in this country.
Mike
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:11 p.m.
Average Joe may have hit the nail on the head. But I would imagine they are drug tested like the private sector to get a job anyhow..........
average joe
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:49 p.m.
Are you saying all public employees should be screened?
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:20 p.m.
I agree 100%
xmo
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:13 p.m.
Next they will be asking for a photo ID when you vote! How degrading! Look at the things that the Republicans are doing to the State, Balancing the budget, keeping drugs away from welfare people, ending Students getting food stamps! What Next? :)
Sparty
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 4:18 a.m.
Removing children and adult partners of same sex State and local government employees, who do pay taxes and receive wages and benefits for their services that are now less than married peers. Discriminatory. Reduced heating programs, taxed senior pensions, higher tax rates for all citizens in lieu of lower business taxes, reduced education support at k-12 and higher education, attacks on unions throughout the State, reduced cash assistance to the poor, reduced unemployment assistance, reduced food stamps, reduced workers comp insurance coverage, reduced catastrophic auto insurance coverage, among other things since you asked what next.
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:21 p.m.
Johnny..........please refrain from calling people Stupid............it does not reflect well on your character.
The Black Stallion3
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:21 p.m.
How about a balanced budget.............what a concept........right?
RuralMom
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:10 p.m.
I can't get behind it until they have a comprehensive plan for the children who have no control over a parents choices in life. Kids will be the ones whom suffer, and they have little to no choice in all these matters. This isn't a betting or funny matter on any level. What is the plan to deal with people suffering from addiction issues? Just cutting them off "welfare" creates another list of issues, that none of you smarties seem to be considering.
Carole
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2 p.m.
This sounds harsh, but if there are agencies that are taking children from individuals who become homeless as was stated in a program regarding homeless families, then maybe that should be the case for those parents who are continually using drugs which in my opinion is much worse. My heart breaks for all children in either circumstances because they never asked to be there in the first place.
Liz
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:47 a.m.
bunnyabbot- I wish the pressure of your children potentially starving were enough for some parents to straighten up... but taking away welfare money from addicted parents just hurts the children more. That being said, I stand behind this program... but I, like RuralMom, am deeply concerned for the children of these addicted parents.
leaguebus
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:11 a.m.
Heisman, including starving innocent kids? The worst economy in 80 years is not the time to throw a bunch of poor people off of welfare for whatever reason. If the problem is no money, raise taxes on business and Ricks buddies. After Ronald Reagan cut taxes in the 80's, he raised taxes 11 times to balance the budget. George Bush senior and Clinton raised taxes to balance the budget and the economy got better. Part of the money equation is hiring, not firing teachers and public safety personnel who pay taxes.
Gramma
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:47 p.m.
Heisman, I don't think working parents should be using drugs. Are you suggesting that drug use while parenting is only irresponsible if you're on welfare?
Gramma
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:04 p.m.
The foster care system is overflowing already. There are many instances of abuse and neglect in foster care. It is so much better to work with the intact biological family. Are we, as a society, ready to go back to orphanages and workhouses?
bunnyabbot
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:17 p.m.
mayhaps a parent on drugs will be motivated to get off of them for the betterment of their childrens care. Otherwise maybe those kids would be better off to be taken away from a doped up parent. I do feel for the children but a druggie parent is already using some of the welfare money that should be used for thier kids.
bunnyabbot
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 9:03 p.m.
so who wants to place the first bet that a certain percentage will be dirty? or that the ACLU or other groups will claim this is either unconstitutional or biased or racist etc? I say 12% even though my first choice was 18%
Sparty
Sat, Dec 31, 2011 : 9:44 p.m.
Not just the ACLU claiming this is unconstitutional but a Federal Appeals Court that ruled that the State of Florida doing this was unconstitutional ... and as such this is now illegal in all of the States covered by that Circuit. Is Michigan planning on fighting it in the 6th Circuit to see if they agree? LoL, or hoping they disagree and the the US Supreme Court will take up the issue? Hippity Hop.
joe.blow
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 1:23 p.m.
stevek... Only? ONLY? err...... what a horrible place society is in for people to use the word ONLY! It should be 0%.
joe.blow
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 1:21 p.m.
74%
stevek
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:55 p.m.
Gramma K--you are absolutely wrong. If you are in the social work field, then back up your statements. I will. From the Guttmacher Institute-- only 28% of the children born where unintentional. Don't make nonfactual statements just because it benefits your beliefs.
Gramma
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:45 p.m.
Steve K, Most people don't have children because they enjoy children. Most children, even today, are not planned.
Gramma
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 11:01 p.m.
I believe the percentage would be about the same as the general population. This comes from 30+ years experience as a social worker in the fields of child welfare, family economic programs and substance abuse.
stevek
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:59 p.m.
huthut---that's a whole different problem. Maybe if you can't afford children you shouldn't have them.
hut hut
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:49 p.m.
So bunnyabbot, what happens to the children of people who are thrown off welfare? No money for food or shelter because their bad mommy or daddy doesn't get assistance anymore? Who is going to help them? Maybe prostitution or petty crime? Children aren't born with bootstraps.
cinnabar7071
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 10:40 p.m.
63%
jcj
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 8:54 p.m.
Long overdue!
snapshot
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 2:21 a.m.
All government workers including "Human" Services should be tested periodically too. They receive tax dollars too.
Roy Munson
Thu, Dec 29, 2011 : 8:52 p.m.
This makes too much sense.
joe.blow
Sat, Dec 31, 2011 : 2:15 p.m.
a2miguy. I like how you said, "ok with the state paying MORE of your precious money." When you get off welfare and make it OUR money, then maybe you'll understand. Keep working, you can do it!
a2miguy
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 3:22 p.m.
joe.blow... So now you're ok with the state paying MORE of your precious money on a program that will ultimately have very little (if any) effect? You're right. That makes too much sense.
joe.blow
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 1:21 p.m.
hut hut, it makes sense, because giving people free money who are on drugs is ridiculous! I have to pass drugs screens to make the money that our state gives to these people. If you can't be on drugs to earn the money the state gets, then you shouldn't be on drugs to spend the money the state gives you.
hut hut
Fri, Dec 30, 2011 : 12:39 a.m.
Please tell us why "this makes too much sense".