Drug test for welfare recipients - Page 3

Government power does not work that way... They have the power to do something or they do not. We give them the power to require drug tests or we do not. It won't be this group gets tested an this group does not. It may be sold to you that way though.
 

I don't have a big problem with state check recipients having to submit to urinalysis but IMO people who have a job (i.e. expendable income) are much more likely to use drugs. The majority of welfare recipients can't afford it.

To that end I would like to see ALL people getting a check from the government(taxpayers) submit to urinalysis. That includes the governors and legislators. I would bet my bottom dollar there would be a higher percentage of positives in that group than in the welfare group.

I also find it startling that so many assume someone on welfare is also likely to be on drugs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebelcowboysnb 

Government power does not work that way... They have the power to do something or they do not. We give them the power to require drug tests or we do not. It won't be this group gets tested an this group does not. It may be sold to you that way though.
 

 

I believe the government already has that power, my family member got CPS called on them and had to submit to a drug test right off the bat when the investigation was going on.

I dont have to own a home... Can they test me to get to do that..

Same with owning a gun or having a kid or walking down 4th street at noon. Being optional does not change government power.

I think you are mistaken. In order to get a concealed weapon permit I have to surrender to a background check and finger prints. If I choose to exercise my 2nd amendment but not get a CWP I have preserved my right to not give fingerprints and background check.

Owning a home requires that you pay taxes on it directly, a renter is not subject to that directly.   The power becomes effective when you choose to participate by as with this example when you buy a house.
 

The testing is unconstitutional.... But then welfare is also unconstitutional. An in my opinion so is gun permits.

I've checked the numbers on this.  FL is one of the first states to require this.   So far, it has cost them far more money than it has saved.    What they have found is that welfare receipents aren't any more likely to test positive than any other portion of the population.   Yes, there are some that do illegal drugs.  Of course, they have other criminal activities and signs that they are drug users than just the fact that they receive assistance.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/floridas-welfare-drug-testing-costs-more-than-it-saves/

-------

Under the rules of the program, the state must reimburse recipients who receive negative test results. The state paid about $1,140 for the 38 negative tests, while saving less than $240 a month by denying benefits over the two positive tests.

----

that is the most current numbers.   The same results are found in every month of testing - lots of money paid out to reimburse testing costs, little or no savings because there aren't any people to kick out of the program.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

- lots of good info in this article.

so far, the numbers are showing that less than 2% of the people tested are drug users, a rate actually lower than the general population which is between 6% and 8%.