|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 21, 2016 19:28:42 GMT
I'm ignorant because I have no clue who Nicole is either. I'm apathetic too (which is probably why I'm clueless) so no need to clue me in.  I have no clue either about Carly or Nicole not peas I recognize from here or there. But hey, she's got attention now! I did get carried away bit in the swearing and sarcasm though. Lost my mind a bit there.  I am kind of surprised because it is usually me who doesn't 'get' a post until 3 other peas chime in to explain but I understood that one right away. Perhaps it is because i have had recent conversations with my kids about how un-christian like some politicians behave, you know, since the Pope started that whole issue up this week spurring conversations in households around the world. It's a very current issue and for once I am not clueless!!!! I think Carly is the only one on this thread who didn't 'get' what Elaine was saying? (or did I miss someone else comment? ) I think despite the drama the comment has been clarified by elaine multiple times at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 21, 2016 19:29:44 GMT
I'm just going to leave this here you who? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 23:31:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2016 19:35:36 GMT
I'm just going to leave this here you who? The one who's being a giant bitch. |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 21, 2016 19:42:51 GMT
The one who's being a giant bitch. Sorry Gotcha. I think I figured it out right after i hit the post button. |
|
|
|
Post by Dori~Mama~Bear on Feb 21, 2016 21:17:41 GMT
I don't feel that everyone needs or should be drug tested, but if there is a suspicion of drug use, then they should have to take a test. Many jobs require the employee to sign a paper saying they will agree to drug testing, so why not people receiving government help? Do you really think it's a wise economic decision to spend $336,000 to identify 48 drug users? Ok lets say they start treating welfare like a business and the people like employees. every person who applies has to take a drug test. if you pass you get help. if you don't you don't get help. excluding the drugs they now use as medicine now. I believe those 48 drug uses might get help with the drug use if they really want the financial help. maybe not. But the Welfare people would have to have a drug program that the drug positive people could go to to get help is they needed and or wanted it. Of course that would be in a perfect world. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 23:31:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2016 22:09:10 GMT
While I like the intent of the "drug testing", it should have never been followed through with.
I'm sorry I think there should be a limit on time the befits should be supplied.
10 years, come on, you can find a diffrent way. Do like we all do ...budget, cut and adjust.
Or the generation after generation, it had to stop. The social programs should be a stepping stone not a solution/life.
|
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Feb 21, 2016 22:24:28 GMT
While I like the intent of the "drug testing", it should have never been followed through with. I'm sorry I think there should be a limit on time the befits should be supplied. 10 years, come on, you can find a diffrent way. Do like we all do ...budget, cut and adjust. Or the generation after generation, it had to stop. The social programs should be a stepping stone not a solution/life. Technically, there is a 5-year time limit. Extensions are given for the types of hardships I hope we would all be sensitive to--serious illness, disabled family member, etc. Otherwise, you have to work at least 32 hours a week to continue to receive assistance, in which case I think you are doing your part. |
|
luckyexwife
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,067 
|
Post by luckyexwife on Feb 22, 2016 15:37:46 GMT
How will it cost $336,000 if a very small percent of people are being tested? Case workers would have guidelines to follow and document why a person should be tested. One cannot test only some people receiving TANF according to some profile, unless one wants to open oneself to discrimination lawsuits. One has to drug test ALL or none, unless one is willing to cover the cost of losing a lawsuit regarding discrimination in drug testing for receiving benefits, which will cost more than all of the costs we have discussed so far. In yor opinion, could they have a random drug pool for testing? My DH's job requires random drug testing, so he is in a pool and gets picked to test occasionally. In 11 years, I think he has been tested 5-6 times. Do you think that would lead to lawsuits? It would be cheaper than testing everyone. *just for the record, I don't believe in drug testing to receive benefits, but if they are going to do it, they should find a way to save money. |
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
|
Post by happymomma on Feb 22, 2016 15:49:52 GMT
I'm wondering about the option of random testing too.
Millions of US workers get tested randomly as a condition of employment.
That is what kept me from using marijuana for relief of my chronic pain for 27 years. EVEN while my state legislated medical marijuana to be legal.
My employer forbade it so if I wanted to keep collecting my pay and benefits I couldn't and didn't do it.
Period.
|
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 22, 2016 18:53:51 GMT
One cannot test only some people receiving TANF according to some profile, unless one wants to open oneself to discrimination lawsuits. One has to drug test ALL or none, unless one is willing to cover the cost of losing a lawsuit regarding discrimination in drug testing for receiving benefits, which will cost more than all of the costs we have discussed so far. In yor opinion, could they have a random drug pool for testing? My DH's job requires random drug testing, so he is in a pool and gets picked to test occasionally. In 11 years, I think he has been tested 5-6 times. Do you think that would lead to lawsuits? It would be cheaper than testing everyone. *just for the record, I don't believe in drug testing to receive benefits, but if they are going to do it, they should find a way to save money. Yes, I think that random testing would probably prevent discrimination lawsuits. Although, since the data is showing that many fewer welfare recipients use drugs than the general population, I still think the money would be better spent providing more benefits or services than lining test companies' pockets. That said, I think another huge issue with drug testing to have access to welfare that can ONLY be spent on food is that the children of anyone denied TANF are the ones who will truly suffer. They are innocent victims of poverty. It isn't as though a parent can go buy meth with a SNAP card, like they could with a paycheck/cash, and denying the kids access to food due to a parent's poor choices is in itself a crime against humanity, IMO. |
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
|
Post by happymomma on Feb 22, 2016 22:39:16 GMT
In yor opinion, could they have a random drug pool for testing? My DH's job requires random drug testing, so he is in a pool and gets picked to test occasionally. In 11 years, I think he has been tested 5-6 times. Do you think that would lead to lawsuits? It would be cheaper than testing everyone. *just for the record, I don't believe in drug testing to receive benefits, but if they are going to do it, they should find a way to save money. Yes, I think that random testing would probably prevent discrimination lawsuits. Although, since the data is showing that many fewer welfare recipients use drugs than the general population, I still think the money would be better spent providing more benefits or services than lining test companies' pockets. That said, I think another huge issue with drug testing to have access to welfare that can ONLY be spent on food is that the children of anyone denied TANF are the ones who will truly suffer. They are innocent victims of poverty. It isn't as though a parent can go buy meth with a SNAP card, like they could with a paycheck/cash, and denying the kids access to food due to a parent's poor choices is in itself a crime against humanity, IMO. They don't buy the drugs with the benefits card. They "sell" the benefits and get nowhere near dollar for dollar. I just watched two instances of this on TV last week. I was shocked that they admitted it right on TV, but they did. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 22, 2016 22:59:39 GMT
Yes, I think that random testing would probably prevent discrimination lawsuits. Although, since the data is showing that many fewer welfare recipients use drugs than the general population, I still think the money would be better spent providing more benefits or services than lining test companies' pockets. That said, I think another huge issue with drug testing to have access to welfare that can ONLY be spent on food is that the children of anyone denied TANF are the ones who will truly suffer. They are innocent victims of poverty. It isn't as though a parent can go buy meth with a SNAP card, like they could with a paycheck/cash, and denying the kids access to food due to a parent's poor choices is in itself a crime against humanity, IMO. They don't buy the drugs with the benefits card. They "sell" the benefits and get nowhere near dollar for dollar. I just watched two instances of this on TV last week. I was shocked that they admitted it right on TV, but they did. I hear you, but 2 instances in a population, through drug testing, has shown to abuse drugs less than the rest of us, isn't enough to make me want to punish innocent kids by taking away a chance to get some food. That's just my opinion, however, and it would take well over 50% of welfare beneficiaries using drugs AND nearly 100% of those receiving them selling their benefits to buy more drugs for me to want to take away food money for kids. So, I admit that I strongly side with the potential to feed kids on this issue. |
|
