Shouldn't One Have to Pass a Urine Test to Get a Welfare Check?

PowerIsKnowledge,

I once worked in the system and you'd be surprise how many workers are drug users aka functional workers. The only individuals that I know of receiving government welfare assistance and have to take drug tests and attend drug programs are those who have been convicted of drug related crimes. It would be nice if drug test were issued, but the truth of the matter is if individuals are denied help based on illegal drug use, then officials just as well build more jail houses, because the crime rate will increase. Housing inmates and caring for displaced children as a result of parents in some cases going to jail for crimes to get money is far more costly to tax payers than a couple of hundred dollars or less per individual/family per month. Aside from this, most states mandate that individuals work in an organization for their benefits e.g. the welfare and sanitation department, with the exception of the Jewish community, who receive benefits but do not have to work for them. So I am not sure results from drug testing is the solution as frustrating as this may read.

The email is pretty silly, really. Everyone knows the drugs are turning up in the tap water...

My thought is, if everyone on welfare is tested, then all the non-custodial parents whose kids are receiving welfare should be tested right along with them - every time. And then they can test every caseworker, government official, legislator, and worker or volunteer at every poverty-associated agency, too.

Let's not forget police, teachers, clergy, salesmen, corporate officers, nurses, doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists - all the people who have authority over other people's lives.

Yeah, they could put up road blocks during rush hours and randomly take a couple of miles of drivers off to the side - morning and evening - to see what the chemical contents of drivers are - the people who are driving back and forth to work.

Let's test for everything, including pharmaceuticals, OTCs, lead exposure (from the exhaust we are sucking in while we are driving to work), and carbon monoxide in the blood.

That, actually, might be pretty eye-opening.

Then let's drug test the people who send out emails like those. I'd love to know what they're on - so I never go near it. LOL

Also, not everyone receiving Section 8 sit back and do nothing. Some work low-wage jobs and therefore need some type financial assistance to pay for housing. The same holds true for some individuals receiving food stamps. If individuals are unable to pay rent and buy food, can you imagine how many businesses would suffer and us too as a result, such as the electric, gas, telephone companies and stores? Other people would not have jobs if individuals did not patronize business from companies.

I once worked in the system and you'd be surprise how many workers are drug users aka functional workers.

Agreed.  I have known a number of "recreational" drug users that work and make way more than the average income.

So if you are going to deny unemployment benefits for some based on a urine test, would it not also be fair to allow people who are users but functional to not have to pay into the unemployment system?  After all, fair is fair....... 

Roy,

I am not exactly certain what you're asking or the point being made. Please rephrase it for me. Also, I think this topic is about unemployment, albeit your point might be relevant. The topic is about whether or not people collecting welfare payments and receiving Section 8 should take and pass urine examinations for drug use in order to retain financial help or subsidies. Again, rephrase please....I wish not to provide an improper response. Thanks.

Unemployment is a system where taxes are collected (put into the system) and benefits are paid. 

If a drug user makes taxable income, the he/she must pay unemployment taxes.  However, the question is to exclude this same person from getting benefits from that same system upon becoming unemployed.  I suggest to do so is hypocritical.

If drug users cannot get benefits from this system, they should be exempt from having to make contruibutions into that system.  Clear enough?

Only if our elected officials have to be urine tested to keep their jobs.

Bodily fluids and cavity searches are the most invasive of the protected 4th Amendment (search and seizure) rights. I, for one, am in no rush to forfeit or waive the stringent requirements placed upon any authority who desires to invade my body.  Its a slippery and precipitous slope from invading the bodies of "the underclasses" to a generalized rule about cavity and bodily fluid searches for everyone.  And mind you, dont be surprised if politicians exempt themselves from that requirement.

Cops are drug tested. At least they are where I work!

Let me see if I get this straight... the person who authored this email says he/she works, pays taxes and is drug tested randomly and has no problem with that.  But he/she does have a problem with welfare recipients who are not required to be tested receiving public assistance. 

SO, if people are receiving public assistance payed for by taxpayer money have to take a drug test, then shouldn't all employees who work for the city, county, state, and federal levels also be tested?  I mean we wouldn't want to leave anyone out would we?  My tax dollars also pay for them to have a job. Would it not also be interesting to see how much money could be saved for firing all public employees (yep even down to the guys who mow the grass for the Parks and Recreation department) that pop positive on drug testing?  Bet it would be a fortune!

Not every person on public assistance is a drug dealer or on drugs or needs a "hand out".  There are many elderly persons on fixed incomes that need help. What about single moms/dads, foster parents, and people that are just having a tough time?  This mentality is disgusting and I hate getting things like this in my email.

What really bothers me is the results from the poll.  I wonder how many people really thought this scenario out before clicking the "yes" option?  How quick some are to condemn those that need our help.  For shame.

Roy,

Unemployment is a system where taxes are collected (put into the system) and benefits are paid. 

If a drug user makes taxable income, the he/she must pay unemployment taxes.  However, the question is to exclude this same person from getting benefits from that same system upon becoming unemployed.  I suggest to do so is hypocritical.

If drug users cannot get benefits from this system, they should be exempt from having to make contruibutions into that system.  Clear enough?

To your last question, we'll see: I believe the implication is that individuals who work and pay taxable income, some of which is allocated into the welfare system but yet are drug users who lost their jobs, should be exempt from paying into this system they won't be able to collect from? The only problem with this is that some employers do not drug test employees. Why? Because  employers or administration are drug users themselves. Like I wrote, I've worked with the city and a lot of city employees and administration use some type drug substance or are alcoholics. The only time drug testing becomes an issue is if it impacts on employees' ability to function adequately or interfere with them successfully completing their jobs.  When it comes to police officers and bus drivers, for example, periodic drug testing is required, because in these type individuals are accountable for other people's lives.

So if employees aren't known drug users, then how can they be exempt from paying into the system? Even still, if it is found out they are, most jobs nowadays offer programs in which employees can receive help and termination is not the first option anymore. It is usually after refusal to receive help and several warnings, in some cases, they are terminated.

First and foremost, if the government had used the system the way it initially was set up to be used...temporary assistance and not a generation after generation financial assistance giveaway agency in some cases, we wouldn't be having this problem or discussion in which questions are being asked about whether or not individuals should be drug tested to retain benefits or employees who pay taxes and into the system and are drug users should be exempt if they can't collect. Welfare initially was implemented as a temporary means for individuals who needed financial assistance and not a long life one it turned out to be. The problem with this program back then was that there wasn't any stipulation that individuals enlist in a program to find work or attend school. The only qualifications required was proof they lacked resources to sustain sufficient housing and food, so to speak. A supposed more effective program was executed years later and after generations of families had collected welfare that some geniuses finally figured out the system was doing nothing more than creating "lazy" individuals and crutches to those who did not want to work and therefore something had to be done. How many years did it take for them to figure this out and that some people were taking advantage of the system? And now officials are complaining, because they failed to look at the bigger picture and see any preexisting flaws in it from the inception? As a matter of fact, some people were having babies just to receive higher benefits. And additionally, apparently the majority of voters elected these same individuals or ones that think as they do into office, but yet they complain too.

In New York City, Mayor Guilliani during his years in office implemented the work program and provided incentives to private employers/businesses with the stipulation that they would eventually hire welfare workers working for benefits and ended up terminating these businesses from the program, because they were doing nothing more than collecting from the system and receiving free help...running a slave camp, in other words.   The welfare workers weren't doing adequate work because of resentment, because the city spoiled them and they grew accustomed to receiving something for nothing or they would leave because employers wouldn't hire them, some of which were working for less than a $1 an hour if one computes the hours and monies received in welfare payments. Didn't the former mayor see this coming as well? The system is poorly crafted and set up to fail from the get go and individuals collecting are not the designers; they're the beneficiaries to this screwed up system and who is the blame? We can finger point and ask questions all day long, but this does not resolve the situation. Someone needs to find the hole and fix the leak or replace the entire system if needed as I often say.

I 100% agree with this article. I used to work for a gevernment program (WIC) alot of the client I saw were dead beats who did not want to work. They just wanted the state to take care of them and they did. I cannot count how many Parents came into my office saturated in Marijuana scent, syring track in thier arms and missing all their teeth because of drug usage. Even if they wanted a job, they could not get one because they would never pass a drug test.  Alot of them stayed pregnant so that the government could take care of them. Not all of them were like that but majority of them were. the same issue is with Medicaid, and Food Stamp programm.  It sucks that you have to be either extreamly rich or extreamly poor to get assistance from the government. 

There is a difference in a PRIVATE CORPORATION making you take a drug test and the

GOVERNMENT making you take a drug test.

This is a GROSS violation and a DANGEROUS precedent to have the government TEST you for anything...

BAD BAD BAD

If I have to pee in a cup for the right to earn my paycheck then they should have to pee in a cup for the right to freeload off of my paycheck.

Frankly, I don't think the test should even be an option until they can get them right. I mean, hasn't anyone seen Mythbusters?

Dennis C. Latham

To say everyone on welfare is a drug addict is to be moronic, stupid, and ignorant... How much more plainly can I put this?

I am a conservative, and it is ridiculous to have the government test people to have access to government.

You are a classic Big Government kind of person...

 The only problem with this is that some employers do not drug test employees. Why? Because  employers or administration are drug users themselves.

Sorry don't buy this at all.  Drug testing is expensive.  It also comes with conditions, many states require rehab paid by the employer for the first 'offense'.  How many small to medium businesses would go under if they are forced to pay the cost of mandatory testing. 

Welfare is already limited per adult lifetime - Welfare reform passed in the 90's.  WIC is food for children - if a WIC representative believes that the child is not getting the formula, milk, fruit that the coupons are for then are why is child protective services not notified?  If a parent is lazy or high should the children go hungry?  So how do we cut off the drug using parents without harming the children? 

Functional alcoholics have been working for years - go to work - leave work and get drunk - sleep it off - go to work - cycle repeats.  If you have a 'functional' drug user who goes to work everyday should they lose their job due to a positive drug test?

Last thought on this is where do we draw the line - step one: drug test everyone - step two: add alcohol to the testing - step three: genetic testing - step four: what the heck just place RFIDs in employees while we're at it.  This could be a very slippery slope once we start going down it. 

If I have to pee in a cup for the right to earn my paycheck then they should have to pee in a cup for the right to freeload off of my paycheck.

You can get another job or start your OWN business. Private companies can do what they want within the law.

Government agencies can't just do whatever they want..  or should not be able to.

Many people on welfare are only their for a short period of time, have paid taxes all their life, and will again pay taxes when they get off of welfare...

countrycomfort

Agreed. The people who support this PRETEND to be conservative Republicans ONLY when it suits their purposes. This is why the GOP is so MESSED up right now.

They have no idea what LESS Government actually means....

Dolce, as usual I agree with much of your comment and disagree with some of it.  Somehow, accountability needs to be incorporated into our welfare systems.  Why? To make them more effective.  At some point, continued help becomes enabling failure.

That said, many of the concerns come in where the rubber meets the road, as several here have suggested.

Here is a site delineating some of the constitutional and budget concerns associated with this idea.  It has been considered, but has never gone anywhere due to these issues.  Of course, economic times were better.

Here's a question, if drug testing was absolutely not possible, how could we reduce drug use (and resulting joblessness, homelessness and unemployment)?  Does anyone have a good feel for the contribution of drug addiction/use to the problem?

Also, those who suggest the "supporters" of this idea are mostly conservatives, I would beg to differ.  When this email first made its appearance several years ago, most of my liberal friends were in favor of it on the surface.  There is a bias out there that drug use is a big part of the welfare problem.

There are plenty of decent jobs that require a drug test upon hire. I consider the nice job a "reward" of sorts for not being a junkie. I have no issue with taking a test. I just have an issue with people sitting around getting high 7 days/week off of money we worked for.

Liberal or conservative makes no real difference to this debate.  People that work hard to earn a living find it insulting when a perfectly able bodied adult 'sleeps all day and parties all night' on public assistance.  Working people find it just as irritating when they are pinching pennies to make the food budget and someone is buying chips, cola, and candy with food stamps.  Addictions come in many forms - food, drugs and alcohol the top contenders.

Maybe an idea would be that if you get public assistance you do not get a cash check - you register your electric, phone, water, sewage, Rent/housing and the financial portion of your benefit is allotted accordingly within limits.  Instead of food stamps (card) you get credits that can be used for so many servings of fruit, vegetables, meat, dairy, and starch based on the food pyramid and the number of people in the family.  Twice a year any financial assistance left over from the bills would be allotted in clothing certificates for retailers.   This meets the minimum necessary for survival but allows for no 'extras'.  It would also be an incentive that if someone gets out there and finds a job - part time, temporary, or low income - that they not lose benefits in full. Maybe for every hour you work you would lose $1 in benefits.  This would encourage finding work and getting off the program. 

I’m not sure what to think about this issue.  On one hand, I do want some accountability for people receiving welfare benefits.  Money could certainly be better spent by them on their needs.  However, from a personal standpoint, I must disagree with the idea of drug testing requirements for welfare.  I say this because, as a regular pot user, I would be denied unemployment benefits if I were to get laid off.  I currently hold a steady job that pays well and have never had my drug habits interfere with work.  However, if I were to get laid off, I would be denied benefits until I could pass a test which could take up to a month.

In conclusion, I think this is a bad idea.  The money the government would spend on testing would far surpass the amount of savings from not paying out benefits to drug users.

So if employees aren't known drug users, then how can they be exempt from paying into the system? Even still, if it is found out they are, most jobs nowadays offer programs in which employees can receive help and termination is not the first option anymore. It is usually after refusal to receive help and several warnings, in some cases, they are terminated.

This logistical problem aside, and in theory, I understand that you believe its OK to take these taxes from recreational drug users, but not allow them access to the benefits they paid for?  If you believe this situation exists, then you must recognize it as unfair.

Let's take it a step further.  After a lifetime of contributing to the Social Security system, you must suddenly take a urine test to get your retirement benefits.  Fair?

Roy,

This logistical problem aside, and in theory, I understand that you believe its OK to take these taxes from recreational drug users, but not allow them access to the benefits they paid for?  If you believe this situation exists, then you must recognize it as unfair.

Let's take it a step further.  After a lifetime of contributing to the Social Security system, you must suddenly take a urine test to get your retirement benefits.  Fair?

Unfortunately, you are misconstruing the point I made and even worse assuming I believe in something that I do not believe in. The question is if someone is not a known drug user, then they won't be tested in some cases and therefore exempted from paying into the system as it is suggested in one of the responses. Furthermore, the Social Security system I am referring to is disability, which a person can collect if they are found to suffer with a disability thus enabling them to sustain employment.

The question is if someone is not a known drug user, then they won't be tested in some cases and therefore exempted from paying into the system as it is suggested in one of the responses.

In that case, how can we deny benefits based on a situation we cannot be sure about?

Unfortunately, you are misconstruing the point I made and even worse assuming I believe in something that I do not believe in.

So to be clear, do you believe its OK to take tax money from a recreational user then deny them benefits?

PIK

I did read the article, and I read your opening statement (again).  I don't understand why you would ask me to do so unless you misunderstood something in my comment.  I do understand you did not personally write this email.  What I stated in my comment is my own personal opinion, which, according to your first comment is what you wanted. 

If you disagree with something that I said, please let me know so I can clarifly. 

:)

This is my point Roy. How and no I don't think it is fair to take money from anyone who works and then deny them benefits.

True story: A friend worked all her life, sometimes two jobs, to support her family when her children were younger and had never received any type of government assistance, including food stamps. In recent months she was laid off due to the economy, but continued to seek employment while living off money she had saved and unemployment benefits, which is the first time for her as well. She applied for food stamps and was pissed off, because she was told by the caseworker she had to enroll in a program and periodically attend it until she finds employment. The unemployment does this as well. Is this fair to people who worked all their lives, never received any government help, and paid into a system with their tax dollars and now told they must work again to receive something they paid into for future use if they should need it, simply because they're down on their luck and require additional help. Well this friend doesn't receive any food stamps, but she makes certain her dogs eat.

EllePhat

Somehow, accountability needs to be incorporated into our welfare systems.  Why? To make them more effective.  At some point, continued help becomes enabling failure.

I agree with your thoughts on this.  Making our welfare systems more effective should be a priority for counties and states alike.  Disability, SSI, Medicare and any number of other publicly funded things need a good wrench turning to fix them.

I would really like to see a demographic study done on who receives public assistance of any kind.  I wonder what the ratio of those truly in need versus those looking for a hand out really is.  I would like to see how many undocumented immigrants, elderly, disabled, and children are receiving public assistance.  To me that would speak volumes in the direction we should go in. 

For years we have been groomed to *think* we know what people on welfare look like.  Let me tell you something personal about me:  If you could look into the computer right now, you would see a widow, with 3 children whose husband proudly served our country and died in the war.  You would see that same widow with her food stamp card.  I still have it because we could not make ends meet even while my husband was enlisted in the United States Military.  Many, many lower ranked service persons are forced to receive public assistance, because Uncle Sam is too cheap to pay them a decent living wage.

I had to provide my valid US Birth Certificate, Passport, SS Card, Drivers License, and 3 months of bank statements, as well as 2 years of taxes and W2 forms from the IRS. I had to provide my husbands service information, immunization records for all of our children, and attendance records for the ones that are in school and  provide my pay check stubs (yes I worked too) in order to receive food stamps.   Without those food stamps, I would not have been able to make ends meet many times.  I no longer need the assistance, but thankfully I paid my taxes along with millions of other working families so I could get help when I needed it.

I guess my point is this:  It goes further than drug use and drug testing.  Many states (including California) already require a convicted drug user to be drug tested before getting public assistance.  They require proof of court documents about any diversion programs attended or rehabilitation they went though.  I guess this is just a personal subject for me.  It was humiliating enough to need and then seek the help without having to "pee in a cup" to get it.

DolceSpirtis,

I would really like to see a demographic study done on who receives public assistance of any kind.  I wonder what the ratio of those truly in need versus those looking for a hand out really is.  I would like to see how many undocumented immigrants, elderly, disabled, and children are receiving public assistance.  To me that would speak volumes in the direction we should go in.

It would be kind of hard to provide these type statistics based on the premise given. For one, in order to receive public assistance, there has to be a verified need to qualify and qualification is in accordance to public assistance guidelines. Realistically individuals is not going to disclose whether assistance is needed or they're just looking for an handout and currently there's not any way to determine this when they apply. Speculate maybe? How is it possible for undocumented immigrants to receive welfare when they don't have the proper documents to apply for this in the first place? Lastly, children don't receive welfare; their parents do and there might be fewer in the system if we can get a hold of some of these deadbeat parents...ducking and dodging child support responsibilties.

This site, Poverty and Welfare: Government Documents Section, http://guides.library.fullerton.edu/govstats/poverty&welfare.htm, might offer responses to some questions you asked.

Actually children of illegal immigrants can receive welfare assistance.  The children, if born on American soil are American citizens, and therefore are eligible. 

Just because someone is an illegal immigrant does not mean they cannot work in this country.  Many, many do, and illegally too.  Many can purchase the necessary documents from a street corner. I know it is not right, and I know it is breaking the law, yet it still happens.  Many who work illegally also pay Social Security and Federal Income Taxes.  They just don't pay it legally and they can't possibly collect the benefits from those taxes when they retire or become disabled.

There are ways around every system.  Fraud, waste and abuse are nothing new to any government enterprise.

Actually, illegal immigrants can receive welfare and you're correct; illegal immigrants can work in the US and usually on jobs Americans don't want or dare to apply for. The following are some interesting statistics:

As they debate legalization for illegal immigrants, Senators would do well to keep in mind the most recent data on welfare use by the people in question. According to the Department of Homeland Security, nearly 60% of illegal aliens are from Mexico and 80% of the total are from Latin America as a whole. A Center for Immigration Studies analysis of 2006 Census Bureau data, which includes legal and illegal immigrants, shows use of welfare by households headed by Mexican and Latin American immigrants is more than double that of native households. Among the findings

• 51% of all Mexican immigrant households use at least one major welfare program and 28% use more than one program.
  – 40% use food assistance, 35% use Medicaid, 6% use cash assistance.

• 45% of all Latin American immigrant households use at least one welfare program and 24% use more than one program.
  – 32% use food assistance, 31% use Medicaid, 6% use cash assistance.

• 20% of native households use at least one welfare program and 11% multiple programs.
  – 11% use food assistance, 15% use Medicaid, 5% use cash assistance.

• Among Mexican and Latin American households, welfare use is somewhat higher for households headed by legal, as opposed to illegal, immigrants. Thus legalization will likely increase welfare costs still further.

•  90% of Mexican and Latin American households have at least one worker. Their heavy welfare use reflects their low education levels and resulting low incomes – and not an unwillingness work.
  – 61% of all Mexican immigrants have not graduated high school.

  – 48% of all Latin American immigrants have not graduated high school.

• It is the presence of their U.S.-born children coupled with their low education levels that explains why so many immigrant households use the welfare system

• There is a common but mistaken belief that welfare programs are only for those who don’t work. Actually, the welfare system is designed to provide low-wage workers, or more often their children, things like food assistance and health care.

• It is the presence of their U.S.-born children coupled with their low education levels that explains why so many immigrant households use the welfare system.

More statistics can be found at Center for Immigration Studies, http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/welfarerelease.html

Oh boy there's fodder for a whole new debate! Let's skip the drug testing and require at least one person to be legal for a minor to get benefits. That would save a huge amount for us all right there and we could afford to just keep supporting all of the professional welfare recipients.

Justme,

When I read these statistics and other ones provided on the site provided in the response the only thing I can say is "Wow" and it goes to show how little many of us really know when it comes to the welfare system. I don't want to be too judgmental, because I am a firm believer that one never knows their fate and where life might lead them, but statistics are unbelievable.

Great discussion here.  Dolce, my heart breaks every time I hear your story.  My thanks and condolences are just pitiful in reply.  I'm proud to be your friend, girl.

Over the holidays, I hope to finish a book I've been trying to get to for months now, Make a Difference by Gary MacDougal.  If I remember correctly, he focuses on streamlining public services, making them more efficient and more accessible to qualified recipients -- a win-win, so to speak. Right now, I am just one more outsider with an opinion.  But, maybe I'll find more answers there.  :)

It stands to reason that greater use of technology and integration of some government records should be able to address some of the eligibility hurdles.  As far as drug use goes,  I do think some sort of random system might pass a constitutional test.  Random testing is allowed, even required, in some industries.  But, I hear you on the humiliation factor...perhaps some employees who are subject to these tests are also humiliated.  It's complicated!

AnnForTruth - those statistics don't include the ones like my sister who are now part of the social security disability group thanks to their helpful welfare caseworkers who helped them get s.s. to make up for getting booted from welfare.

Justme,

Excuse me for leaving your situation out... I'll have to research some more. Educating ourselves is the only way....

Justme - there will always be abuses and persons within the system willing to help those abusers along. people are people, good and bad. having said that, it is at the caseworker's discretion in most states to require drug testing if they have reason to suspect substance abuse as a contributing factor.

Most definitely.  The money it would cost to conduct the drug test would easily be paid for from the people that failed the drug test.

Yes I agree they should. If they got money for drugs, they shouldn't be getting assistance like food stamps and wellfare. That is last resort programs for those in desperate need, not for people to be on, smoke drugs, and not look for jobs, or get jobs, because they will fail all the unemployment tests. This probably will actually save the system a lot of money. Furthermore... only citizens should have the right to these programs and NOT Illegals. They after all Illegal, which makes them criminals. This will also save the system a lot of money. Face it, its you and me (the taxpayers) who foot the bill.

My sister's caseworker actually told her and her husband it's OK to smoke pot! Maybe it's just Ohio with a serious lack of brains?

Good point about the inaccuracy of the tests though. That would have to be dealt with first for sure. It would be wrong to penalize the honest people getting a hand up and not a hand out.

Dennis,

If they have money to buy drugs ? They have money to stop taking hand out.

Handouts in most cases is how they get the money to purchase drugs. When they don't receive handouts or handouts are all spent up, some find other means to get money for drugs, like stealing and robbing, breaking in people homes selling of their items. I remember years ago people were even selling their innocent children to grown folks for crack, and I can't say with any certainty that some people still do this. Do you remember this? But I'm afraid Dennis and friend, these are some of the misfortunes society will inherit more so than we do now if individuals do not receive any financial help. This isn't to suggest it is fair or the system don't require modification so it'll work more productively.

Yes.

You do remember dkaz? This is unfortunate, but we have to weigh what is beneficial vs. the opposite...look at the bigger picture and not just individual or specific flaws in it, because collectively they impact on the overall/bottom line picture, and refrain from injecting personal feelings, because these most times interfere with professional decision making and outcomes aren't so nice at times when we do.  Albeit, something needs to be done...repairs need to made...or the system replaced all together... so it can work more productively/effectively and for purposes intended as I often say or write in comparable situations.

Ann,

My "yes" was for the drug testing. I do think welfare recipients should be tested for drugs like everyone else. There's no harm in it unless you're a drug user.

But putting that comment aside, I've got a question for you.

Aside from this, most states mandate that individuals work in an organization for their benefits e.g. the welfare and sanitation department, with the exception of the Jewish community, who receive benefits but do not have to work for them.

Why does the Jewish community not have to work for the benefits they receive?

Just curious. Thanks.

dkaz,

Thanks for responding. Unfortunately, I can't answer the question as to why individuals in the Jewish community don't work in the welfare work program for benefits when other ethnic groups are required to do so. I only know they don't in New York City and perhaps in other states and cities as well. Albeit, I have heard many arguments pertaining to  "why", but these aren't my arguments. Therefore, I won't provide any of them and inject irrelevancies into this forum and possibly instigate trouble and hurt feelings to others. In most cases and for some reason, when they enter the welfare office, regardless of what time, caseworkers see them immediately even though others waited for hours before they did. I simply do not know the reason why, though some often ask why do they receive this "special treatment?" But you know, this topic is for another forum.  Maybe someone will write an article and answers to the whys might be found there. I am not touching it, not because I am afraid, but because I am not informed enough to do so. Basically, I was only sharing information on how the welfare system generally operates in NYC, which is something I am well informed about.  Thanks again.

Ann,

Thanks for your honest input. You showed a lot of class by not putting out "here-say".

I would enjoy reading an article on the subject. There could be a very good reason as to why this is allowed. And then again..................

Happy Holidays to you and yours.

dkaz,

Thanks for being understanding dkaz. I doubt if you feel this way by yourself (about answers to the whys). and Happy Holidays to you and your family also.

Dennis,

system don't require modification so it'll work more productively.

If the above is taken from a response I posted, correction: system does require modification so it'll work more productively. Thanks for pointing this out.

As far as people selling their children to grown folks for drugs, you caught on to what I was expressing without me having to spell it out...Individuals who know this it true would be able to like you did.

If the tax payer is having to pass drug screens to keep there job then it only makes since that those who are living off the tax payer should have the same parameters.

The other reason should be that if they are recieving assistance they should be looking for gainful employment and if they are refused a job due to drug use and that keeps them on assistance then that makes absolutley no sense whatsoever.

It should be a law.

Ranger feel free to contact your representatives and senators and ask them to seek a Constitutional Amendment that would permit such a test, short of that it will never happen.

PowerIsKnowledge,

What if people on medication, who's ill, mentally or physically, were excluded, how would you then feel about urine testing?

What does individuals on medication suffering with some type mental or physical illness have to do with urine testing to receive welfare stipends or exclusion from the welfare program? Mental and physical illnesses is broadly defined and definitely not always a result of illegal drug use. Now are you referring to individuals required to use medications as a result of some type physical and mental illness and become addicted to them? Because if you're referring to this, drug testing would show medications aren't, for example, heroin or marijuana, and possibly prescribed or over-the-counter drugs instead, which are legal.

PowerIsKnowledge,

You're a friend, but I need to provide one more point. Some individuals and perhaps you too, seem to blame and criticize those receiving Section 8 and welfare payments and are on drugs and not the individuals who created these systems that enables them to do so, which is disturbing. Although the following point and question is not directly related, it is relevant. Do you recall when families were issued SSI if their child(ren) suffered learning disabilities or showed behaviors thus causing them the inability to learn at "normal levels" and some parents started encouraging their children to go to school and misbehave just so they can collect SSI? Basically, the implication is sometimes, if not all times, these type systems are implemented without individuals responsible for executing them thinking them thoroughly and because they don't want to acknowledge their mistakes, the finger pointing or passing the buck, begins.

Fair enough PowerIsKnowledge. I'll get back to you with a response before the day ends.

In response to stevemax (forgive me if this has already been addressed), one of the biggest reasons for work site drug testing is not so much productivity.  It's a defense against litigation for product failure, on the job injuries, and liability of all sorts.

PowerIsKnowledge:

If those without medical conditions would be tested to make sure they are not using drugs then would it not stand to reason that someone diagnosed with a mental illness and on medication should be tested to make sure they are on their meds?  One of the biggest problems with mental illness is once someone is stabilized on medications they grow complacent and don't see the need for the medications to be continued (part of the illness) thus going off the meds and crashing. 

This leads us back to the question - should those on public assistance be urine tested?  And if so who will oversee the testing.  If we are going to test those on medications for compliance then medical records will need to be made available to public offices.

AMEN!

PowerIsKnowledge,

Ann, please read all of my comments then tell me if you still feel the same.

I reread your opening statement and several responses. Basically you don't mind helping others out, but don't like to be subjected to passing a drug test to sustain employment to earn a paycheck when people on welfare aren't required to do the same to sustain government financial assistance. Welfare recipients, particularly drug users/abusers should be required to do the same since taxpayers pay into the welfare system. By your standards, taxpayers should have a say and should not be obligated to pay for anyone's drug habits or for able people who just simply want to sit back and collect without earning it.

I am not exactly sure about the following, but if welfare applicants/recipients are drug tested and denied benefits if findings were positive, would this impact on the amount of taxes the government can take from taxpaying employees to allocate into the welfare system? If so, is it possible this is the reason individuals aren't tested, because it would not benefit the government? There has to be a reason it isn't a mandate,  even if it is only a means for damage-control, meaning  it sort of cuts down on drug users becoming more menacing to society as a whole e.g. crime. If they are forced to do so based on speculation and without this being a mandate, it is a violation of their amendment rights. I don't know.

I can't claim the following is applicable in all states, but in New York State, on the public assistance application, individuals have to mark whether or not they were ever convicted of a drug related crime. If the answer is yes, they are enrolled in a program and must attend it in order to receive benefits. But this does not account for those who are drug users that don't have any drug-related convictions. If applicants or anyone listed on the applications when applying has any warrants, applications are denied also. Anyone over 18 years old is fingerprinted and social security numbers are ran through the system.  Thanks....

You're a friend, but I need to provide one more point. Some individuals and perhaps you too, seem to blame and criticize those receiving Section 8 and welfare payments and are on drugs and not the individuals who created these systems that enables them to do so, which is disturbing. Although the following point and question is not directly related, it is relevant. Do you recall when families were issued SSI if their child(ren) suffered learning disabilities or showed behaviors thus causing them the inability to learn at "normal levels" and some parents started encouraging their children to go to school and misbehave just so they can collect SSI? Basically, the implication is sometimes, if not all times, these type systems are implemented without individuals responsible for executing them thinking them thoroughly and because they don't want to acknowledge their mistakes, the finger pointing or passing the buck, begins.

Your scenerio is incorrect............this would be a problem within the industry of providers. Test their urine.  They are recieving the check that their employers sign thinking that they have done the job of facilitating a "program".  It is not a program and thus can not be facilitated as a parent or recipient is.

We are not programed.  WE are not employees.  The industry word for us is "participant."

It is referred to as "voluntary", however that is a contradiction in terms for the provision of services.  And works to the advantage of the state.

Why though? You just don't like it? What if someone hit you in an intersection and drove off, leaving you a quadrapulegic for the rest of your life, but the traffic camera caught the guy who did it on tape. Is it worth that man's loss of privacy to bring him to justice? Apparently, you think not.

ghost, thats why we have no fault insurance.  You get into an accident the insurer has got to pay.  No cameras required.

ghostcoon - go back and read 1984.  It has not happened yet -but well on the way - maybe they should re-title the book 2084! 

and what dates where you on welfare PIk?

general assistance was vastly used by men who had found themselves ousted from manufacturing jobs when service industry took over, who was president.............?

according to "them"?  the 'case' workers?  you went about this wrong.  wrong question, became a distraction and a venue for haters and judgers.  Maybe you internalized some of the lousey treatment you ahve recieved as well.