Leonard Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Finally it is going to start happening.... Missouri will start testing for all illegal drugs for the people who apply for Goverment assistance... this includes all welfare.. Food stamps.. WIC... Medicad.... TANF.... ect!! AWESOME!!! Im sure more state will follow... http://www.taneycomonights.com
awhuber Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Finally it is going to start happening.... Missouri will start testing for all illegal drugs for the people who apply for Goverment assistance... this includes all welfare.. Food stamps.. WIC... Medicad.... TANF.... ect!! AWESOME!!! Im sure more state will follow... Sorry thats not what the new law says. For folks on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, If a case worker supects drug use they can order a drug test. IF said person is dirty they lose benefits for 3 yrs. The case workers did not want this law. A law that would have tested everyone would have worked.
Jack Jones Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 While this seems good on the surface, it opens a whole can of worms. Assuming a party tests positive, are the benefits workers now required to inform the Children's Division to investigate? If they test positive and lose benefits for several years, who will provide for the children? If the party has a drug problem, they obviously cannot apply for several jobs, and may have other issues that need to be dealt with as well. TANF benefits are to assist children mostly. There is no empirical data, or current research that shows in any way approaching conclusiveness that a party who is either an occasional substance user, or even an addict, is using their TANF benefits for the purchase of illegal drugs. In short, it's just another piece of feel good legislation that does little to address the underlying issues and actually creates more problems than it is intended to solve. The reason people either begin, or continue to use substances are myriad and not easily pigeon-holed. Overall, it would be best to move away from the punishment/control approach to treating this matter as a public health concern and providing parties with help. That's my 2 cents. "Thanks to Mother Mercy, Thanks to Brother Wine, Another night is over and we're walking down the line" - David Mallett
Flysmallie Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 If they test positive and lose benefits for several years, who will provide for the children? So if I test positive and lose my job who is going to provide for my children? And yes if they test positive someone should be checking on their kids. That's only a problem to the offenders. How about we make sure these kids are getting the care that they need. A parent on meth and welfare isn't providing that. Just remember most of us have to pass a drug test to be able to work and pay the taxes that funds these programs. Why should they be any different. I know there are some people out there that need some real help, but we can't get them that help unless we know there is a problem. But at the same time there are some real pieces of crap out there that are going to continue to sit on their butt and do nothing. Probably because they can't (won't) get a job because they can't pass a drug test. I have no sympathy for them. Â Â
eric1978 Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 So if I test positive and lose my job who is going to provide for my children? And yes if they test positive someone should be checking on their kids. That's only a problem to the offenders. How about we make sure these kids are getting the care that they need. A parent on meth and welfare isn't providing that. Exactly...we're already paying for the whole family. Might as well give the parents a little incentive to clean up. If the kids end up with CPS and the parents end up in state-run rehab, it wouldn't cost us much more anyway and it'd be better for all of them. Maybe we can help a few of the kids avoid becoming the next generation of losers, which they inevitably will with junkie parents. I think it's a great idea. Hope it works the way it could.
gotmuddy Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I think it is a step in the right direction, and hopefully the case workers will use good judgement. Jack, you must not have ever met a drug addict. drug addicts will use whatever money is available to them to get their drugs. there doesn't need to be a study. everything in this post is purely opinion and is said to annoy you.
Jack Jones Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I know I come off as one of those bleeding hearts....and maybe I am to an extent. As far as meeting drug addicts, trust me, if you knew what I did for a living (which I'm not going to reveal) I run into plenty of them daily and its an issue I end up having to address with them. I agree that many addicts will use any amount of money that they have, but not all. Further, that doesn't reflect the person who may have just used something at a party or who is otherwise responsible but uses recreationally (yes, responsible people sometimes enjoy illegal drugs). Those are the ones I fear for. Any time you give the government the authority to involve themselves more and more into people's lives without a solid toolbox of solutions and grounding in the overall mission that is sought to be accomplished, you're asking for trouble. Which is what I think this is. I agree that people who are drug addicts shouldn't be drawing benefits to the extent that their drug problem interferes with their ability to advance towards responsibility and self-sufficiency. I just think that it's a bit more complicated than it appears and this is a rather blunt tool being used where a scalpel is needed. A holistic approach is really what would be most effective. Unfortunately, that takes time and money which most of us aren't willing to spend (myself included sometimes). People at the economic level this is geared towards don't always work jobs requiring drug tests, so that MAY be a non-issue for them before this. And if you do test positive and lose your job, yes, the taxpayers will eventually pay for your kids, especially if your wife leaves you and goes on benefits. It's just the roundabout way. To give you an idea of how this functions in practice just look at the states that legalized marijuana for medical purposes. In those state's someone can be taking legal, doctor prescribed marijuana, and be terminated from employment for following their doctors orders, and failing a drug test. Not so black and white, is it? Okay....I'm done on this issue, LOL. Although we may all disagree, it's nice that we can do so respectfully. Now back to fishing!!!!!!! "Thanks to Mother Mercy, Thanks to Brother Wine, Another night is over and we're walking down the line" - David Mallett
eric1978 Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I know I come off as one of those bleeding hearts....and maybe I am to an extent. I'm a confirmed bleeding heart, and that's why I think if we're going to be throwing money at these people, it should be in an effort to help them fix their lives, not to support their drug habits. The marijuana issue should be separate from this one. Aside from being a waste of money, it poses no threat to society, even in the context of this new law...how much weed can one welfare recipient smoke in a week? Wait, forget that question. LOL
gotmuddy Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I'm a confirmed bleeding heart, and that's why I think if we're going to be throwing money at these people, it should be in an effort to help them fix their lives, not to support their drug habits. The marijuana issue should be separate from this one. Aside from being a waste of money, it poses no threat to society, even in the context of this new law...how much weed can one welfare recipient smoke in a week? Wait, forget that question. LOL I agree 100%. Potheads arent the problem here, people using heavy stuff like crack and meth and even worse stuff are. everything in this post is purely opinion and is said to annoy you.
David Unnerstall Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Isn't this more government interventionism? And isn't this going to make for bigger government? And what ABOUT the poor SOB who is a responsible occasional drug user?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now