Food Stamps

[Reverend Rick]

We could solve the equality thing. I would love to see politicians, judges, lawyers, police officers test results.

If we tested everyone, doctors, nurses and other professionals would most likely test hot.

 

[metis]

First off I never said we should just test food stamp folks. Why would you imply that because I stayed on topic and only addressed food stamps?

Secondly, we have 5th generation folks who never worked a day in their lives or paid a penny in income taxes.

Lastly, social security is paid to folks who paid into the system their entire lives and is a little different than welfare or food stamps. The same could be said for unemployment. These systems are tied to previous participation and not need.

A person with a million dollars in the bank qualifies for medicare, social security or unemployment. They earned the right to receive what they get.

Nice bunch of stereotypes there, Rev., but let's deal with the facts, OK?

The vast majority of people on welfare in one year will not be on it the following year under normal economic conditions. Secondly, the regulation of welfare and food stamps is done by the states and not the fed. Thirdly, since the vast majority of welfare recipients and those collecting food stamps did previously have jobs, they too paid into the system.

No, I am not in favor of paying people who could work but are too lazy or irresponsible to get a job, but we shouldn't be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It is up to the states to weed the violators out, and many if not most states, including here in Michigan, are doing just that at least in the welfare area. And undoubtedly most states, including here in Michigan, have limitations as far as what food stamps can legally buy.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

We could solve the equality thing. I would love to see politicians, judges, lawyers, police officers test results.

If we tested everyone, doctors, nurses and other professionals would most likely test hot.

I have in mind a good number of our local and state politicians would test poorly if the tests were administered fairly and accurately.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes, and there are other issues at stake as well. What about the spouse, if any, and children of a family whereas one of the spouses may have a drug problem and are then denied food stamps?

BTW, a recent estimate I just saw last week had it that approximately 6% of food stamp recipients have a drug problem. And another interesting item is that the misuse of legal drugs is more widespread than the use of illegal drugs in the U.S.

It should be treated as any other welfare check on children. The druggy spouse gets arrested, or leaves, for the family to continue to get assistance.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Let me ask this question, how does everyone feel about drug testing folks on assistance? If they can afford drugs why are we giving them food? They could spend their drug money to feed themselves right?

To not do this, is de facto supporting their drug habit.

If they are on drugs, they most likely cannot work anywhere.

I don't want to hear about unfairness, because people get tested all the time at work.

If a person on assistance is found to be on drugs, we get them help but if they don't successfully complete a drug program and get off drugs, we should remove their children and assistance.

I agree with this, and as I said elsewhere, to prevent the rest of the family from losing their needed assistance - it should be treated as a child-welfare check. The druggy parent gets arrested, or leaves.

If the other parent chooses the druggy over the children - take the children, - as children should not have to grow up with that.

Excluding of course - medical marijuana, for REAL health issues. We want them to be able to work, and get back on their feet, if able.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

We could solve the equality thing. I would love to see politicians, judges, lawyers, police officers test results.

If we tested everyone, doctors, nurses and other professionals would most likely test hot.

I have in mind a good number of our local and state politicians would test poorly if the tests were administered fairly and accurately.

LOL! You are right.

Personally, I don't care if politicians smoke a little weed - as long as they get their jobs done.

Doctors, Nurses, Police, Builders, etc, that directly interact with people whom they could kill by their actions, should be routinely tested for alcohol and drugs.

One way to effectively and easily check for alcohol would be to have clock-in rooms for police, doctors and nurses, construction workers, etc, where you blow into the machine before being allowed to work. Perhaps even blowing again on exit - to assure you were not drinking on the job. If you fail - no more job!

We lost a doctor here recently. He was coming to work drunk, and huffing oxygen in an attempt to sober himself up to operate on people!

Was it last year or the year before, when that drugged-up construction worker knocked over that wall onto a Salvation Army Store, destroying it and killing people inside?

Alcoholism and drugs addiction are know problems in police workers, and our military.

*

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let me ask this question, how does everyone feel about drug testing folks on assistance? If they can afford drugs why are we giving them food? They could spend their drug money to feed themselves right?

To not do this, is de facto supporting their drug habit.

If they are on drugs, they most likely cannot work anywhere.

I don't want to hear about unfairness, because people get tested all the time at work.

If a person on assistance is found to be on drugs, we get them help but if they don't successfully complete a drug program and get off drugs, we should remove their children and assistance.[/quote]
It's unconstitutional, as it is the government assuming all welfare applicants/recipients are using drugs, and it is costly and ineffective. To be tested would be to conduct an unwarranted search without probably cause. Most drugs are out of your system within a two-to-three days, and the only one they would have a realistic chance of catching is pot, which is incredibly easy to mask.
And, plenty of people who use drugs work. It's just the ones who are addicted and how are high most of the time and throwing away money to keep getting high that are the ones that usually have a problem, but even then the problems are usually something else that lead to drug use.

 

[metis]

It should be treated as any other welfare check on children. The druggy spouse gets arrested, or leaves, for the family to continue to get assistance.

*

I fully agree.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's unconstitutional, as it is the government assuming all welfare applicants/recipients are using drugs, and it is costly and ineffective. To be tested would be to conduct an unwarranted search without probably cause. Most drugs are out of your system within a two-to-three days, and the only one they would have a realistic chance of catching is pot, which is incredibly easy to mask.
And, plenty of people who use drugs work. It's just the ones who are addicted and how are high most of the time and throwing away money to keep getting high that are the ones that usually have a problem, but even then the problems are usually something else that lead to drug use.

I completely agree here.

 

[s2a]

Let me ask this question, how does everyone feel about drug testing folks on assistance? If they can afford drugs why are we giving them food? They could spend their drug money to feed themselves right?

To not do this, is de facto supporting their drug habit.

If they are on drugs, they most likely cannot work anywhere.

I don't want to hear about unfairness, because people get tested all the time at work.

If a person on assistance is found to be on drugs, we get them help but if they don't successfully complete a drug program and get off drugs, we should remove their children and assistance.

Since you asked))…

.., I would tend to side with others that echo similar parameters for any that request and/or depend upon aid to feed their children.

IF *any* in-state elected officials can be found that also depend upon basic assistance to feed their kids (if they even exist), they deserve to and should submit to equal screening measures.

IF *none* of the above can be found, then I would put forward that ALL elected representative also be subject to not only drug testing, but all dependency issues, including both alcohol and nicotine. Is it unfair of the “everyday Joe” to be informed before casting a ballot if to rest assured that their representative is not hooked on booze, smoking products, or crack (name your own recreational drug of choice)?

We’ll skip the addiction and crazed behavior of political fundraising pleas for now…

Would it be unfair to ask (you know, “trust, but verify&#8221 our own elected politicians to FIRST not only meet, but exceed the very standards they seek to impose upon others that seek to feed their own kids?

You think that will happen, much less seem unfair to request as "fairness" from we simple folk?