The bill would require all applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to complete a written screening test for possible drug abuse problems. Those later failing a drug test would have to seek treatment to continue receiving benefit payments.I initially misread that as saying the bill would require welfare recipients to take a written drug screening.
Are you doing drugs? Circle one: Y NIt says a great deal about the current state of our nation that I did not find this notion implausible.
This is one of those laws that throws me into a quandary. While I think the War on (Some) Drugs is doing grievous damage to our Second, Fourth, Fifth... heck, about the only thing they haven't done is force you to let dope cops sleep in your guest bedroom, so your Third Amendment rights are still good... I also think that the rise of the welfare state has bred a dependent class, a perpetual underclass that votes for a living and works the urban suffrage plantations for the ultimate benefit of political masters, and has turned poor urban neighborhoods into human zoos.
So, yeah, I guess if you take the king's shilling, you can't bitch if he makes you pee in a cup.
The only reason I am okay(heck, not just okay, actually supportive of it) is that every job I have ever had had periodic(and even some random when I was in the Navy) drug testing as part of the employment requirements. If this was something we made up JUST for welfare...I could see some protest, but I believe that more people have to deal with this as part of their normal jobs than not.
ReplyDeleteIf you take the king's shilling, you shouldn't be voting for king.
ReplyDeleteWe used to understand this.
I'm actually OK with this, but I think that goes for EVERYONE who takes the kings shilling.
ReplyDeleteThis includes legislators, aides, bureaucracy etc...
My only concern is the cost savings, or lack thereof. Though Florida's law was stopped by a Federal Appeals court, what really caught my attention was this from the Miami Herald (immediately suspect)
ReplyDeletehttp://is.gd/MA2q9q
"Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.
The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.
The state’s net loss? $45,780.
"That’s not counting attorneys and court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy," Newton said."
The data includes the cost savings from canceling TANF benefits, but I think that number has to be an estimate since they cannot know for certain how long those testing positive would receive benefits.
The financial aspect causes me to pause, especially when the most common drug was canabis.
But...but...but... What about the children!?
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn't they get pubic assistance because their parents have become addicted to drugs?
I've got a crisp hundred dollar bill that says this phrase is uttered in hearings for the law.
I object on privacy grounds. Taking the king's shilling is not cause for suspension of individual rights. The problem is not the privacy, though, it's the shilling part. WTF is the Federal Government doing in the business of charity in the first place? But you said that, if not in so many words.
ReplyDeleteI happen to think that We the (Little) People need to get a lot more uppity about privacy issues. But I'm odd that way.
M
"Are you doing drugs? Circle one: Y N"
ReplyDeleteIsn't that on the federal yellow form when you buy a new gun?
Mark Alger,
ReplyDelete"I object on privacy grounds."
Me, too.
And I approve on the grounds that, since we won't end the welfare state altogether, anything that moves people off the welfare rolls is, on balance, a good thing.
Hence the quandary.
"I object on privacy grounds. Taking the king's shilling is not cause for suspension of individual rights."
ReplyDeleteDisagree! I think begging at the teat should require full suspension of citizenship. Start with voting, as others have mentioned.
Anon @9:33, the sheets aren't yellow any more but a question similar to that is still on the 4473.
ReplyDeleteSlippery slopes are slippery.
ReplyDeleteThe worst is for those of us who provide the king's shillings. Not those of us, who use them. Forcible charity works well in this country, no wonder we have problems with other forced crimes. I have digressed, already.
Where I wanted to go with this is...If I provide the king's shillings, but the king asks me to take a drug test, or removes my rights as a citizen for using legally prescribed drugs (i.e., the confiscation of legally owned firearms, of those who were prescribed anti-depression meds in NY), where and when do we, the providers start to say no?
Apparently, the teet sucklers get free phones, televisions, full medical care, food, and even drugs, given that we're pretty lousy at actually ya know, enforcing laws. But those of us providing the teet to suckle are left holding the bag.
I'm really about done with this ride, I might like to get off of it soon.
-Rob
@Anonymous;
ReplyDeleteDisagree backatcha. There is no such thing as a compelling public interest that requires the infringement of individual rights.
The fault lies not with the individual, but with the public. The state has no business engaging in charity in the first place. Not to put too fine a point on it -- but the Constitution DOES say (if not in so many words) that, if it's not mandatory, it's forbidden) -- it's unlawful behavior.
And I would argue that the affront to liberty is FAR more damaging to We the (Little) People than any marginal fraud. Espec since, as (another?) Anonymous above pointed out, it would seem the costs outweigh the benefits.
The privacy rights concern ought to be paramount and absolute, and if the state can't figure out a way to make the two comport with one another, then the state should cease the offending activity (i.e., charity) forthwith.
But, as I say, I'm odd that way.
M
No, I think thats my point. Accepting welfare is not required, and should be dis-incentivized.
ReplyDeleteBeg at a local private organization, church, whatever. Live under a bridge. But if you'd like to be cared for by the state, offer (volunteer) your citizenship in exchange for the largesse.
To use a current argument seen at the Federal level on the concept of gun control promoting the perception of safety despite being a infringement of a civil right, what if a vast majority of citizens feel that deprivation of civil liberties like peeing in a cup in exchange for taxpayer-funded support is appropriate?
ReplyDeleteAre the majority really justified in demanding deprivation of civil rights in exchange for anything?
Mark et al,
ReplyDeleteI hear ya. I really hear ya.
The problem is, that as long as those who take the king's shilling are allowed to vote, we will not vote our way out of the hole we've voted ourselves into. We've lost those hearts and minds; they'd rather have bread and circuses than stand up for their right to be free.
Which is fine, too. Just messier cleaning it up when voting no longer works.
If I could make one change to the Federal constitution, it would be that anyone who receives any funds from the federal government, be it welfare or wages, would lose the right to vote until 5 or 6 years after their last payment from the government.
ReplyDelete@Rob K That would basically be everyone in the country.
ReplyDeleteI work for a public university, but have the bulk of my salary paid by private donors and tuition money. Should I have my right to vote removed?
How about a road construction contractor that gets the big highway expansion project contract from .DOT?
Insurance agents who sell policies to people who get paid by the government?
How about employees of Glock? Most of their money comes from LEO sales. LEOs are representatives of your local government. You say, "Well RevolverRob, I said .Fed money." But the last LEOs hired in my town, were hired because .Fed kicked some money to the Local.Gov to increase the number of cops on the street. So, if I work for Glock and my wages were earned, when another person deposited their wages, which were partially paid for by Fed.Gov, should my right to vote be revoked?
SLIPPERY SLOPE. No thank you. I am kinda, sorta, maybe, not really when I think too much about it, okay with removing the right to vote, for people receiving welfare. Because we cut checks to those people every month.
But, I have seen and know a lot of hard working people, that work for .Gov at any level, who are level headed and don't view their paycheck as their entitlement.
-Rob
@Ed
ReplyDelete> Are the majority really justified in demanding deprivation of civil rights in exchange for anything?
I don't see the parallel between gun "control" and cash (or EBT) dole. In the former case folks who think they know better than you want to restrict your behavior/activity because they think you might do something bad. It's essentially a presumption of guilt and pre-emptive punishment. You are not taking anything away from the public, quite the opposite. In the case of cash transfers, something of value is being taken away from the rest of us and handed out to other people.* If we as the donors, willing or not, require that the recipients adhere to some particular standard, that MAY be reasonable. As with messy real life, as opposed to say an Ayn Rand novel, the answer is "it depends."
* And don't get me started on what (some) people buy at the grocery store with their EBT assistance cards. A cart full of more red meat (and not the ground-up stuff) than I (can afford) to eat in three months. The spouse reports being behind a woman who bought half a dozen lobsters. Sure, lobster is not such a big deal here in New England, but still.
In Utah, we use the SASSI to screen for a high or low probability of substance abuse disorder. Those who score high are then reviewed to eliminate any false positives (didn't properly understand the questions. Happens a lot with refugees).
ReplyDeleteThe test does not screen for use, just probability of substance abuse disorder. Unfortunately, it's not a very good measurement tool.
Meh.
ReplyDeleteTPTB will define "seek treatment" as "look up phone number of substance abuse hotline in phone book; actually dialing it, optional". (Kind of like that "Virtual Border Fence": guess whose multimillion$$ cameras turned up on e-Bay this month?)
When they change the line to "Complete treatment, and test drug-free for 26 consecutive weekly tests, to reinstate benefits" they're actually serious, let alone sane.
By definition, if you have the disposable income handy for meth/weed/crack/cans of paint, you don't rate any money from the public dole to support your recreational pursuits. I don't mind supplying state-financed room and board at the Graybar for those who sell drugs; but subsidizing those who buy them too is asking a bit much, outside of D.C., Boston, or San Francisco.
I would also point out the real reason behind the Third Amendment:
ReplyDeletehttp://street-pharmacy.blogspot.com/2010/10/third-amendment.html
You didn't misread. The bill really does require a written questionnaire. The answers are predictors of drug use.
ReplyDelete