drug testing welfare recipients

londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
WeedFreak78

WeedFreak78

Well-Known Member
Mandatory drug testing =population control. Seeing how most drugs/alcohol are out of your system in about 48hrs..other than our favorite-:weed:, it's no wonder they found next to nothing..even though i find the 3 count way low..but IDK. The people who make these regulations know this, they know it's not going to be effective in the manner they are saying it will be.

I read they want to link gun control measures to certain entitlement programs. The thinking is if you aren't able to control your life situation, you aren't competent enough to own a gun..:roll::dunce:
 
sunni

sunni

Administrator
Staff member
not sure how it works in america but in ontario you get a case worker when you recieve welfare, they require you to see them once a month or more, to help you with employment packages,etc they are registered social workers too so they would know if someone is ON drugs

now i think drug testing only specific people who are "assumed" to be using would be a good idea, so that they can reicieve proper help to stop
i know for a fact my neighbors on welfare and they are hardcore heroin addicts as they go to the methadone clinic all the time

I dont particularly think its fair for people to live off welfare, and use drugs, and have no sense of productivity towards anyway in society,
but i also think welfare helps A LOT of people who suddenly loose a job, or whatever to help them at least make bills/have food until they find another job
therefore all in all im okay with my taxes going towards Ontario Works (we dont call it welfare here anymore) and i think its sad that they cut alot of funding from it like the start up help, or clothing help.

Everyone deserves the right to maintain shelter , food and basic housing of course the few bad apples ruin it for a lot of people
 
G

GrowUrOwnDank

Well-Known Member
Welfare has a purpose. I mean, without it being available, peeps would be out on the streets in droves, breaking into houses and cars, robbing regular ole common folks like me and you for a few bucks. Pan handling everywhere, getting arrested just to have a place to sleep and a meal, getting arrested for crimes against us and packing all the jail houses full using up our tax $$s to keep the lights on. And of course providing jobs thru guards and support personnel, prosecutors and clerks and all other support personnel to the legal system and in the private sector to defend them, police, etc, etc, etc. Just think if you shut down that whole ecosystem. Even more people out of work, a helluva lot of people. Even more mayhem nationwide and coming to a city near you?

Welfare contains the uprising. Most of us are not 1%ers who can afford to isolate ourselves from all of us common folks from the other common folks who don't or can't work. The 1%ers can build fortresses in gated communities away from US, the general pop and hire security personnel to keep out us. The rest of us can't afford that safe lifestyle. And we don't have the resources to defend our selves from us common folk. ESPECIALLY if a real uprising should occur. Just ask the terrified residents in places like Baltimore. Yeah. They prolly can't afford to move out of that either. Too few good jobs.

So yeah, we are pro welfare. Pro food stamps. Pro WIC and free housing. What other choice do we have? Unless you are on the fast track to becoming a 1%er. Think about it. Do YOU have a realistic solution? What? How about we just give everybody money like Greece does. That works doesn't it? Or does it?

I dunno. Just felt like rambling this morn. Back to our regularly scheduled programming. :hump:

Edit. And after writing all that jibberish above I go and read the news and the headline story is yet another theatre shooting. This time in Lafette LA. <SMH> I'm going to go hide in a closet now with a steak knife. Let me know when the all clear is given. Thanks a million. Or a few billion if you're a 1%er.
 
Last edited:
MoMoGrows

MoMoGrows

Well-Known Member
Fuck yea test the welfare folk, randomly. It pisses me off when I walk into the welfare office and the tweak head is getting 800food/500cash. You can clearly tell she a tweak head and her four babies running around are dirty as fuck. I go in there dressed halfway nice, educated, disabled, married with baby on the way, pay child support to the ex, working part time and my take home pay is 1100 dollars a month and they say I make too much money and give me 100 in food stamps. That tweaker sells half her stamps for more dope and her kids live off of wic, free school lunches and ramen.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
arizona just spent 5 years drug testing 142,000 welfare recipients.

they found 3 positives.

savings to state on welfare: $3500

cost to state for testing: ~$200,000

net loss: dignity, constitutional rights, and about $200,000

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/arizonas-welfare-drug-testing-screened-140000-and-found-3-positive-cases/

WOOOOOOOOPS.
Click to expand...

and just one more thing for those of you who follow SNAP recipients around the grocery store:

Junk Food” & Luxury Items
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.

  • Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
  • Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items:lol:
Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome. Further detailed information about the challenges of restricting the use of SNAP benefits can be found here:

Report -- Implications of Restricting the use of Food Stamp Benefits

Energy Drinks
When considering the eligibility of energy drinks, and other branded products, the primary determinant is the type of product label chosen by the manufacturer to conform to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines:

  • Energy drinks that have a nutrition facts label are eligible foods
  • Energy drinks that have a supplement facts label are classified by the FDA as supplements, and are therefore not eligible
Live Animals
Generally live animals and birds are not eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits. Live fish such as lobsters and other shellfish may be purchased with SNAP benefits.

Pumpkins, Holiday Gift Baskets, and Special Occasion Cakes
Pumpkins are edible and eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits. However, inedible gourds and pumpkins that are used solely for ornamental purposes are not eligible items.

Gift baskets that contain both food and non-food items, are not eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits if the value of the non-food items exceeds 50 percent of the purchase price. To read our most recent notice about Gift Baskets, click here.

Items such as birthday and other special occasion cakes are eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits as long as the value of non-edible decorations does not exceed 50 percent of the purchase price of the cake.
 
racerboy71

racerboy71

bud bootlegger
i think that drug testing welfare recipients is kind of retarded, but the title of the thread is a bit misleading, and false.. if you follow the hyper link in the original link, it breaks it down pretty good..

In the five and a half years since Arizona began the drug tests for adults receiving funds from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the state’s welfare program, 26 people have lost benefits due to the drug tests, three of whom for actually failing the drug test, according to figures provided by the Arizona Department of Economic Security, which administers the program.


When applying for TANF benefits, 42 people have been asked to take a follow-up drug test and 19 actually took the test, 16 of whom passed. The other 23 were stripped of their benefits for failing to take the drug test.

The reason so few people must take the test is because reasonable cause is needed, said Nicole Moon, a public information officer for DES. When someone is approved to receive welfare benefits in Arizona, that person is screened by being given a three-question form, which asks if the recipient has used any illegal drugs in the past 30 days. If the applicant answers yes, then a drug test is required



so of all the people stupid enough to admit to using drugs, as they were the only ones given a test, 23 people were actually removed from the benefits, not three, and again, it's not a huge number, but out of 42 people tested, 23 were stripped, that's over 50% by my maths..

hyper link here... http://www.svherald.com/content/submitted/2015/03/07/394585
 
theexpress

theexpress

Well-Known Member
racerboy71 said:
i think that drug testing welfare recipients is kind of retarded, but the title of the thread is a bit misleading, and false.. if you follow the hyper link in the original link, it breaks it down pretty good..

In the five and a half years since Arizona began the drug tests for adults receiving funds from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the state’s welfare program, 26 people have lost benefits due to the drug tests, three of whom for actually failing the drug test, according to figures provided by the Arizona Department of Economic Security, which administers the program.


When applying for TANF benefits, 42 people have been asked to take a follow-up drug test and 19 actually took the test, 16 of whom passed. The other 23 were stripped of their benefits for failing to take the drug test.

The reason so few people must take the test is because reasonable cause is needed, said Nicole Moon, a public information officer for DES. When someone is approved to receive welfare benefits in Arizona, that person is screened by being given a three-question form, which asks if the recipient has used any illegal drugs in the past 30 days. If the applicant answers yes, then a drug test is required



so of all the people stupid enough to admit to using drugs, as they were the only ones given a test, 23 people were actually removed from the benefits, not three, and again, it's not a huge number, but out of 42 people tested, 23 were stripped, that's over 50% by my maths..

hyper link here... http://www.svherald.com/content/submitted/2015/03/07/394585
Click to expand...
I see crack heads trade link all day for .50 cents on da dollar.....
 
MoMoGrows

MoMoGrows

Well-Known Member
Food stamp rules definitely need to be changed. The drug testing is good, needs better policies. And the items you can purchase need to be better regulated better. So does my grammar. There should be a limit on junk food, like say 5% of total stamps. There is no reason a food stamp recipient should be FAT. That irritates the crap out of me, especially when the whole family is fat. All that does is create more medical expenses for the state. And energy drinks should be a no-no, but I am admittedly guilty of that; and then always feel like a dumb shit later when I don't have food. Those 8 rock stars could have bought me 120 packets of ramen. I don't eat that crap but just as an example.
 
mo841

mo841

Well-Known Member
GrowUrOwnDank said:
Welfare has a purpose. I mean, without it being available, peeps would be out on the streets in droves, breaking into houses and cars, robbing regular ole common folks like me and you for a few bucks. Pan handling everywhere, getting arrested just to have a place to sleep and a meal, getting arrested for crimes against us and packing all the jail houses full using up our tax $$s to keep the lights on. And of course providing jobs thru guards and support personnel, prosecutors and clerks and all other support personnel to the legal system and in the private sector to defend them, police, etc, etc, etc. Just think if you shut down that whole ecosystem. Even more people out of work, a helluva lot of people. Even more mayhem nationwide and coming to a city near you?

Welfare contains the uprising. Most of us are not 1%ers who can afford to isolate ourselves from all of us common folks from the other common folks who don't or can't work. The 1%ers can build fortresses in gated communities away from US, the general pop and hire security personnel to keep out us. The rest of us can't afford that safe lifestyle. And we don't have the resources to defend our selves from us common folk. ESPECIALLY if a real uprising should occur. Just ask the terrified residents in places like Baltimore. Yeah. They prolly can't afford to move out of that either. Too few good jobs.

So yeah, we are pro welfare. Pro food stamps. Pro WIC and free housing. What other choice do we have? Unless you are on the fast track to becoming a 1%er. Think about it. Do YOU have a realistic solution? What? .
Click to expand...
TRUTH right there. when the recession swept the detroit area, everyone I knew was unemployed(Everyone). the rate of crime shot up as people despirate not to get forclosed ran out of options. as time went on, people got used to figuring out how to get programs to help them and crime seemed to slow down. welfare is a necessity of this society.

alot of ppl that look capable of working have either mental or physical problems preventing them from doing so. you wouldn't know unless you talked to them or got to know them. fuck If your poor, you should get the shit, even if your a drug addict.

I got my associates in social work. there are much worse things to worry about.
 
MoMoGrows

MoMoGrows

Well-Known Member
I don't think the point is to deny drug addicts the right to sustenance. The point is the drug addict is using the cash benefits to buy drugs instead of improving their quality of life and selling their food benefits to buy drugs. And once again drug use leads to more medical expenses that the state has to pay for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top