Drug Testing Welfare Applicants in Florida failed to save money-study

[Silurian]

Ok how about this.

Do you believe that the people who support drug testing of welfare recipients also think that everyone should be tested for drugs.

And will they also believe that welfare recipients should lose benefits for speeding.

 

[brennan]

I think I do understand, but describing a contempt for the right-wing stance as 'circle jerking' is perhaps to underestimate the seriousness of the outcomes of some current policies:

Remember that the welfare state and it's means and benefactors have been my professional interest for the last five years. What I have seen is appalling abuse of the vulnerable by every system going. It is extremely difficult to get what you are supposed to be eligible for, and far more effort is devoted to taking it away from you than delivering it.

Because of the new rules regarding Jobseeker's Allowance and ESA (the replacement for Incapacity benefit) two of my former colleagues ended up with clients on their caseloads with brain tumours. They were expected, officially, by the state, to 'assist' them in looking for work. In reality 'assist' is better described as 'bully' once it has been filtered through the commercial pressures of providing the Work Programme. for example:

One 'colleague' seemed to take great pleasure in 'sanctioning' all of her clients, i.e. cutting off the benefits they lived off for the pettiest of reasons; this was not considered to be deterimental at all, but was held up as a shining example of how to behave to the rest of us. Management actually believed that this worked as a tactic, being totally oblivious and ignorant of actual studies showing the opposite. This sort of unethical behaviur is why I got the hell out of Dodge recently, I was damned if I was going to do a job that had turned into myself being bullied into bullying other pepole.

I saw a freedom of information report recently that since the new ESA 'fit for work' assessments were intitiated, 32 people, per week, who have been declared 'fit for work' have DIED whilst waiting for their appeals against this decision to come up.

Disabled groups, socialist groups and others have been up in arms about the current changes, not because they are self satisfied ideologues, but because they see a significant number of people dying if a lot of these policy changes go through - something a country as rich as ours, or the US, can clearly avoid but is instead blindly charging into because all the propaganda says that it is those on benefits that are to blame.

So there you have it: drug tesing benefit claimants may not seem a big deal, but it is part of an ongoing propaganda war being waged against the most vulnerable in society, one that is actually killing people.

 

[Mise]

Ok how about this.

Do you believe that the people who support drug testing of welfare recipients also think that everyone should be tested for drugs.

And will they also believe that welfare recipients should lose benefits for speeding.

I'm honoured that my opinion is so highly sought after, but I really don't care enough about those questions to answer them. Suffice to say, there is a perfectly logically consistent set of answers to both of those questions, which I am sure you are capable of forming yourself.

 

[Mise]

@Brennan: At its core, though, you're still just disagreeing on the relative importance of catching cheats vs the efficiency of welfare provision. That the right dresses it up and outright lies about it doesn't really change the fact that the underlying causes for people's beliefs one way or the other are pretty mundane. I'm sure there are some people who literally want poor or disabled people to die, but I don't think that most people would phrase it quite like that. I find it unhelpful and disingenuous not to argue against someone's stated position, but instead claim that they are waging a propaganda war on the most vulnerable of society that is causing people to die, even though I agree with that description of what the Right in the UK and USA are doing.

 

[Silurian]

I'm honoured that my opinion is so highly sought after, but I really don't care enough about those questions to answer them. Suffice to say, there is a perfectly logically consistent set of answers to both of those questions, which I am sure you are capable of forming yourself.

Well I cannot see much logical consistence which was why I sought your opinion to enlighten me.

I cannot see why welfare recipient should be treated differently than someone in receipt of a tax allowance.

Smoking cannabis is regarded as a minor crime and so is speeding. Speeding kills people, so can cannabis if they have an accident under the influence. So why should speeding be treated differently with regard to benefits.

 

[Mise]

If you're asking for a logically consistent set of answers to your questions, then here you go:

Do you believe that the people who support drug testing of welfare recipients also think that everyone should be tested for drugs.

yes

And will they also believe that welfare recipients should lose benefits for speeding.

yes

Less trivially, someone might answer no to the first because they are not asking for welfare, and yes to the second because they believe that breaking the law should nullify all welfare benefits.

Or they might answer no to both, because they don't believe drug users should stop receiving benefits for taking drugs. Rather, they believe that those drug users should simply go to jail instead - i.e. to be punished for their crimes in the usual way. Or rehab or whatever. On the other hand, a speeder has already been fined and penalised for the crime.

Anyway, try using your imagination.

 

[brennan]

I find it unhelpful and disingenuous not to argue against someone's stated position, but instead claim that they are waging a propaganda war on the most vulnerable of society that is causing people to die

...when your opponent's rhetorical position is small minded, selfish, petty, vicious, vindictive, contrary to the supporting evidence and responsible for avoidable deaths, then it is a valid target for both barrels.

I'm sorry, but the level of dishonesty coming from the right in the US and UK is truly repellent as well as dangerous and deserves the harshest criticism. The right continually come up with policies based entirely on some fantasy society that behaves the way they would like it to behave, any deviation from which is punishable by sanctions that have been shown time after time to be totally ineffective. There is zero pragmatism and utter contempt for evidence or reality, those worst off are constantly made to pay for the mistakes of others and people are dying as a result. To me this has gone beyond a polite discussion.

 

[Silurian]

If you're asking for a logically consistent set of answers to your questions, then here you go:


yes


yes

Less trivially, someone might answer no to the first because they are not asking for welfare, and yes to the second because they believe that breaking the law should nullify all welfare benefits.

Or they might answer no to both, because they don't believe drug users should stop receiving benefits for taking drugs. Rather, they believe that those drug users should simply go to jail instead - i.e. to be punished for their crimes in the usual way. Or rehab or whatever. On the other hand, a speeder has already been fined and penalised for the crime.

Anyway, try using your imagination.

But why should people on welfare be singled out logically.
What about Ginger people, if they break a law, why should they not receive extra penalties.

Why are people on welfare benefits cheats anymore than a working person in receipt of a tax allowance.

If an ordinary person in an ordinary job, claiming ordinary tax allowances smokes cannabis on a Friday night and speed home from work, they could most likely be fined if they are caught. Are they a cheat?

That person can easily lose their job due to no fault of their own and go to claim benefits. If they still smoke cannabis on a Friday night (but no longer go out because they have little money) and speed home from a job interview they would still most likely be fined. But why are they a cheat.

 

[illram]

The problem with the catching thieves = catching welfare druggies/cheats analogy (and that is certainly the inevitable comparison you see when people want to argue for this policy in the face of evidence of its inefficiency) is that drug use and thievery are, in my opinion, totally different problems that should be dealt with in different ways. A person on drugs and on welfare needs rehabilitation, otherwise they will ultimately cost the system more in the long run, and for that person the ultimate social goal should be making them a productive person who does not constantly suck resources and/or get worse and commit more crimes. We are essentially dealing with a problem that should be addressed as a health issue. Punishment will not work.

The thief is guilty of a more morally culpable offense and "punishment" also carries with it the social benefit of deterring others (of course, the effectiveness of this is also up for debate...). This is along with the more socially acceptable perception that a thief is sort of your classic "criminal" behavior that society cannot tolerate. Whereas drug use... is really something that punishment ultimately only makes worse. So the "catching welfare cheats is priceless justice" idea is really an extension of shoddy drug war policy thinking that has gotten us nowhere.

That would be my long winded response to a someone making that argument. (I know you are not making it Mise, just bringing it up, and it is probably their best argument.)

 

[say1988]

JobSeeker's Allowance is technically taxable income, so at least one benefit does work like that.

The problem with this is that if you are saying that someone needs x amount of money for something, why pay it if you are just going to take some back? Surely they either need the amount specified or not?

You set the amount at what people who are earning below the personal exemption need. Therefore they don't pay any of it back. People above that would, presumably need less. The amount would be adjusted to reflect this lower need through the progressive tax system rather than a beaurocracy.

Drug tests are pretty much always stupid anyway. The only type I can see any justification for is testing professional athletes for chemical cheating. In any other case it's nobody's damn business.

In general, I agree. But there are certain circumstances, namely where a person doing their job at les than full capacity puts others at risk (i.e. police officers or airline pilots) that I think drug testing is acceptable and would even encourage it, but I still wouldn't support immediate firing from a positive marijuana test. If that is not the case then who cares if someone is using drugs. If they fail to perform their duties due to drug use they should be fired for failing to perform their duties, not for drug use., and if they are satisfactorily performing their duties while high, then they can do the job while high.

 

[brennan]

People above that would, presumably need less

There's your mistake. Some people support relatively large families or have higher rent and therefore have drastically higher welfare incomes. It is impossible to set a figure that is fair to everyone - this is one of the many weaknesses of the system at the moment, which is why no-one wpould suggest it does not need to be changed.

 

[BasketCase]

1) Only 2.6% of Welfare Applicants in Florida failed the drug test.

Something we didn't know before the test was done. The study revealed to us some useful information: the rate of drug use among welfare recipients.

Side note: identical programs in different American states would probably see widely varying results. Such is the case with murder, theft, gun control, and many other political issues--the same program produces different results in different locations. Personally, I'm fine with the testing--if Uncle Sam wants me to open up my wallet for welfare recipients, my condition is that the money goes to verified non-drug-users. Otherwise my wallet goes back in my pocket.

 

[cegman]

Something we didn't know before the test was done. The study revealed to us some useful information: the rate of drug use among welfare recipients.

Side note: identical programs in different American states would probably see widely varying results. Such is the case with murder, theft, gun control, and many other political issues--the same program produces different results in different locations. Personally, I'm fine with the testing--if Uncle Sam wants me to open up my wallet for welfare recipients, my condition is that the money goes to verified non-drug-users. Otherwise my wallet goes back in my pocket.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ited-states-or-rhode-island-needs-more-rehab/

This map helps makes this argument. Florida is kinda on the low end of the drug use spectrum so it don't surprise me based on the cultures to have a lower drug use on welfare group.

 

[Silurian]

The other thing about this that I have seen no comments on is what happened to the 108 people who failed the test.

Florida has a drug treatment program so I assume that some would have gone into that.

 

[G-Max]

End the War on Drugs and eliminate Federal spending on entitlements. Problem solved.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm with JR on this one. I'm actually kinda okay with drug-testing welfare recipients, but I'd like to get value for it. And I really do like the idea of corporate welfare being considered a type of welfare, and a higher priority than 'normal' welfare to prevent druggies from abusing.

 

[Labtec600]

There are only 4,086 people on welfare in the entire state of FL?

 

[Oerdin]

I thought this was fairly open and shut before it even passed. A law made by idiots supported by idiots with no grounding in efficient and effective policy.

That pretty much sums it up. Of course the right wing Republicans love it.

 

[AlpsStranger]

End the War on Drugs and eliminate Federal spending on entitlements. Problem solved.

A realistic and likely solution.

I suspect it will be implemented by this time next year

 

[downtown]

Something we didn't know before the test was done. The study revealed to us some useful information: the rate of drug use among welfare recipients.

I guess? We never had any data whatsoever to indicate that welfare users were more likely to be on drugs. The policy was based on a stereotype.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ited-states-or-rhode-island-needs-more-rehab/

This map helps makes this argument. Florida is kinda on the low end of the drug use spectrum so it don't surprise me based on the cultures to have a lower drug use on welfare group.

While it's true that drug use in the general population is a little lower in Florida than in other states, that doesn't necessarily matter....the question is if welfare applicants have a comparable (or higher) drug use percentage. I think that would not be the case...I would expect it to be lower in just about every state, and if we take pot out of the equation, the disparity will be even more stark.

I suppose we'll be able to know for sure next year, as a few other stupid states are planning on enacting this policy.