Why wait till they fail 3 times ? Every state and the US Gov should be like this. If you have money for drugs you don't need welfare.

I am on the County Board of Health and we do screenings for a very modest cost. The taxpayers are paying for it already.

OK Sarge, next question would be an accurate number of recipients in your county. Then figure on spending all day watching folks pee.
Next question is: are you a qualified lab tech?
What substances are you going to screen for? Not every drug of abuse shows up by administering one test. Next would be how are you going to differentiate between a drug of abuse and a prescription drug properly prescribed by a physician? Somebody on pain medication prescribed by a Dr. will test positive for opiates for example.
Did I mention what would happen to the "regular" duties you and the county board are charged with now?

The money saved will more than pay for whatever the screenings will cost.

Then, maybe that mother should think twice before she partakes in an illegal substance. Great liberal logic, make the criminal the victim. Here is an idea, maybe the mother should stop spending 150 bucks a month on weed, and use that money for food towards her kids.

And where do you draw the line? Weed? Pain killers? Coke?

I am with Pig Pen on this one. I think we will actually save a lot of money by thinning out the criminals that are receiving Welfare and wasting our money.

Oklahoma is passing a bill that requires certain welfare recipients to undergo a UA when benefits have been assigned. Positive UA means loss of benefits and no more application until they produce a negative UA. Sounds fair to me!!

Bubba

I believe they had to test positive 3 times, seems like the mother would get the picture after she smoked three joints three months in a row to flunk 3 tests. We at the Health Dept. offer FREE classes for people who are dependent on drugs and need help. If the mother keeps smoking joints it is proven that the odds are great that her children will take up the habit too. I spent too many years in law enforcement and watched generation after generation follow the parents' habits. Tell me if we can stop the mother and she dosen't pass the habit on to her children that it isn't going to save us money probably from court costs and jail costs down the road. I got my eyes opened when I was appointed to the Health Department Board. You are living in a shell if you think that it is a relative small precentage of the people who are abusing drugs that receive assistance. I do have hard numbers of the people we service but do to the law I cannot divulge the figures but they are staggering for a county of only 10,000 people. The county is looking for a home to put the kids in temporary now when the mom is arrested and jailed . If we could get her clean we could save a bunch of money. I can't believe you can't see this.

sorry for the double post

The Health Dept. is here. Paid professional people working all of the time whether the mother comes in for help or not. The help is there. The case worker's salary, medical attention for the kids etc. is already being provided. WHY don't we require this mother on assistance and on drugs to take advantage of this service? The service is there whether she takes advantage of it or not. I don't understand why you don't think that she should not be required to take advantage of these services. I don't provide the services I am one of 5 board members who administer and oversee the Health Dept. activities.

Sarge,
Did you see way up there where I said I like the basic concept?
Do you as a board member not have other duties? Do you all sit around doing nothing waiting for someone to walk in asking for help? All those counselors, lab techs, medical providers, case workers, don't have a full plate as it is?
You don't think legislating morality is against the very basic Republican belief that govt. shouldn't be intrusive? What's next?

Right now, as I type, Obama is concocting as many ways as he can to put folks on the mooching rolls. Strategy?..moochers will vote for him. He's creating more moochers than self dependent workers. Right now, one out of three working age Americans have been taken off the working rolls. An incredible reality. Now he is thinking of ways to put more folks then the mere one out of seven that are on food stamps.

Hoski,

You are usually good to read... but this time your off. In fact comparing what is going on the Gestapo is way overboard. I had to take many a drug test for a job(s). Army life = drug test, work on a union job site = drug test. Its (drug test) is a way to protect the rights of the ones doing it right, not to condem the ones that do not, but rather to let them see that their illness is effecting/affecting all of us, not just them.

Its fair in my eyes. If you want "a" then you must do "b"... no want to do "a" there for no need for "b".

Kicking people out on the street is not going to happen, get real. But for people to continue to pay for someone's else habits is over. If the country is to get to where it use to be, pay for yourself and what you bring in to the world.

Hoski,
We wouldn't be legislating morality we would be legislating something that is against the law. Big difference.
Rat,
You want to include booze, the last time I checked booze wasn't against the law but drugs are.
I love it when a lib tries to justify everyone even people violating the law to be able to get a free ride. Wouldn't want to do anything to get them legal and on the right track. Tax people more and get more crimnals on the hand-out rolls. After all the way they see it America owes it to these people. Wouldn't want these people to get their act cleaned up. My job as a board member is only to see that the other people do their job. The Administrator of the Health Dept. reports to us and then we set policies and procedures.

You do agree though don't you Sarge that VA benefits, SS and Medicare should be denied to those testing positive?

rock rat,

As pointed out by salmonguy, there is a big difference in getting what you earned compared to getting what others put in for you to use while you need help... the help is not to buy illegal drugs.

Most people that draw SS are people who put into it... some a very small% are disabled youths and people that cannot work...big difference between welfare and VA benifits, SS, Medicare.

There is no liberal/concserve about this issue. If its illegal (doing illegal drugs) and your on State provide welfare then there should be (and will be) state mandated testing.

Simple really, you want $, pee in the cup, don't want to pee, no $.

I now, its too simple for many to understand.

Your remarks remind me a talking to the fool, and that would make me the fool.

I wonder though of what happen to the "hoski" and where is his rebuttle.

Oh well of to hunt bunnies, it snowed today!

Hoski, the FEW who abuse drugs and alcohol that are on Welfare? You don't actually know that many people on Welfare do you? I do. I am a 26 year old that is barely making it by in this economy. I only get by because I bust my ass and make losing my job not an option to my employer. I am too valuable.

I do know many people that are on Welfare though. Some people I work with because they are payed under the table in cash. They make almost as much as me, but they also collect welfare. I also know some women that spend more welfare money on booze and weed than on their kids. I know a few of these people. Now extrapolate that. I am sure plenty of people in my situation know plenty of people that collect welfare that shouldn't.

It's the hollywood thing with the Rat. He considers himself an actor. They simplify the drug problem thing...just legalize it.

machinegunner,
you missed my first post...I'm not against the concept.
But you're missing a very important distinction...the tests you partake in are voluntary...what is being talked about here isn't.
I believe my point concerning any kind of testing or meeting some kind of condition, or has been mentioned by a poster here about noticing what was being purchased with food stamps to be very close to what happened in Germany. Nieghbors reporting neighbors, kids reporting parents etc.
It's a very slippery slope.

No the answer is not sterilization but she could be made to stop smoking dope and use the money to take care of the babies after all it is against the law. Oh and it is okay for her to keep on having babies and us to keep them ,I forgot that is the liberal point of view you are going to have to keep on reminding me. I wasn't brought up that way I was brought up to work hard and keep myself and not sponge off someone else. If you could only spend a little time with me watching the freebie line at the health dept. and know the background of the people standing in line from my law enforcement days it might change your mind, oh I forgot again your a liberal and that it is okay too for everyone who dosen't like to work to mooch from the system and the ones of us that work to keep them, I may be retired now but I still pay my fair share of taxes. Yes I collect SS but I paid into SS for over 45 years and also paid into my retirement fund for over 45 years. It wasn't me that was talking about the store checkout. The only problem I have with that is the use of food stamps for groceries but there is always cash for beer and cigerettes and yes I quit both of them many years ago.

Well I have to admit Sarge you had me laughing a few posts ago with your description that fits some too well. Drives me nuts too, not that they're cheating, not that they dont' work, but that attitude like it's owed to them, drives me up the wall.

I too don't drink, smoke, or use drugs of any sort though I do keep beer and a bottle of bourbon around for friends. Being that I'm not a substance abuser I notice people drugged up and drunk because that's not the way we are. I try not to judge folks too harshly. Seems like most people do some sort of drug wether it's legal or not.

I'm not being a soft liberal in not wanting to kick people off the welfare rolls for drugs, I just don't think drugs are the be all end all. I'd like to see people give up some freedoms to get welfare, but I wouldn't cut them off.

Hoski,
There is always an excuse for someone who is abusing the system "maybe they are getting it for a neighbor" you are the one making me laugh. Let all the moochers have a free check and don't question them even if they are violating the law. There is always an excuse for the illegal things they do. I deal with this all of the time and when I see 2 or 3 little kids who look hungry and neglected tagging along with a mother that I know is on drugs come to the health dept for her handouts I think that we should be able to have a tool to get her off drugs.

machinegunner,
Simple, when one can't find employment what other choice is available? Sleep under bridges and pick up roadkill?
Look, you guys seem to be under the impression that I enjoy or promote the folks who game the system.
As has been previously discussed I'm all for getting something from recipients...like community service of some kind. But the mandatory testing in order to receive it is just going too far in my opinion. We have children's services and other agencies who should be looking out for those who misuse finds. During a home inspection they should be looking to see that the home is clean and an adequate food supply is present...if and when it's not THEN testing could be used to find out why.

Hoski,
I am not the one who said the grocery cart was overflowing with luxury items, you are trying to put words in my mouth, that was someone else. Get your posts straight. Oh and it is not as simple as the mother smoking a joint we have meth and other drugs involved but of course you think that is okay for the mother to do and neglect her kids also. It is not speculation, I know ,you aren't there, I am to see what the little kids have to endure, of course that is okay with you because we wouldn't want to make the mother do anything even if she is breaking the law that would be intruding in her personal life. What other excuse do you want to make for her behavoir ?

Sarge01

Oklahoma is now in the process of passing laws that require mandatory drug testing for TANF recepients.
Should the recepient UA return positive, arrangements will be made to release the funds with either relatives or close friends so that the childrens needs can be met.

Bubba

Sarge, do you see the post directly above? That is a direct quote from you...and I repeat:
from Sarge01 wrote 11 weeks 4 hours ago (welfare recipient lives in million dollar home)

"I was behind a lady in the checkout line at the grocery store a week ago and the luxury items she had in her buggy (which was overflowing)I deemed something that I couldn't justify spending for in that quanity and when we got to the cashier she paid with food stamps, but had cash to buy her beer and cigerettes. Something wrong with that picture. If we can't afford to buy the necessities we need to cut out the bad expensive habits."

Now, did you neglect to read my post concerning home inspection by children's services? That would be the first indication of neglect.
And please discontinue proclaiming your area is any different from everywhere else concerning the epidemic of various drugs including meth. Also quite evident was my position concerning whether or not it's acceptable for parents on drugs with children present...but it's you assigning me the label that I condone such behavior...now which of us is putting words in the other's mouth?

I went back 11 weeks and 4 hours ago and found no quote from me to that. I remember nothing like that. What I did say on another post was that the food stamps were used for groceries and there seemed to be plenty of cash for beer and cigerettes. I said nothing about excessive items in cart. I have no idea where you are finding that. And I still think that there is something wrong with that picture reguardless of what you think. By the way we already have programs that are already funded for the mothers that are not just "smoking a joint", as you put it, but also using meth among other things that are available to them all they have to do is ask for help. Maybe they just need a little nudge and a drug test would be the little nudge they need to take advantage of the programs. This would be a much better route than having to lock up the mother when she has gone too far. We have many programs that are already funded with personnel in place for these people they just need the motivation to take advantage of the programs. We are there whether they use us or don't. Seems like such a waste that we can't get these people to use our services, maybe a drug test would change their mind. If we can get them in to our dept, it gives us a chance to also evaluate the children.

Furthermore, you are exactly correct about having systems and agencies in place to help those who need it. And again I commend you for your efforts at combating the drug problem.
But in this country we do not treat those in need as some sort of second rate citizen. there are different ways to detect abuse or neglect.
Tell me, how would you differentiate between the parent that diligently spends the funds for intended purposes but who maybe partook once a month with something offered by someone else?

Hoski,
We also have programs to help them resist that something that was offered by someone else once a month. Why are you guys so intent on wanting to let someone use drugs ?

I don't remember exactly what I said but I will comment on what you said I did. No one appointed me judge I was just commenting on the observation about the cart of which contained mostly items that Warren Buffet couldn't afford and we paid for and then have plenty of cash for beer and cigerettes. My opinion about the observation hasn't changed and just because of that dosen't mean that someone appointed me judge.

Hoski, this is how I see it when it comes to telling people what they can and cannot buy with food stamps or with welfare checks. You liberals want to scream they should have the freedom to choose, but I respectfully disagree with you. It is a volunteer program for a lot of adults. If you don't want Welfare, you don't HAVE TO be on it. You want to argue freedom, I say they gave up some freedoms by getting on Welfare.

I lost a lot of freedoms when I joined the military. I didn't HAVE TO join the military, but I volunteered to do it. The government was giving me a paycheck, and I did what I was told to do. I see a correlation between the two. The government is paying these people with our tax dollars.

That is why I like the idea of the WIC program. My fiance's friend is on WIC. She is only allowed to buy certain nutritious foods for her children. She gets food from my tax dollars, but its not junk, and she can't spend it on booze or drugs.

You really like putting words into other peoples mouth. When did I say the poor were criminals? In a previous post, I commented that even myself am not the richest person in the world. I don't take any government "entitlements" because I am too proud for that. Between me and the fiance, we could probably collect something, but neither of us want any part of it.

I am talking about more than just food assistance with food stamps. The EBT card is a good example. One can withdraw money from an account like a debit card. Then that money can purchase whatever that person desires. Drugs, booze, electronics... etc...

I personally witnessed a less than desirable person walk into a beer distributor ahead of me. He then flipped out because the distributor did not accept EBT cards for beer. After an exchange of words, he demanded to know where an ATM was so he could withdraw money.

Is your theory, just give the poor OUR tax dollars, and who cares what they do with it?? If that is your argument then your description of "liberals" is pretty spot on.

whitetailfreek,
I apologize if you're having difficulty following along.
You are the guy whose position is folks who apply for assistance when needed, are giving up some freedoms. (go ahead and look...it's right there in your last post) they are not giving up any rights or freedoms, they're just poor.
My position is...in this country freedoms aren't taken away until proven to be a criminal. Now just because you want to put the cart in front of the horse by imposing testing BEFORE anybody's been convicted of anything you'll now realize why I worded my post as I did.
Your little epistle about yourself and the soon to be Mrs. is nice...I'm glad for you, evidently neither of you have been hungry enough yet to eat your pride, and I truly hope the day never comes. But for the ones who have already passed that point, we in this country have decided no one needs to go hungry.
As your example of the attempted alcohol purchase using an EBT card illustrates, it didn't work, and IF the guy you used as an example had gone to the nearest ATM to withdraw funds for a banned purchase, I trust that would have been a violation of the terms of assistance for which he could have been prosecuted.

You know, a short time ago you informed me how you took an oath to protect the Constitution (and all it's amendments) against all enemies foreign and domestic, you would do well to educate yourself concerning the innocent until proven guilty thingy and our fourth amendment rights. We don't have some rights that are more important than others...they're all important.

whitetailfreek,
A very reasonable outlook.
As you yourself posted there are restrictions that work most of the time.
Are there abuses? Of course, but we in this country do not impose degrading hoops for the honest to jump through in an effort to snare the abusers.

Just out of curiousity, did you make your view known to the guy you witnessed attempting to abuse the EBT card?

BTW

For the non-believers, I actually KNOW one young lady that has had TWO children by two different fathers. Both children were/are drug babies. She has custody of neither at this point because she can't present a clean UA.
The last child, the State told her (Yep! She was on welfare!) if she couldn't stay clean, they would take the child from her. Two days before the baby was born, she turned in a "dirty" UA. Not only did the State take the child from her, but forced her to have her tubes tied! (tubal ligation?!) She's presently in the company of a small time drug dealer and has been convicted of drug charges to protect him and is now on the lam from "State Jail".
Her mother is raising her oldest, her brother has custody of the youngest and she can only visit either child with a caseworker present.

rat
You and Homaski play all the "Sympathy" cards you wish! It's true.
So don't say it can't/won't happen.

Bubba

Bubba, unfortunately, we all seem to know or know of somebody like your acquaintance, but that hardly makes it an epidemic. 'freek, good post. But I'd advise you, if I may, to start viewing taxes as that, rather than an investment. Investments you direct where the money goes, and contribute voluntarily - taxes, not so much.

Rat, its one thing to actually BE ENTITLED to certain benefits because you earn them. It's something completely different to think you are entitled to something you didn't actually work for or earn.

You can argue all you want about helping people when they are down and out, which is all fine and good. But just because you are poor, or can't find a job, doesn't mean you are entitled for government money. That is great that we have Welfare programs to help people, but its not an entitlement.

backcast, as far as Welfare programs go, I try to look at it as an investment to make myself feel better about the situation. Consider it wishful thinking. Makes me feel like I actually have a say in what my tax dollars are going to, even though that is a hopeless cause.

Sorry, been away a few days.
For the crowd that believes employers have the right to impose random drug tests you should know that the courts in most states have supported such action only after certain circumstances have been met. Such as being clearly under the influence while at work or after an accident.
What most are discussing here is what is known as suspicion-less testing and except in strictly defined cases the courts have not supported such action by employers.

You did see where I posted the word "most" didn't you?

Please explain to me just how this fits in with your belief about freedom and keeping big brother out of people's personal lives?

Thanks Sarge, mine was meant as informative too.
I'd really like to hear your explanation for govt. intrusion into people's lives, and how it squares with the GOP platform of just the opposite.

Hoski, back to my military comparison. I had to go through completely random drug testing. One year I was tested 5 times. I thought my unit had something against me at one point! I didn't flip out and want to start suing the federal government!

I think the Federal Government should reform Welfare programs. Start it over and write up a contract. If you need to get on one of these government programs, you should have to sign your name on a piece of paper stating you will not partake in illegal drugs. Last time I checked, illegal drugs were in fact illegal. I don't see that as unreasonable.

It's one thing to drink some beer every once in awhile. I don't like it, but I'm OK with it. When someone is getting high on OUR tax dollars, that is when I get offended.

Thanks for your reply Sarge01,
I fail to see the connection.
As I understand the GOP's position, it is to keep govt, small and to stay out of people's personal lives above all else.

I too admire the lean and mean, (read effective) numbers of govt. apparatchiks, however, imposing the testing of bodily fluids to qualify for assistance hardly seems like staying out of people's personal lives to me. As has been pointed out by others, there are systems in place to catch the miscreants.
Does it work every single time? Of course not, but then by building better mouse traps what really happens is we educate the mice.
I know, bad analogy.
Contrary to your assumption, I do not condemn you for your efforts at helping citizens in need. I just don't agree with using extraordinary means to as a test that the rest of us citizens wouldn't dream of condoning. Just because they're poor doesn't mean they're a 2nd rate citizen.

(every means short of treating folks like perpetrators of a crime)

Whew!
Thanks for clearing that up.
Until now I had no idea democrats are who populate the unemployment rolls.
Please Mr. redfishunter, explain to us how the layoff system works, does management make an announcement one morning that all democrats will be laid off?
After accomplishing that, go on to explaining how it's just democrats who receive govt assistance.
Then for your coupe d grace, explain how mandatory contraception works in order to qualify for any assistance.

Good point hoski we should prolly do away with government assistance in its entirety. If people need help the should go to the church.

After reading these message boards I've learned you're the most hated person on here. They even refer to idiots as hoskis. Congratulations. Must have taken years of ignorance to reach that level.

redfishunter,
Shouldn't you be cleaning your room or taking out the mommy?

Nope. I moved out of mom and dads about eight years ago. That was about the same time I got a job so I could get my two college degrees. Never recieved a dime from government assistance either. Thanks for your concern though.

redfishhunter, I would not go as far as calling Hoski an idiot. He just thinks a lot different than myself, and most guys on here. Calling him an idiot is just rude. Rockrat on the other hand, you can call him whatever you want.

Hoski, how do you feel about someone on government assistance that abuses drugs and is caught? Typical drug bust. He or she is driving down the road, blows through a stop sign, and is pulled over. Police officer smells weed, eyes glossed over, searches the individual and finds contraband. The person is convicted of drug possession. Should that person still receive government tax dollars to buy more drugs?

I've been following this thread and will risk getting into it a bit and stirring Hoski up even more, but also have to agree with 'freek, in that redfishhunter, welcome aboard, but be nice, name calling isn't necessary. While we don't always agree on here (seldom on politics, for that matter), we try to remain as gentlemen and conduct ourselves accordingly. Having said that, I can't tell you how many times I have pee'ed in the bottle as a condition of employement with a local city because I have a CDL (commercial drivers' license) and sometimes operate heavy equipment. Other than sitting in a waiting room with crappy magazines I really don't care, I have nothing to hide and have never been charged with anything more than a traffic violation years ago. I have to agree with most on here, I have a problem with my tax $$$ going for better foods than my wife buys for us. Our Ruritan club addressed a similar problem some time back in that if someone we don't know or we aren't familiar with their circumstances needs assistance, we pay a bill or two for them rather than writing a check the individual because folks do take the grocery money for other things. Ok, you guys can go back to it, that's my 2 cents worth.

Heres a twist and I'm sure y'all have debated it before, but why not just legalize and and tax the heck out of it? Weed doesn't have the bad effect that many people think. More than likely uoull never know the smoker is high And think about all of the lives lost and dollars spent keeping it illegal. I knew some guys in college that were pretty heavy smokers, and they were genius'. Two are doctors now. I would much rather work with a guy that smoked a joint the night before than one that sat on a bar stool the whole night before. Portugal decriminalized all drugs (which I am against) and the murder rate dropped and the number of users stayed the same. Not only would this help the financial situation of our government by turning a major expense into a major revenue, but it would also likely help our energy crisis. You can make a plastic out of hemp that is ten times stronger than steel. Also, Henry ford built a car that was not only built out of hemp, it ran on hemp. It's also easy on the land, farmers could plant it year after year on same land without degrading the nutritional value of the soil. Check out the old U.S. goverent propaganda film called 'hemp for victory'.

redfishunter,
From your posts and your language and apparantly your actions I'm not sure I am enthused about receiving your endorsement. Some of us may have lively conversations but we try to keep them civil and I think you should do the same. You may be a young adult but some of your posts put doubt in our minds. Our site has been going on for some time and we like to keep it civil with positive answers about wildlife issues and yes political issues but keep it civil and you will get along better. You have already dug yourself a hole and you will have to work hard to get out of it.

I am glad we can at least come to a compromise sometimes on here Hoski. Obviously, it doesn't matter at all, since we are in no position to legislate or bring about such laws, but I am glad that two minds completely on the opposite of the political spectrum can compromise and come to a conclusion based off of common sense and logical thought.

It is far fetched, but I see your point. My counter point would be your "right" to government money is not in the Constitution. You could argue everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but I see it differently.

You have the right to actively pursue life, liberty and happiness. I am a firm believer that these things shouldn't just be given to you, but you need to work for it. The government's main goal, in my opinion, is to provide a safe society to allow you to bring those three things into your life.

The Constitution does guarantee your Second Amendment right though. But at the same time, when I go to a gun shop, I have to prove that I am legally allowed to own, and buy a firearm by paying for a background check.

To my knowledge, there is no background check to get government assistance.