D.T.W.A.

[PLAYER57832]

a drug test is pennies compared to 300$ every months for years

Nah- you're sidestepping. Testing everyone who applied for benefits would cost a huge amount. If it weeds out a few addicts, would you then ask for it to be stopped? No- this looks like a permanent thing. That the government should constantly test, for example, the disabled for illegal drugs to see if they qualify for welfare.

That's a huge expenditure you're proposing in perpetuity.

There are more than a few in Florida. There are 5 football stadiums full. We went over this and I included all my links around page 3ish.

Apparently it wasn't on page 3 .. or 4..
Anyway, I posted data and links as well that shows only 6% of any population, including those on welfare, at most, are using drugs, much fewer use the "hard drugs" that you seem to think make up the majority of drug users. (they don't). As usual, you ignored, like you do any data that refutes your assertions.

That percentage is much more important than the raw numbers. You noted that many of those will avoid a positive test. A good many others who are caught would have been caught anyway because of their behaviors -- specifically, those things you seem to think are "typical" -- not taking care of their kids, thefts, etc.


Sooo... using your own information, ideas, this testing program will target EVERY welfare recipient, but will catch only a few of the possible 6% (of the whole population) that are using drugs. Each test cost, what? $55, I believe was the figure?

So, you test 100 people a month, it will costs $5500. You "catch" maybe 4-5% (and the real rate will likely be much lower). Many of those were people who would have been tagged through other means (interactions with law enforcement, particularly). So, drop that to 3-4% of the 100. You catch 4 people, saving $1200 a month.... but it costs $5500 a month to catch them.

Also, per your own description those few will be remanded to drug rehab facilities, at taxpayer expense, of course, because how else will someone without money get it? (unless they displace others who are seeking charity care -- there are only so many such slots, after all).

I said 100 just to make it easy, but of course the real figures will be MUCH higher.. so the debt will be MUCH higher.

And, you STILL think this will save taxpayers money????

The main saver is that people who have not kicked the drugs will not waste a drug test kit cuz they know that they will not pass it.

No, if they thought they would be caught or thought ahead to consequences if they were caught, they would not use the drugs. There already are pretty heavy penalties for drug use.

We don't have to spend 14$ on a test, and we don't have to spend 3,600$ of welfare on the addict

The test will cost more than $14.[/quote] The tests for marihuana ONLY might cost around $14, but those that test for other drugs or drug combinations run more like $50 or more. And, if you think that is a one time charge, you have not paid attention. People will have to be tested regularly.

If we want to help anyone, it should be the people who have the worst problems. We don't wantto enable them and their disease.

LOL... altruistic Phattscotty. Nope, those with the worst problems already will be caught.. or will die. Either way, this testing program is not the effective way to catch them.

[Phatscotty]

Nope

those with the worst problems will get hundreds of free dollars every month, and that does not help their problem one bit.

[Phatscotty]

I suppose someone could change the law.

Florida has a huge problem with drugs, and this is a common sense fix as far as welfare abuse is concerned.

Not only is the system abused, but this abuse also makes addicts problems and lives and relations with other people worse.

Stop pretending this has anything to do with "helping the poor drug addicts". This is exactly the opposite, this is making the life of people who already have problems have even more problems.

This kind of thing doesn't help anyone, and it will hurt many people. For what... some perceived savings? In the long run, this will cost you more.

But hey, you keep supporting corrupt politicians who are just interested in lining their own pockets.

You pretend giving addicts free money will help them?

You are an ENABLER!

A common example of enabling can be observed in the relationship between the alcoholic/addict and a codependent spouse. The spouse believes incorrectly that he or she is helping the alcoholic by calling into work for them, making excuses that prevent others from holding them accountable, and generally cleaning up the mess that occurs in the wake of their impaired judgment. In reality what the spouse is doing is hurting, not helping. Enabling prevents psychological growth in the person being enabled and can contribute to negative symptoms in the enabler.

An enabler is a person who by their actions make it easier for an addict to continue their self-destructive behavior by criticizing or rescuing. The term codependency refers to a relationship where one or both parties enable the other to act in certain maladaptive ways. Many times, the act of the enabler satisfies a need for the codependent person because his or her actions foster a need from the other person or persons in the relationship.

To enable the individual with the addiction, the mutually dependent person makes excuses and lies for the addict, which enables the addiction to continue. Codependency is reinforced by a person's need to be needed. The enabler thinks unreasonably by believing he can maintain healthy relationships through manipulation and control. He believes he can do this by avoiding conflict and nurturing dependency. Is it normal for someone to think that he can maintain a healthy relationship when he does not address problems and he lies to protect others from their responsibilities?

The person(s) unhealthy patterns you enable may be doing one or more of these behaviors:

* Drinking too much
* Spending too much
* Overdrawing their bank account/bouncing checks
* Gambling too much
* In trouble with loan sharks/check cashing agencies
* Working too much/not enough
* Maxing out the credit cards
* Abusing drugs (prescription or street drugs)
* Getting arrested (you are bailing him/her out)
* Any of a number of other unhealthy behaviors/patterns of addiction.


Take a good look at the people who are turning the world into shit.

[PLAYER57832]

Nope

those with the worst problems will get hundreds of free dollars every month, and that does not help their problem one bit.

Never said it helped them. You were trying to claim this testing program would help and I said that was not true.

This program will not solve anything, WILL cost a lot of money and cause even more problems than we have now. I showed that.

[Phatscotty]

Nope

those with the worst problems will get hundreds of free dollars every month, and that does not help their problem one bit.

Never said it helped them. You were trying to claim this testing program would help and I said that was not true.

This program will not solve anything, WILL cost a lot of money and cause even more problems than we have now. I showed that.

it will save far more than its costs.

Reality is that the program is going full steam ahead, so I guess we can stop theorizing and wait for the results.

Time will tell which of us is right.

[PLAYER57832]

Nope

those with the worst problems will get hundreds of free dollars every month, and that does not help their problem one bit.

Never said it helped them. You were trying to claim this testing program would help and I said that was not true.

This program will not solve anything, WILL cost a lot of money and cause even more problems than we have now. I showed that.

it will save far more than its costs.

What will it save? The "benefits" you imagine of people going into treatment are already happening, tot he extent they will. This is just "knee jerk".. blame someone and pretend its a benefit.

Reality is that the program is going full steam ahead, so I guess we can stop theorizing and wait for the results.

Time will tell which of us is right.

Probably not, because so many other things are happening at the same time, the real results will be masked.

[natty dread]

You pretend giving addicts free money will help them?

You are an ENABLER!

By the same logic, the government shouldn't let anyone carry a gun, since if someone commits a murder with one, the government is "enabling" murder.

Giving addicts free money will help them - much more than not giving that money, since the addicts at least have some legitimate source of income they don't need to commit crimes for.

Trying to force an addict to quit drugs by removing the income will not be succesful. An addiction is pretty much impossible to treat unless the addict himself wants to recover from it.

[Night Strike]

You pretend giving addicts free money will help them?

You are an ENABLER!

By the same logic, the government shouldn't let anyone carry a gun, since if someone commits a murder with one, the government is "enabling" murder.

Giving addicts free money will help them - much more than not giving that money, since the addicts at least have some legitimate source of income they don't need to commit crimes for.

Trying to force an addict to quit drugs by removing the income will not be succesful. An addiction is pretty much impossible to treat unless the addict himself wants to recover from it.

1) The government doesn't provide the money used to buy guns. And we actually have laws that prevent people who have committed felonies from owning guns. We don't have laws saying that people who are doing drugs aren't allowed to get free money from the government.

2) An "income" is meant to be a wage you earn not one you're handed simply for the government to buy you off.

3) If the addict doesn't want to recover, then they can start working for their own money to buy drugs with. There's no reason why they should be given money from the government to buy the drugs.

[Phatscotty]

You pretend giving addicts free money will help them?

You are an ENABLER!

By the same logic, the government shouldn't let anyone carry a gun, since if someone commits a murder with one, the government is "enabling" murder.

Giving addicts free money will help them - much more than not giving that money, since the addicts at least have some legitimate source of income they don't need to commit crimes for.

Trying to force an addict to quit drugs by removing the income will not be succesful. An addiction is pretty much impossible to treat unless the addict himself wants to recover from it.

1) The government doesn't provide the money used to buy guns. And we actually have laws that prevent people who have committed felonies from owning guns. We don't have laws saying that people who are doing drugs aren't allowed to get free money from the government.

2) An "income" is meant to be a wage you earn not one you're handed simply for the government to buy you off.

3) If the addict doesn't want to recover, then they can start working for their own money to buy drugs with. There's no reason why they should be given money from the government to buy the drugs.

Also, you can not get a gun license, in Minnesota anyways, if you have a history of drug abuse.......

Why do I suspect everyone agrees that is a great idea?

Taxpayers should not subsidize drug consumption

[natty dread]

2) An "income" is meant to be a wage you earn not one you're handed simply for the government to buy you off.

Interesting. And what have you done to earn your income?

If the addict doesn't want to recover, then they can start working for their own money to buy drugs with. There's no reason why they should be given money from the government to buy the drugs.

What if there's a drug user who gets their drugs for free but uses the welfare money to buy food & shelter? Is it still wrong to give money to him?

[Phatscotty]

What if there's a drug user who gets their drugs for free but uses the welfare money to buy food & shelter? Is it still wrong to give money to him?

really?

[GreecePwns]

^The big moneymaker himself.

[Woodruff]

it will save far more than its costs.
Reality is that the program is going full steam ahead, so I guess we can stop theorizing and wait for the results.
Time will tell which of us is right.

You're a lot smarter when you're whining that government is too much in our business than you are when you're demanding that government get into our business more than it already is.

[natty dread]

What if there's a drug user who gets their drugs for free but uses the welfare money to buy food & shelter? Is it still wrong to give money to him?

really?

Quit dodging the question, dodge king.

[Woodruff]

You pretend giving addicts free money will help them?

You are an ENABLER!

By the same logic, the government shouldn't let anyone carry a gun, since if someone commits a murder with one, the government is "enabling" murder.

Giving addicts free money will help them - much more than not giving that money, since the addicts at least have some legitimate source of income they don't need to commit crimes for.

Trying to force an addict to quit drugs by removing the income will not be succesful. An addiction is pretty much impossible to treat unless the addict himself wants to recover from it.

1) The government doesn't provide the money used to buy guns.

We should gun-test for everyone recieving welfare money.

And we actually have laws that prevent people who have committed felonies from owning guns. We don't have laws saying that people who are doing drugs aren't allowed to get free money from the government.

Bad analogy. We do have laws saying that people aren't allowed to do illegal drugs. That's the only relevant analogy.

2) An "income" is meant to be a wage you earn not one you're handed simply for the government to buy you off.

What? Perhaps you meant to post this in a different thread, because it's irrelevant to this thread.

3) If the addict doesn't want to recover, then they can start working for their own money to buy drugs with.

So you approve of thievery, muggings and theft? Interesting.

There's no reason why they should be given money from the government to buy the drugs.

You claim you want the government out of our lives. You claim that you want the government more in our lives. Perhaps you should make up your mind.

[Woodruff]

Also, you can not get a gun license, in Minnesota anyways, if you have a history of drug abuse.......

Why do I suspect everyone agrees that is a great idea?

I don't. In fact, I think it's a stupid intrusion by the government into our lives. I'm being serious here...if that individual has never used a weapon to commit a crime, then they should not be held from their RIGHT to own a firearm.

Taxpayers should not subsidize drug consumption

This doesn't even make basic sense.

[Phatscotty]

What if there's a drug user who gets their drugs for free but uses the welfare money to buy food & shelter? Is it still wrong to give money to him?

really?

Quit dodging the question, dodge king.

So long as you admit your last point is as fickle as it is.

If a person is responsible enough to make sure not a penny of the welfare dollars go to drugs and they only do drugs when they are free, then I guarantee they are smart enough and able enough to "Just Say No" for 30 days before you apply for welfare.

It's rather simple and dirt cheap. Efficiency.

The reality is that people have to make an effort on their own to deal with their problems so they can be on the right track with public assistance, rather than abusing it.

[Woodruff]

What if there's a drug user who gets their drugs for free but uses the welfare money to buy food & shelter? Is it still wrong to give money to him?

really?

Quit dodging the question, dodge king.

So long as you admit your last point is as fickle as it is.

If a person is responsible enough to make sure not a penny of the welfare dollars go to drugs and they only do drugs when they are free, then I guarantee they are smart enough and able enough to "Just Say No" for 30 days before you apply for welfare.

It's rather simple and dirt cheap. Efficiency.

You keep saying this, but it is in fact the OPPOSITE of efficiency.

The reality is that people have to make an effort on their own to deal with their problems so they can be on the right track with public assistance, rather than abusing it.

I thought you didn't approve of the government nanny-state, Phatscotty? How come you seem to approve of it when it's one of YOUR preferences that's being supported?

[Phatscotty]

What if there's a drug user who gets their drugs for free but uses the welfare money to buy food & shelter? Is it still wrong to give money to him?

really?

Quit dodging the question, dodge king.

So long as you admit your last point is as fickle as it is.

If a person is responsible enough to make sure not a penny of the welfare dollars go to drugs and they only do drugs when they are free, then I guarantee they are smart enough and able enough to "Just Say No" for 30 days before you apply for welfare.

It's rather simple and dirt cheap. Efficiency.

You keep saying this, but it is in fact the OPPOSITE of efficiency.

The reality is that people have to make an effort on their own to deal with their problems so they can be on the right track with public assistance, rather than abusing it.

I thought you didn't approve of the government nanny-state, Phatscotty? How come you seem to approve of it when it's one of YOUR preferences that's being supported?

the program that exists (welfare) already puts us in nanny state realm. The outcome will produce a smaller nanny state, and then we move our efforts elsewhere and battle the nanny state wherever it exists.

[PLAYER57832]

If a person is responsible enough to make sure not a penny of the welfare dollars go to drugs and they only do drugs when they are free, then I guarantee they are smart enough and able enough to "Just Say No" for 30 days before you apply for welfare.

It's rather simple and dirt cheap. Efficiency.

Not only is it VERY inefficient.. efficency means catching people on drugs, not setting up a program that, if your claim were true, would be easy to avoid.

It is also just false. It doesn't take a whole lot of brains to mooch, just willing suckers. ALSO, a point you rather sidestepped is that a lot of people plain grow their own marihuana. Its not that hard. If it were hard to grow it, we would not be having to burn so much in raids, etc.

The reality is that people have to make an effort on their own to deal with their problems so they can be on the right track with public assistance, rather than abusing it.

This program has absolutely nothing to do with "putting people on track". Progarms that DO "put people on track" are the programs you have previously said you do not support -- teen mother supports, job training programs, etc. Those do cost money, but pay off in the end. This is just knee jerk "let's get 'em".

the program that exists (welfare) already puts us in nanny state realm. The outcome will produce a smaller nanny state, and then we move our efforts elsewhere and battle the nanny state wherever it exists.

Either way it is "being a Nanny" -- whether you are feeding them or attempting to get get people off drugs through testing (that was your argument.. that this would get people off drugs or force druggies to work).

Truth is that some adults, sadly, need Nannies. We either pay them off with a bit of food and shelter or deal with the theft, prostitution and other crime that will happen if people cannot get anything to eat.

I don't deny that there are people on welfare using drugs... seems I mentioned a potential 6%, though most of those are NOT "hard drug" addicts, the only type you seem to think exists. (those represent maybe 1-2% of the total population). Nor do I deny that a good many drugs cause significant problems. I am not even saying that marihuana is harmless (particularly not the new stuff), its just less harmful than the law enforcement efforts and costs a LOT less.

However, there are FAR more effective ways to target them that will net more true drug users than randomly testing welfare recipients. I mean, why not just randomly test anyone? Aside from some constitutional issues, it plain would not be effective.

The truth is you are under the false assumption that more people on welfare use drugs and/or cause greater problems than those in the rest of society. In fact, its just not true. In fact, many studies indicate there are likely fewer drug users on welfare than in other segments of the population, mostly because they don't have the money.

[natty dread]

OMG Phatscotty, you're so full of shit.

I don't know if even you yourself believe the drivel you spout on a daily basis?

So long as you admit your last point is as fickle as it is.

Nope, try again. Sans the appeal to ridicule this time.

If a person is responsible enough to make sure not a penny of the welfare dollars go to drugs and they only do drugs when they are free, then I guarantee they are smart enough and able enough to "Just Say No" for 30 days before you apply for welfare.

Ok, so in those cases, it's acceptable for a drug user to be on welfare, just as long as you get to dictate where and how he spends his money?

(In other words, you just want an excuse to impose your moral values on other people.)

And if there's nothing inherently wrong about being a drug user who (for instance) grows his own drugs, why should those people abstain from using the drugs for some arbitrary 30 day periods? Because you say so?

It's rather simple and dirt cheap. Efficiency.

Nothing is as simple as you like to pretend it is. And this idiocy you advocate is far from efficient, it will waste everyone's money, and fail to accomplish anything except fattening the pockets of a few corrupt politicians... while destroying the life of lots of people, who are already poor, in bad situations, and unable to defend themselves. That's simply disgusting.

The reality is that people have to make an effort on their own to deal with their problems so they can be on the right track with public assistance, rather than abusing it.

CUT THE FUCKING BULLSHIT. You're not out to help those people so don't even try the good samaritan act. You can spout your "hard work cures all ailments" rhetoric all you want, but the reality is that you're not offering any help to the people whose life you are so keen on destroying. You say "public assistance", but what public assistance is there? You speak of taking away the money to stop "enabling" people to make bad choices - but what other choices are you offering those people, how are you helping to get them on "the right track"? Where's the plan ensuring that all of these people who get caught on drug tests will get the treatment they need?

[Phatscotty]

tough love is absolutely in order when it comes to a human being in the 21st century being unable to take care of himself.

We have programs for people born with problems or severely injured, but as you know, we are talking about people who get their welfare check of 300$, call their dealer and spend 100$, and then are on the phone again with the dealer in 5 hours spending another 80$, and by the end of 3 days the money is all gone. That is the only kind of person I am talking about.

[natty dread]

That's not the only kind of person these drug tests are targeting.

[PLAYER57832]

tough love is absolutely in order when it comes to a human being in the 21st century being unable to take care of himself.

Maybe, but this program is about making money for the drug testers, not anything else.

We have programs for people born with problems or severely injured, but as you know, we are talking about people who get their welfare check of 300$, call their dealer and spend 100$, and then are on the phone again with the dealer in 5 hours spending another 80$, and by the end of 3 days the money is all gone. That is the only kind of person I am talking about.

Those people exist mostly in your imagination. That is, I am sure you can find an example of that. However, they are only an extremely small subgroup of the 1% of welfare recipients on hard drugs. This program will test 99% of people to get far FAR less than 1% of those on welfare.

It WILL catch the idiot who took some marihuana... and will get them whether they intentionally smoked or just happend to be around others that did. It will catch the one who might have stupidly tried drugs, but won't continue. And, it will subject thousands to invasive tests and taxpayers to a big expense.

Bottom line.. if you want to catch drugs, use effective methods, not this random testing of those on welfare. If you want to save money and get people off welfare, invest more in education, particularly including early childhood education. Those have proven benefits and payoffs. This is lining a drug companies' pockets.

[Iliad]

tough love is absolutely in order when it comes to a human being in the 21st century being unable to take care of himself.

We have programs for people born with problems or severely injured, but as you know, we are talking about people who get their welfare check of 300$, call their dealer and spend 100$, and then are on the phone again with the dealer in 5 hours spending another 80$, and by the end of 3 days the money is all gone. That is the only kind of person I am talking about.

As I said previously, this is all about Phatscotty's scapegoats, all those damned welfare drug addicts. This isn't about helping them, this is about Phatscotty feeling better than them.