Drug screening for Welfare applicants

[sandyandporter]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322605,00.html

Report: California Considers Welfare Drug-Screening Law Proposed by Disabled Teen
Monday , January 14, 2008



"California lawmakers will weigh a bill that will require welfare applicants to be screened for drugs after a teen — disabled by his own mother's prenatal drug use — won a contest sponsored by his local assemblyman, The Desert Sun reports.

R.J. Feild, a sophomore with spastic triplegic cerebral palsy, won Assemblyman John J. Benoit's "There Ought to Be a Law" contest with a 500-word essay about his own life — born at 2 pounds, 2 ounces with traces of heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine and alcohol in his body, the paper reports.

Click here to read more at MyDesert.com.

"R.J.'s captivating story provided a clear reason why we need his law," Benoit, R-64th Dist., told The Desert Sun. ""I look forward to introducing 'R.J.'s Law' in this legislative session."

Feild's mother used alcohol and drugs while she was pregnant and on public assistance, the paper said.

The Jurupa Valley High School student, who uses a wheelchair to get around, will fly to Sacramento to formally introduce the bill on the Assembly floor, MyDesert.com reports.

Feild won the contest, in part, because his was the most compelling and feasible, the paper said."


Thoughts???

[HotWireD]

If you work for a private company, the military, or an government agency, they can screen you for drugs (if they make it policy first of course), why not people claiming money from the government?

My question would be, once they have been screened for drugs and found positive, what would the next step be? Counselling, health advice, cancelling their social security? Reduce their social security by the commensurate cost of the drugs (so the government cannot be said to be paying for the drug addiction)?

Drugs harm not only the user, but those around them (and those within them in this circumstance). Why should these people not be given assistance to get off the drugs, stick or carrot (stick - reduce their payments, carrot - free health advice and possibly a 'bonus' if they can stay 'clean').

[Sam!]

It's a tough call, because you want don't want to make a bad situation for the children worse, and you want people who need help to come get it, but at the same time...

[Yoshi]

Over here in Aus, they've just brought in roadside drug testing - I think the deal is (and I've never been pulled over for one, so I don't entirely know!) you lick this whistle-like thing and it will pick up marijuana, speed and possibly other drugs in the system. If you return a positive result, there are on the spot penalties, and if you wish to contest it, you have 24 hours to produce a verified blood test from a doctor..

Sign your form and lick the strip? I already have issue with the stigma that gets associated with those on welfare... I'm an upstanding member of society who has worked hard both as an employee and a volunteer and I find myself out of work by actions not of my own doing... Yet I'm forced to endure the stigma of I must be a bludger, or a druggie.. Granted I have a trial shift for an organisation on Wednesday, the first of two I have to do if I progress..

I guess my only issue would be that adding this step to the process would imply that obviously dole recipients are druggies.. And I certainly am not one!

[clemsontigers23]

I like this idea. One of the biggest problems we have with the social welfare system is parents using the money to buy drugs instead of food for their kids. It makes sense to make sure this isn't going to be a problem.

[in hiding]

i guess the issue becomes what are they going to do with the results. If they test positive for drugs, they should try to help the people get clean and sober, not just say no more help for you. At some point they should, but not after the first one.

[DareDevil]

Most drug addicts have to fall back on crime anyways, if they want to pay for their drugs. That's why I am pretty sure that they'd rather not receive any welfare money at all than to risk being forced to quit. They'd only have to commit a few more crimes to make up for the loss. That's all.

[Sam!]

I wonder what the cost of testing will be.

[Jason]

If you work for a private company, the military, or an government agency, they can screen you for drugs (if they make it policy first of course), why not people claiming money from the government?

My question would be, once they have been screened for drugs and found positive, what would the next step be? Counselling, health advice, cancelling their social security? Reduce their social security by the commensurate cost of the drugs (so the government cannot be said to be paying for the drug addiction)?

Drugs harm not only the user, but those around them (and those within them in this circumstance). Why should these people not be given assistance to get off the drugs, stick or carrot (stick - reduce their payments, carrot - free health advice and possibly a 'bonus' if they can stay 'clean').

I believe this would only apply to applicants, meaning they are not on welfare yet.

[Yoshi]

I believe this would only apply to applicants, meaning they are not on welfare yet.

Making the situation worse - I go in, I've just lost my job for whatever reason, and the assumption is that, because so many welfare recipients are, I'm a druggy so I need to be tested?

Seriously..

H.

[clemsontigers23]

Making the situation worse - I go in, I've just lost my job for whatever reason, and the assumption is that, because so many welfare recipients are, I'm a druggy so I need to be tested?

Seriously..

H.

What's so wrong with it? If you're not a druggie, you've got nothing to hide. It's like jobs doing background checks and drug testing. It's a necessary thing and I don't see the terrible inconvenience of it.

[Yoshi]

Lets put it into another situation...

Some Christians are hardcore right wing conservatists.. Therefore all Christians are hardcore right wing conservatists and need to be taken out and shot..

I'm not serious... But the analogy holds - a handful of welfare recipients do the wrong thing, and now all recipients have to be subjected to testing because they could be a druggy..

It's not about having something to hide, it's about having the stigma attached to you that is totally undeserved!

[Sam!]

It's got nothing to do with whether or not you are likely to be a drug user. Rather, drug use will explicitly preclude you from receiving welfare benefits. Maybe they should just ask? Your analogy is ridiculous because nobody is proposing we shoot the worst right wing activists.