Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have 405,712 members! Join today to learn, network, laugh, and share with nurses.
| No. 40 | 
Jul 03, 2009, 02:35 PM
 re: Ethical Situation: Welfare Recipient Drug Testing?
I have long opposed routine drug testing; I don't think it should be done for anything but reasonable suspicion of drug use on the job. It is an invasion of privacy; what I do on my own time should not be my employer's business.
That said: Drug testing is a modern-day reality of life, and if I have to pass a UDS in order to get, and keep, a job, I don't see anything wrong with requiring welfare and food stamp recipients to do so to keep their benefits.
This is coming from someone who used to be ON welfare. I know that not all low-income people are druggies because we certainly weren't, nor were any of our friends who were in the same leaky boat with us. Then again, I have a daughter who's collecting some $500 a month in food stamps, and she and her significant other smoke pot like it's going out of style. She's a SAHM, and HE refuses to get a job because he'd have to give up the weed in order to pass a UDS. So they sit at home smoking all day.....on MY dime, and your dime as well. Makes me mad enough to bite a rock.:angryfire
 | | No. 43 |
Jul 04, 2009, 04:49 AM
re: Ethical Situation: Welfare Recipient Drug Testing?
I don't see why those who are using the public benefits as they were intended would object to drug testing. Also, the term "welfare" is an umbrella term for scores of programs that span over many departments of federal, state, county and city governments. And that doesn't even count the medical benefit side of things. Some are temporary, some are permanent, some require active effort to become employed, some don't. It's plain impossible to stereotype every beneficiary. Also, I'd be very wary of statistics people use to buttress their position. For instance, that 1% refers to what they call cash benefits, or Temporary Aid for Needy Families. That type of benefit was limited to five years total per family when they enacted Welfare Reform (federal).
Why does asking for accountability "criminalize sick people"? No one is saying to toss people into jail if they flunk their drug screen. That question refers to what happens to nonviolent drug related convictions.
A reform in California, Prop 36, has been very succesful since 2000. It says that "people convicted of nonviolent drug possession receive drug treatment instead of incarceration for their first two nonviolent drug possession offences" That has saved the state millions of dollars and often the first time many of them had received any treatment at all. Total win-win.
| | No. 44 |
Jul 04, 2009, 07:25 AM
re: Ethical Situation: Welfare Recipient Drug Testing? Originally Posted by kythe  I'm surprised at the assumptions being made here about welfare recipients. Do you all really believe welfare is a hiding place for lazy people and druggies? Most people recieving benefits work and have children, they just don't make enough to support their families.
I first recieved benefits when I left my abusive husband and moved into a homeless shelter. I rode the bus everywhere and lived off of food stamps and cash assistance. I remember once standing at a bus stop outside the DES office with my baby and toddler and someone driving by in a car slowed down to shout, "So you're one of these people who takes all our tax dollars to just pop out babies!".
I went to a vocational school for medical assisting because it was a fast, easy way to get into the work force. I continued on state benefits for 4 years because I still didn't make enough to support our family.
Most people on welfare have children. Most people on welfare have jobs. Most people are on welfare for less than 5 years of entire lives. I know I will hear responses like, "Well, we weren't talking about people like you, we were talking about those who abuse the system". But I'm not an exception to the rule. This is what welfare looks like.
I dont really see how this argues for or against drug testing...
On purely philosophical grounds I am against routine drug testing of the general population. However, if people are making you pass a drug screen to get a job and you are on welfare, it makes sense to require that those on welfare can pass a drug test. This makes it easier to get a job and get off welfare.
I also think people should not be allowed to get welfare unless they completed high school or got a GED. Social programs should help those who help themselves.
| | No. 45 |
Jul 04, 2009, 09:05 AM
re: Ethical Situation: Welfare Recipient Drug Testing?
If someone genuinely needs help, I would be the first one to point them in the direction of the welfare system. (And you better believe I wouldn't be too proud to get in line if my family ever needed it.) With that being said, I have to share a situation I found myself in about 13 years ago, when I was in beauty school.
I worked three jobs in order to put myself through school, since I had made about $12,000 the year before, and the government decided that I had made too much money to be eligible for any kind of assistance with my education. (Glad they thought so!) I didn't have any children at the time. Long story short, about 95% (I'm not exaggerating at all) of the students that I attended school with had already attended other schools and received training in at least 4-5 other areas. They thought it was better to keep going to school instead of just getting a job. Needless to say, this frustrated me greatly. (Especially when they came to school every day in their designer clothes, and I had holes in the bottom of my shoes!) I also got to listen to them brag about how they had gotten high the night before, in the break room every day.
Do I think you should have to pass a drug test in order to receive welfare? You bet. Not only would it cut down on people using their benefits to buy drugs, but it would also make it less difficult for people who really need help to get it, without having to jump through so many hoops!
| | No. 46 |
Jul 04, 2009, 01:54 PM
re: Ethical Situation: Welfare Recipient Drug Testing? Originally Posted by nursel56 I don't see why those who are using the public benefits as they were intended would object to drug testing. Also, the term "welfare" is an umbrella term for scores of programs that span over many departments of federal, state, county and city governments. And that doesn't even count the medical benefit side of things. Some are temporary, some are permanent, some require active effort to become employed, some don't. It's plain impossible to stereotype every beneficiary. Also, I'd be very wary of statistics people use to buttress their position. For instance, that 1% refers to what they call cash benefits, or Temporary Aid for Needy Families. That type of benefit was limited to five years total per family when they enacted Welfare Reform (federal).
Somewhat off topic, but I remember when they decided to start fingerprinting those recieving welfare. What a stink it caused. It was meant to cut down on abuse. Considering that my fingerprints on somewhere on file from being in the service I had no sympathy to the protestors. Someone actually painted a large fingerprint on the wall of one of the buildings that processes benefits. Another waste of taxpayer's money to clean that paint off. Sheesh!
Recently my dh was disabled for about 5 months and we applied for some help. Had no issue with being fingerprinted, photo id'd and would have had no issue with a drug test. Unfortunately I was just a bit over the salary line to recieve anything. ..something like $20 or so.
| | No. 47 |
Jul 04, 2009, 06:17 PM
re: Ethical Situation: Welfare Recipient Drug Testing? In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.
at http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/this-land.shtml | | No. 49 |
Jul 04, 2009, 09:54 PM
re: Ethical Situation: Welfare Recipient Drug Testing? Originally Posted by wowza I dont really see how this argues for or against drug testing...
I guess not, but neither did some of the other posts earlier. 
For what it's worth, I tend toward support for drug testing, but not with the purpose of eliminating drug users from the welfare system. Drugs always cost society in some way or another. A person kicked off welfare for drug use won't just disappear into oblivion, they may end up on the streets or in jail. These consequences also cost taxpayers in different ways. I don't think there is an easy answer, but I like the idea of rehab and programs to develop job skills for those addicted to drugs so they are given tools they need to become contributing members of society. On purely philosophical grounds I am against routine drug testing of the general population. However, if people are making you pass a drug screen to get a job and you are on welfare, it makes sense to require that those on welfare can pass a drug test. This makes it easier to get a job and get off welfare.
I also think people should not be allowed to get welfare unless they completed high school or got a GED. Social programs should help those who help themselves.
The problem with saying people need to finish high school or get a GED first is how they will support themselves while going through school. You've got to start somewhere. What about teen parents who drop out of school to work to support their baby since their own families won't support them? How will they make enough to survive, especially if they have to finish school before being eligible for help?
There are millions of children on Medicaid who have no other health insurance, for a variety of reasons. It shouldn't be a requirement that these children's parents be high school graduates before their medical needs are met.
|
| 335 members
2,828 guests 3,163
|
World News & Politics