This seems reasonable.

[ballsofsteel]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/drug-testing-for-food-stamps-might-be-coming-soon/ar-AAvNQZa?OCID=ansmsnnews11

[HarleyDog]

Very reasonable. Not everyone will agree but I do. Besides, many jobs require drug testing to get hired. If your kicking back doping up on welfare, your not really helping yourself in the job market. I do think if the government requires it, they need to cover the cost of the test. I don't feel many people on benefits get high and it would be an unnecessary burden for them to pay for the test which can be anywhere from 50-100 bucks.

[fredtoast]

What about drug testing for every student who receives a free public education?

What about drug testing for every farmer who receives government subsidies?

[HarleyDog]

(04-12-2018, 07:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What about drug testing for every student who receives a free public education?

What about drug testing for every farmer who receives government subsidies?

Your supposed to smoke dope in college? 

[Dill]

(04-12-2018, 07:06 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Very reasonable. Not everyone will agree but I do. Besides, many jobs require drug testing to get hired. If your kicking back doping up on welfare, your not really helping yourself in the job market. I do think if the government requires it, they need to cover the cost of the test. I don't feel many people on benefits get high and it would be an unnecessary burden for them to pay for the test which can be anywhere from 50-100 bucks.

What if the drug testing costs way more than the savings for kicking dopers off the dole?

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2018, 07:32 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Your supposed to smoke dope in college? 

Not sure what your point is, but what about drug testing for every person who gets a government subsidized loan or grant to go to college?

Why shouldn't every eprson who receives a benefit from the government have to be subjected to drug testing?

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2018, 07:51 PM)Dill Wrote: What if the drug testing costs way more than the savings for kicking dopers off the dole?

That is what happened when they tried this in Florida.

[StLucieBengal]

I love this idea. Time to weed out. These people

[hollodero]

(04-12-2018, 07:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What about drug testing for every student who receives a free public education?

What about drug testing for every farmer who receives government subsidies?

These examples are supporting a greater common good. Better educated people, farmed lands, these things are not just about the individual, and positive results can be verified.

Not that I'd personally be for drug testing anyone who isn't potentially endangering others. But it's different when talking about food stamp recipients or farmers/students.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-12-2018, 07:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What about drug testing for every student who receives a free public education?

What about drug testing for every farmer who receives government subsidies?

Awesome!  Go for it!  Fred, I always knew that you would come around.  Heck, drug testing every student would go a long way from many racking up a ton of student loan debt.  Testing farmers?  Sure, I'm betting that by and large, most farmers would come up clean anyway.

[Benton]

Randomly or regularly?

Because if it’s regular, that’s a giant waste of money. For cheap yeasts it’s $40-60. Maybe more depending on state. And there’s the cost of someone to administer it.

Nation-wide you’re talking about millions of dollars to prevent a few people from doing something illegal and receiving government assistance. If we’re going to require drug testing for that, there’s a whole can of worms.

[*bfine32*]

(04-12-2018, 07:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What about drug testing for every student who receives a free public education?

What about drug testing for every farmer who receives government subsidies?

Why would you want to test every farmer or student when this proposal only targets 5% of folks that receive food stamps? Do you hate students and farmers that much? 

[ballsofsteel]

The reason I thought this was reasonable is because I knew a guy at a place I used to work who told me he had a girl in her late twenties who was on drugs and received food stamps. This guy was somewhat of a lowlife and a scammer himself. He said him and his wife would go to Krogers and get $200 worth of food in their cart. They would then call this girl and have her meet them there. She would go through the line with them and pay for the food with her food stamps. When they got outside, he would give her $100. I can see how this would be hard to implement and costly.

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2018, 10:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why would you want to test every farmer or student when this proposal only targets 5% of folks that receive food stamps? Do you hate students and farmers that much? 

Why would the proposal only target 5%?  How is that fair?

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2018, 09:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: These examples are supporting a greater common good. Better educated people, farmed lands, these things are not just about the individual, and positive results can be verified.

Not that I'd personally be for drug testing anyone who isn't potentially endangering others. But it's different when talking about food stamp recipients or farmers/students.

I disagree.  Taking care of the poor helps everyone.  There are not enough jobs for everyone to earn a living wage.  Things would get ugly for EVERYONE if the poor were left to starve.

Taking care of the disadvantaged ensure domestic tranquility.  Without these types of programs there would be trouble on the streets.

[hollodero]

(04-13-2018, 09:10 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I disagree.  Taking care of the poor helps everyone.  There are not enough jobs for everyone to earn a living wage.  Things would get ugly for EVERYONE if the poor were left to starve.

Sure, of course, I'm from European socialist utopia and still vote left, so no argument here, and I'm also against drug tests. Still food stamps are not quite comparable to students or farm subsidies. In that food stamps are an individual aid not meant to support habits that potentially led to this situation or perpetuate it. Meaning a recipient financing his drug taking habits with food stamps, which sure does happen. I feel that's a reasonable point to make.

If a farmer takes his drugs on a Friday evening - less important, as long as the job he's subsidized for gets done, or say the student that still passes his exams. There's just no comparable job to get done for food stamp recipients. So different premise.

[*michaelsean*]

"The proposal under review would be narrowly targeted, applying mostly to people who are able-bodied, without dependents and applying for some specialized jobs."

I don't get the "applying for specialized jobs" part.

[GMDino]

Without doing a bunch of research this morning I don't remember a program like this ever saving more money than it cost.

Not that that would stop its implementation.  People need to hate "others" and just accusing them of being lazy takers isn't enough when you can call them druggies too.  

[*Nately120*]

Oy, it's like American taxpayers are just begging for new and exciting ways the government can waste our money. I begrudgingly accept the fact that fiscal conservatism is dead, but now we're just getting to the point of defiling its corpse when we cheer for crap like this.

Wouldn't it just be easier to make drug use legal for people who draw a W2?

[fredtoast]

Let me add that I do not have a problem with extra requirements for able bodied people with no dependents to draw food stamps. But it should be education, work training or something like that instead of drug testing.