View Full Version : Oklahoma lawmaker wants welfare drug testing



Pages : [1] 2

BBatesokc
08-05-2011, 02:34 PM
DOkla http://newsok.com/article/3591950#disqus_thread

I say Hallelujah!

FRISKY
08-05-2011, 02:44 PM
Good idea, but they add so many loopholes it becomes meaningless.

MustangGT
08-05-2011, 03:13 PM
Test them and if positive even once it is a lifetime of NO MORE FREEBIES.

Achilleslastand
08-05-2011, 04:36 PM
Where would the money for all these drug tests come from?
I guess the applicant would have to choose between welfare as a way of life or drugs as a way of life.....decisions decisions.

Thunder
08-05-2011, 05:01 PM
He says drug testing would be mandatory and that applicants who test positive for controlled substances would be disqualified from the program for one year, unless they choose to seek treatment.

This makes me sad. That lawmaker will be hearing from me about this. Hydrocondone is a controlled substance in which I regularly shove down my throat. If this law passes and the test on me comes back positive, look for me on KOCO's news.

dmoor82
08-05-2011, 05:06 PM
This makes me sad. That lawmaker will be hearing from me about this. Hydrocondone is a controlled substance in which I regularly shove down my throat. If this law passes and the test on me comes back positive, look for me on KOCO's news.

Thunder, that's only if you DONT have a prescription and thats assuming your on welfare!

betts
08-05-2011, 05:07 PM
Seriously? Sounds like a great new bureaucracy. Personally, if I'm going to spend more money for welfare recipients, I'd like to restart the WPA and the CCC. Let people who cannot support themselves (and aren't TRULY disabled) be given a job, even if it is cleaning up parks or building fences. Let them learn a trade so they can be proud of themselves for accomplishing something. When your life is totally miserable and you have no joy in it, drugs are appealing. People who have purpose and satisfaction in their lives and accomplishments have a lot less need for drugs. There will always be people you cannot help, but there are also people trapped in welfare who simply don't know where to start to change their lives.

Let's also spend more money making sure everyone who has the intelligence can read. If you can read, you can do anything. I'd much rather spend my money for private tutors for people who cannot read than pay some lab to test them for drugs.

dmoor82
08-05-2011, 05:11 PM
I see it this way,If my hard earned tax Dollars are going to a population of Welfare receipiants who inturn use that money for drugs then YES I am all for this Drug testing,but Drug addicts almost always relapse so I think a 3 strikes type deal would be better or a reduction of benifits.Some people out there really need Welfare(Mentally disabled etc..)but some truly take advantage of tax payers and do nothing but burden us and the communities in wich they live in and inturn The Government is acting as enablers too this population!

PennyQuilts
08-05-2011, 05:25 PM
Where would the money for all these drug tests come from?
I guess the applicant would have to choose between welfare as a way of life or drugs as a way of life.....decisions decisions.

They have plenty of other choices.

I don't think it is ever a good idea to subsidize drug abuse and since many of these people qualify because they have children, I feel even stronger about it.

PennyQuilts
08-05-2011, 05:31 PM
Seriously? Sounds like a great new bureaucracy. Personally, if I'm going to spend more money for welfare recipients, I'd like to restart the WPA and the CCC. Let people who cannot support themselves (and aren't TRULY disabled) be given a job, even if it is cleaning up parks or building fences. Let them learn a trade so they can be proud of themselves for accomplishing something. When your life is totally miserable and you have no joy in it, drugs are appealing. People who have purpose and satisfaction in their lives and accomplishments have a lot less need for drugs. There will always be people you cannot help, but there are also people trapped in welfare who simply don't know where to start to change their lives.

Let's also spend more money making sure everyone who has the intelligence can read. If you can read, you can do anything. I'd much rather spend my money for private tutors for people who cannot read than pay some lab to test them for drugs.

I agree with a lot of what you said but my experience tells me that idle middleclass white teenagers may turn to drugs out of angst and boredom but in the hood it is pretty much a way of life. They don't do drugs because they are "miserable" - they do drugs because that is normal to them. You and I might be miserable in the hood because it is so crappy. In contrast, to the ones living there, they adapt and are just as happy or unhappy as anyone else. They might be angry due to dysfuntional families but giving them welfare doesn't change any of that.

I don't know how much you have gone to the hood but if you do, prepare to be in a different world - and that is one of the reasons I am so passionate about not giving welfare to prop up generational poverty. We may get mothers and their children to a point above a certain arbitrarily defined poverty level but in so doing, we damn those children to a life with crappy schools, violent neighborhoods and are a big part of robbing these kids of the future we would want our own kids to have. I'd rather take kids from parents who can't afford to feed them. That sounds harsh but I don't think it is. Parents who worry their kids will be taken are far more likely to straighten up and fly right. Moreover, they are less likely to bring more children into the world that they know they can't afford. It is no kindess to damn those children to living in the hood.

dmoor82
08-05-2011, 05:33 PM
Where would the money for all these drug tests come from?
I guess the applicant would have to choose between welfare as a way of life or drugs as a way of life.....decisions decisions.

A Non addicted Life on Welfare if you are Healthy,still gives you an oppurtunity to better your Life and find a decent job and better your circumstances.A Drug addicted way of Life hurts You and all who Love you,there is little Hope for people who dont want Help!A One strike and your out type deal is too harsh,but a 3 strike and your out or benifit cuts is understandable.People will use drugs if there rich or poor but why should we have to pay for it?

PennyQuilts
08-05-2011, 05:38 PM
A Non addicted Life on Welfare if you are Healthy,still gives you an oppurtunity to better your Life and find a decent job and better your circumstances.A Drug addicted way of Life hurts You and all who Love you,there is little Hope for people who dont want Help!A One strike and your out type deal is too harsh,but a 3 strike and your out or benifit cuts is understandable.People will use drugs if there rich or poor but why should we have to pay for it?

Agreed.

And people falling on hard times are one thing - and I think that is what most of us think of when we think welfare. Unfortunately, for a huge portion of the population, welfare is a way of life and they don't see any reason to change it. Plus, with so many families no longer marrying, more tend to become eligible for welfare even if together because mom doesn't have legal rights to the father's income. The exploding welfare ranks are the result of the bad economy, certainly - but in addition, the change in culture and weakening of the stigma of accepting public assistance has also turned the system on its head. So an unmarried couple with three kids can get welfare but their married friends with three children who live on the next block aren't eligible.

dmoor82
08-05-2011, 05:50 PM
I am a registered(Moderate) Democrat and even I like this proposed law!

rcjunkie
08-05-2011, 08:08 PM
Seriously? Sounds like a great new bureaucracy. Personally, if I'm going to spend more money for welfare recipients, I'd like to restart the WPA and the CCC. Let people who cannot support themselves (and aren't TRULY disabled) be given a job, even if it is cleaning up parks or building fences. Let them learn a trade so they can be proud of themselves for accomplishing something. When your life is totally miserable and you have no joy in it, drugs are appealing. People who have purpose and satisfaction in their lives and accomplishments have a lot less need for drugs. There will always be people you cannot help, but there are also people trapped in welfare who simply don't know where to start to change their lives.

Let's also spend more money making sure everyone who has the intelligence can read. If you can read, you can do anything. I'd much rather spend my money for private tutors for people who cannot read than pay some lab to test them for drugs.

But your missing the fact that the ones using/abusing drugs don't want to work or learn to read. They are happy living off the system (government).

MustangGT
08-05-2011, 08:13 PM
How about telling all the people on the governemnt dole they will get no money NO MATTER WHAT. Perfect solution that will save trillions of dollars. Survival of the fittest.

tigris
08-05-2011, 09:31 PM
that is great, not only will it help cut down on government spending, it will also help motivate people with substance abuse to get better

tigris
08-05-2011, 09:40 PM
true, their first priority and primary motivation should be their children, but people who are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol often lose sight of whats truly important. but if you take away their money, you've taken their means to buy the drugs, and although they may resort to some other source of income, at the very least, drug dealers are not being paid with tax payer money. i like this new idea

Bunty
08-05-2011, 09:57 PM
How about telling all the people on the governemnt dole they will get no money NO MATTER WHAT. Perfect solution that will save trillions of dollars. Survival of the fittest.

Then in that case, be sure to arm yourself should they come to your door begging for money and won't take no for an answer.

Bunty
08-05-2011, 10:00 PM
Requiring drug testing proves how the war on drugs has failed the people. Mandatory drug testing also goes against the 4th Amendment, unless one is supposed to believe that someone wanting to be on welfare is a sign of being on drugs.

Bunty
08-05-2011, 10:08 PM
Where would the money for all these drug tests come from?


If taxpayers pay for it and most tests turn up negative, then I don't see is as a worthwhile expense for taxpayers.

HewenttoJared
08-06-2011, 06:08 AM
But your missing the fact that the ones using/abusing drugs don't want to work or learn to read. They are happy living off the system (government).

Their kids might.

This might be a good law, but not without a serious infrastructure for absorbing tens of thousands of kids into government care when their parents fail. Right now a child is about as well off in the hands of druggy parents as they are in government hands. DHS is horribly, horribly underfunded and the burden this law would place on them would exceed their ability to cope, even poorly. It would just grind to a halt.

BBatesokc
08-06-2011, 06:18 AM
Requiring drug testing proves how the war on drugs has failed the people. Mandatory drug testing also goes against the 4th Amendment, unless one is supposed to believe that someone wanting to be on welfare is a sign of being on drugs.

I disagree. Requiring testing doesn't prove fighting drugs is a failure - it merely shows how prolific drugs are. I don't think it violates anyone's rights to have mandatory minimum requirements for something that isn't a government's obligation to begin with. If you don't want to be tested, then don't signup for welfare.

MustangGT
08-06-2011, 07:45 AM
Trust they will leve my front door one way or another!!! Bunty, I will just send them round to you so you can step and fetch for them.

USG'60
08-06-2011, 08:23 AM
They should test for cigarette use, too, then. Talk about a waste of taxpayers' money.

HewenttoJared
08-06-2011, 09:17 AM
They should test for cigarette use, too, then. Talk about a waste of taxpayers' money.

Even better: Make cigarettes illegal--->test for them for welfare--->save billions in medical costs every year

Midtowner
08-06-2011, 09:20 AM
Even better: Make cigarettes illegal--->test for them for welfare--->save billions in medical costs every year

Oh yes, prohibition of an addictive substance.

What could possibly go wrong?

stick47
08-06-2011, 10:09 AM
Drug test everyone that's working for the government I say. There's gotta be a reason we're in such a mess!

Soonerman
08-06-2011, 11:12 AM
^ ding ding ding we have a winner folks.

Bunty
08-06-2011, 12:19 PM
Drug test everyone that's working for the government I say. There's gotta be a reason we're in such a mess!

But it's not a good way to detect for alcoholics as quickly as alcohol leaves the body.

Larry OKC
08-06-2011, 12:59 PM
Oh yes, prohibition of an addictive substance.

What could possibly go wrong?
Someone needs to post the clip from Westworld where the lines goes "...nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong".

Roadhawg
08-06-2011, 05:13 PM
I see it this way,If my hard earned tax Dollars are going to a population of Welfare receipiants who inturn use that money for drugs then YES I am all for this Drug testing,but Drug addicts almost always relapse so I think a 3 strikes type deal would be better or a reduction of benifits.Some people out there really need Welfare(Mentally disabled etc..)but some truly take advantage of tax payers and do nothing but burden us and the communities in wich they live in and inturn The Government is acting as enablers too this population!

I agree with you but I wouldn't want to see the children suffer because of their parents drug usage, any more than they are suffering already. I also believe there should be a time limit on being on welfare and slowly reduce benefits when they get closer to the cut off time. The cut off time needs to be tied to the unemployment rate, which is low in Oklahoma. I also think if you're on Welfare you don't get additional benefits if you have another kid. If you can't afford the ones you have now then we're not paying for more.

ljbab728
08-06-2011, 10:41 PM
Someone needs to post the clip from Westworld where the lines goes "...nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQVWP8fP5To

Larry OKC
08-07-2011, 01:10 AM
Thanks!
:yourock:

betts
08-07-2011, 08:41 AM
Of course, you could make drugs legal and then tax the heck out of them. As far as I'm concerned, we should double the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol and make those who use them pay for their added health care costs. If I could figure out a way for us to tax fattening foods I'd suggest the same. Over half the health problems in this country are caused by abuse of alcohol, tobacco, drugs and food. The people who don't abuse these substances subsidize those who do, and that's a form of welfare as well.

BBatesokc
08-07-2011, 08:50 AM
Of course, you could make drugs legal and then tax the heck out of them. As far as I'm concerned, we should double the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol and make those who use them pay for their added health care costs. If I could figure out a way for us to tax fattening foods I'd suggest the same. Over half the health problems in this country are caused by abuse of alcohol, tobacco, drugs and food. The people who don't abuse these substances subsidize those who do, and that's a form of welfare as well.

Amen - except for legalizing and taxing drugs. Pot, fine. Meth, no way.

icemncmth
08-07-2011, 09:10 AM
Requiring drug testing proves how the war on drugs has failed the people. Mandatory drug testing also goes against the 4th Amendment, unless one is supposed to believe that someone wanting to be on welfare is a sign of being on drugs.

I would agree but a lot of companies have mandatory drug testing...so if you are getting money to live on from the government I would think it shouldn't be a problem. The welfare problem in this country is out of control. Pull up to the Buy F Less on Penn and Hefner and watch the people getting out of 40,000 vehicles and then going in and using their OK card. We all know it happens but why do our politicians let it happen?

icemncmth
08-07-2011, 09:18 AM
Of course, you could make drugs legal and then tax the heck out of them. As far as I'm concerned, we should double the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol and make those who use them pay for their added health care costs. If I could figure out a way for us to tax fattening foods I'd suggest the same. Over half the health problems in this country are caused by abuse of alcohol, tobacco, drugs and food. The people who don't abuse these substances subsidize those who do, and that's a form of welfare as well.

I would agree to some of your statements but fattening foods. Define fattening foods? Is lard fattening or the over usage of it? How about all natural peanut butter?

Our founding forefathers knew that keeping the government out of our daily lives was a good thing. Remember there have been governments that have controlled what their citizens eat, drink,,,how many children they have, what they wear.

There a a ton of laws on the books that we don't enforce why put more. It is harder to remove laws off of the books than put them on.

I don't want the government telling me I can't eat bacon.

betts
08-07-2011, 01:39 PM
That's why I said, "If I could figure out a way....." Obviously it's not possible to make a determination about which foods would need to be taxed and which wouldn't. And, the government wouldn't be telling you you couldn't eat bacon. It would simply charge you a tax that would supplement the Medicare charges for your coronary artery bypass a few years later, which the non-bacon eaters will also have to pay for under our current plan.

Thunder
08-07-2011, 06:57 PM
Pull up to the Buy F Less on Penn and Hefner and watch the people getting out of 40,000 vehicles and then going in and using their OK card.

Be very careful when judging people. They could have gotten it thru an auction or somewhere lucky. Also, they could have inherited the vehicle from a dead family member or it was a given gift.

Achilleslastand
08-07-2011, 07:07 PM
These scenarios are possible but not very likely. Dont tell me your that gullable.

rcjunkie
08-07-2011, 09:08 PM
Be very careful when judging people. They could have gotten it thru an auction or somewhere lucky. Also, they could have inherited the vehicle from a dead family member or it was a given gift.

And it could snow in Hati, and monkeys could fly out of my_______.

Bunty
08-08-2011, 12:46 AM
I would agree but a lot of companies have mandatory drug testing...so if you are getting money to live on from the government I would think it shouldn't be a problem. The welfare problem in this country is out of control. Pull up to the Buy F Less on Penn and Hefner and watch the people getting out of 40,000 vehicles and then going in and using their OK card. We all know it happens but why do our politicians let it happen?

Wow, $40,000 is how much a Chrysler 300C costs.

Larry OKC
08-08-2011, 01:53 PM
Car prices are unreal, saw recently a little Ford Ranger MSRP was something like $23K

Bunty
08-08-2011, 02:10 PM
Oh, well, maybe people who hate welfare well be less offended when they see the tax consumers driving $23,000 vehicles.

rcjunkie
08-08-2011, 02:55 PM
Oh, well, maybe people who hate welfare well be less offended when they see the tax consumers driving $23,000 vehicles.

WTH is a tax consumer ?

BBatesokc
08-08-2011, 02:58 PM
Car prices are unreal, saw recently a little Ford Ranger MSRP was something like $23K

You're not kidding. I rode to lunch in a friend's $68,000 Hyundai today. I didn't see where all the value was. That's more than I paid for my house! (albeit a small old house in the ghetto).

rcjunkie
08-08-2011, 03:09 PM
You're not kidding. I rode to lunch in a friend's $68,000 Hyundai today. I didn't see where all the value was. That's more than I paid for my house! (albeit a small old house in the ghetto).

Just bought a new Suburban last week, was able to negotiate what I think is a very good price, but still way more than I wanted to spend. I didn't require financing, but salesman told me that probably 75% of new car customers finance for at least 72 and several for 84 months.

BBatesokc
08-08-2011, 03:12 PM
Just bought a new Suburban last week, was able to negotiate what I think is a very good price, but still way more than I wanted to spend. I didn't require financing, but salesman told me that probably 75% of new car customers finance for at least 72 and several for 84 months.

That is just crazy. I leased for a bit because there were some tax advantages for me, but my mileage allowance was always too low for my needs (25-35,000 miles per year is my requirement). If I can't pay cash, or pay it off in 36 months, then I don't need it.

OKCJosh
08-08-2011, 03:33 PM
Amen - except for legalizing and taxing drugs. Pot, fine. Meth, no way.

I have spent considerable time in Holland. The legalization of SOME drugs, restriction of their possession with stiffer penalties, zoning of allowable areas for sale and distribution is an entirely safe way to go about saving money on the war on drugs, the street violence the drug trade brings with it and boosting tax revenue. Legalization of meth is never going to happen nor should it. Other drugs, specifically marijuana and cocaine which attribute billions of dollars spent on our failing war on drugs and contribute the lions share of revenue in the drug trade could easily be legalized and controlled. Wheres the mexican and columbian cartel and street gang violence when their product is suddenly not wanted anymore?
The religious and moral overtones of our society is whats stopping logical solutions to these problems. I have many friends are who right-wing Christians who abhor the idea of legalized prostitution and drugs in this country as a moral failure. But readily admit (those that have lived overseas in places like Holland) that is does work and would work better than what we are currently doing. The real basis of this argument is should our government legislate morality? I say it should not, but it better make darn sure that allowing people their vices does not interfere with family values.

BBatesokc
08-08-2011, 04:09 PM
Like I said, wanna legalize pot - go for it. Personally I deal with meth heads and some heroin addicts, so legalizing of cocaine or pot isn't really a concern of mine. Addicts will always simply want the drug that isn't legal and organized crime will be there to provide it.

Back to the topic, I still see no reason not to require testing for welfare recipients.

USG'60
08-08-2011, 04:30 PM
Good post, Josh. Thoroughly reasonable.

PennyQuilts
08-08-2011, 06:36 PM
Drug test everyone that's working for the government I say. There's gotta be a reason we're in such a mess!

They typically already do that.

Thunder
08-08-2011, 06:44 PM
They typically already do that.

If they do, I'd like video evidence as proof.

Larry OKC
08-08-2011, 10:09 PM
They typically already do that.

That probably just applies to the "hired help". Would be shocked if it also applied to elected officials. they often exempt themselves from the rules they impose on the masses.

Prunepicker
08-08-2011, 10:12 PM
DOkla http://newsok.com/article/3591950#disqus_thread

I say Hallelujah!
Drug testing for welfare is a very, very good start. The less we give
to the non producers the better.

Bunty
08-09-2011, 10:38 AM
WTH is a tax consumer ?

I'm shocked a conservative would ask that as much as they abhor welfare. People being on welfare are an example of tax consumers.

Roadhawg
08-09-2011, 10:58 AM
Drug testing for welfare is a very, very good start. The less we give
to the non producers the better.

People on Social Security are non producers, should we give them less too?

Prunepicker
08-09-2011, 11:22 AM
People on Social Security are non producers
Not true. The majority of people on socialistic insecurity were/are
forced to pay into that Ponzi scheme. They have a contract that
says they're supposed to have it eked out to them at specific time
with an embarrassing low rate of return.


... should we give them less too?
Only if they didn't pay into the Ponzi scheme.

betts
08-09-2011, 02:32 PM
WWJD? He certainly wouldn't be a member of the Tea Party.

PennyQuilts
08-09-2011, 05:36 PM
WWJD? He certainly wouldn't be a member of the Tea Party.
I'm always a little sceptical when people claim to know what Jesus would do and what he wouldn't do. The whole WWJD always makes me wonder if being the son of god who can walk on water and raise the dead might have a few more options and a different perspective than most of us. =)