News Should government benefits be conditionally granted?

[MarcoD]

Are we certain there's no child porn on Government computers - would a federal (union) employee lose their job and/or pension over child porn? I'm for accountability at EVERY level!

Hmm. I am pretty liberal, but I think it is pretty normal people can lose their job watching (normal) porn at work.

 

[WhoWee]

Hmm. I am pretty liberal, but I think it is pretty normal people can lose their job watching (normal) porn at work.

Are we certain the federal employees lost their jobs last year when caught - what was effect on their pensions or benefits - maybe they owe compensation for the time they were paid to watch porn - does anyone know?

Here's a case we can follow.
http://www.ajc.com/news/federal-worker-held-on-1200439.html

Here's the one I remember.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/04/eye_opener_porn_and_federal_wo.html

"Several of employees held senior positions, earning between $99,300 and $222,418 per year, the inspector general's summary said. Three of the incidents occurred this year, ten in 2009, 16 in 2008, two in 2007 and one each in 2006 and 2005.

In one instance, a regional office staff account admitted viewing pornography on his office computer and on his SEC-issued laptop while on official government travel. Another staff account received nearly 1,800 access denials for pornography Web sites in a two-week period and had more than 600 images saved on her laptop’s hard drive, the report said.

A senior attorney at SEC headquarters in Washington admitted he sometimes spent as much as eight hours viewing pornography from his office computer, according to the report. The attorney’s computer ran out of space for the downloaded images, so he started storing them on CDs and DVDs that he stored in his office. "

A quick follow up story.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Porn-Watching-Workers-Punished-117729298.html
"Federal employees in Chicago and six other cities are being reprimanded for watching porn on the job."

 

[MarcoD]

Yeah well. It's all a bit silly too somehow. I know lots of people, mostly young, who had sex on their work, often just for fun or for imagined kicks. And now people are contemplating what to do with men who masturbated at work. Normally, I guess one could just call that healthy behavior.

Watching porn for eight hours when you should be working is a bit over the top -the guy is ill,- and porn at work does offend women often, so I am not against banning it.

(I used to teach at an IT college. Then porn is a problem. But it would be a bigger problem if it wouldn't be a problem. Of course, nearly all the male students watch porn, what else?)

Uhm, before everybody thinks we're all depraved individuals in the Netherlands, it usually boils down to incidents. An indecent wallpaper or some students finding something 'hilarious' on the Internet and watching 'that' in the cantina to the dismay of others. Students...

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah well. It's all a bit silly too somehow. I know lots of people, mostly young, who had sex on their work, often just for fun or for imagined kicks. And now people are contemplating what to do with men who masturbated at work. Normally, I guess one could just call that healthy behavior.

Watching porn for eight hours when you should be working is a bit over the top -the guy is ill,- and porn at work does offend women often, so I am not against banning it.

Some of these fellows worked at the Securities and Exchage Commission - the Wall St watchdog agency.

 

[MarcoD]

Some of these fellows worked at the Securities and Exchage Commission - the Wall St watchdog agency.

Yeah well, we're all dumb, drunk, and horny. (Okay, occasionally.) I don't get upset about sex.

The SEC, huh? Guess they had it coming.

 

[BobG]

There's two issues.

1) Is requiring drug tests an unreasonable search on innocent people? The number of guilty people (in this case, people poor because of their own poor life decisions) denied benefits is part of the equation on reasonableness. Or in other words, the benefits can justify some invasion of privacy (the US Supreme Court upholding random sobriety checks, for example).

Given some of the downside of drugs (especially a few highly addictive drugs such as meth, crack cocaine, heroin that are almost impossible to use in moderation), you'd expect more drug users to wind up needing financial assistance and the statistics do bear that out to a certain extent according to the http://www.samhsa.gov/data/nhsda/1997main/nhsda1997mfWeb-119.htm#Table13.1. (If broken out, marijuana use shows almost no difference in use between incomes.)

A. Any Illicit Drug Use in the Past Year

Age Group      12-17 18-25 26-34 35+  Total
Do receive     20.4  21.4  16.9  15.5 18.0  
Do not receive 18.6  25.7  14.1  5.8  10.9

So, requiring drug testing would theoretically cut welfare rolls quite drastically if the behavior of welfare recipients didn't change. That's probably unrealistic, though. The more likely result is that almost all welfare recipients would stop using illegal drugs. The only savings would come from those too addicted to change their behavior.

The majority of welfare recipients would be imposed on for no reason at all. The monetary benefit would be small. A small percentage of welfare recipients would make healthier life choices (which is almost always a good thing).

2) Is it fair to require a person to give up some freedoms in order to receive benefits from other taxpayers? This is equivalent to requiring a person to earn their rights by proving they're able to be independent adults.

Theoretically, the monetary impact should be positive. Earning the right to be a full citizen protected by the Constitution would increase the motivation of welfare recipients to support themselves and get off welfare. But that benefit relies on the assumption that welfare recipients are on welfare because they're lazy and would rather get money for nothing.

I don't think the idea would provide more motivation than the current federal program which limits the duration of welfare benefits (granted, those limitations tend to be diluted at least a little by the states and even federal regulations provide some exceptions to the limit on how long a person can receive benefits).

I also think setting some requirement for earning the right to Constitutional protection would run afoul of the Constitution.

Welfare benefits aren't the only benefit received by low income people. Earned income credit is part of the modern version of welfare benefits and that has no limits except the probability of a working person to eventually push their income above the poverty level. If the requirement for drug testing is going to expand to all that receive earned income credit, then I think there's going to be some drastic problems that go beyond just violating the rights of a few individuals. If we consider special tax deductions (child care credit, educational expenses, extra exemptions for each child, etc) and all the other things that result in nearly half the population paying no net income tax, then I think the problems of that proposal rise to the point where an entire political party could be driven out of existence.

I think the intent is clearly to limit drug testing to a group small enough that there will be almost no impact at all other than rhetorical.

 

[WhoWee]

Is the use of crack, crank and heroin a freedom that must be protected - or should we ask more from the people we choose to help?

 

[BobG]

Is the use of crack, crank and heroin a freedom that must be protected - or should we ask more from the people we choose to help?

Actually, I'd be in favor of a felony conviction making a person ineligible for government benefits for some period of time (maybe not for life, since there's the assumption that a person should be able to serve their time and then return to society as a productive member, even if the assumption seems to fail in many instances, but for some reasonable amount of time).

I think drug testing for people that haven't been convicted or even charged with any crime is overkill. And, for any preventative law (such as random roadside sobriety checks), I think you have to make darn sure the law isn't harrassing more innocent law abiding citizens than the few guilty parties you're catching.

 

[WhoWee]

Actually, I'd be in favor of a felony conviction making a person ineligible for government benefits for some period of time (maybe not for life, since there's the assumption that a person should be able to serve their time and then return to society as a productive member, even if the assumption seems to fail in many instances, but for some reasonable amount of time).

I think drug testing for people that haven't been convicted or even charged with any crime is overkill. And, for any preventative law (such as random roadside sobriety checks), I think you have to make darn sure the law isn't harrassing more innocent law abiding citizens than the few guilty parties you're catching.

I think the threat of random checks might be enough of a wake up call for a small percentage of people - my guess is the same percentage wouldn't care if the death penalty was the consequence of their actions (NOT suggesting the death penalty).

In the real world - hard drugs destroy lives of the addict and anyone that depends on them. IMO - Government programs can be enablers. If we REALLY want to help people let's tackle the problems in a way we can have an impact.

 

[BobG]

I think the threat of random checks might be enough of a wake up call for a small percentage of people - my guess is the same percentage wouldn't care if the death penalty was the consequence of their actions (NOT suggesting the death penalty).

In the real world - hard drugs destroy lives of the addict and anyone that depends on them. IMO - Government programs can be enablers. If we REALLY want to help people let's tackle the problems in a way we can have an impact.

This is the same justification for random roadside sobriety checks. The check points catch almost no one, but alcohol related traffic fatalities drop significantly on those weekends provided the check points receive enough publicity ahead of time on the local news.

But the other half of that equation is the limitations put on the officers conducting the check points. They can't do more than just ask you if you've been drinking or perhaps some other benign questions. The stops do no more than provide an opportunity for probable cause (the driver's breath reeks of alcohol, the driver can't put together a coherent sentence, etc.) The only drivers that actually receive a sobriety test are the drivers that gave the officers a probable cause just by uttering a few sentences. The key is that the "search" has to be reasonable even given the fact that most drivers stopped won't be drunk and may not have even drunk any alcohol at all. (Personally, I don't think random sobriety check points meet that standard, even with the limitations, but the US Supreme Court would disagree with me.)

A drug test requires a lot more. The person is going to have to report to some valid testing center, taking up an hour or more. For that type of inconvenience, it's going to be hard to meet the standard of a reasonable "search" when 80% or more of the people you're harrassing will be innocent.

 

[edward]

The drug test plan didn't work out as expected in Florida.

Gov. Rick Scott’s crusade to drug-test cash welfare applicants is turning out to be another thick-headed scheme that’s backfiring on Florida taxpayers.

The biggest beneficiaries are the testing companies that collect $10 to $25 for urine, blood or hair screening, a fee being paid by the state (you and me) whenever the applicant tests clean — currently about 97 percent of the cases.

The law, which easily passed the Legislature this year, was based on the misinformed and condescending premise that welfare recipients are more prone to use illegal drugs than people who are fortunate enough to have jobs.

Statistically, the opposite is true, despite the claims of Scott and Republican legislators who cheered this unnecessary and intrusive law.

The Department of Children and Families reports that since July, when the drug-testing program started, only 2.5 percent of welfare applicants have failed.

By contrast, about 8.9 percent of the general population illegally uses some kind of drug, according to the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/30/v-print/125268/commentary-drug-testing-welfare.html

I have mixed feelings on this one. I can't see withholding benefits for an entire family because one adult failed the drug test.

On the other hand we shouldn't have to support druggies.

It is kind of ironic that most employers now require drug testing for new hires.

 

[WhoWee]

It is kind of ironic that most employers now require drug testing for new hires.

That is a very good point edward - if you're unemployed and using illegal drugs - how are you going to pass a drug test?

 

[SixNein]

That is a very good point edward - if you're unemployed and using illegal drugs - how are you going to pass a drug test?

There are a lot of jobs that don't require drugs tests. Construction would be one example...

 

[WhoWee]

There are a lot of jobs that don't require drugs tests. Construction would be one example...

Depends upon the employer - also in the event of an accident - OSHA might disagree?

 

[Jasongreat]

I think drug testing for people that haven't been convicted or even charged with any crime is overkill. And, for any preventative law (such as random roadside sobriety checks), I think you have to make darn sure the law isn't harrassing more innocent law abiding citizens than the few guilty parties you're catching.

BobG, you said in your earlier post: 1) Is requiring drug tests an unreasonable search on innocent people? The number of guilty people (in this case, people poor because of their own poor life decisions) denied benefits is part of the equation on reasonableness. Or in other words, the benefits can justify some invasion of privacy (the US Supreme Court upholding random sobriety checks, for example).

You have made the most reasoned arguments yet in this thread, if we look at the sobriety checkpoints isssue, we will find that in the precedent setting case allowing sobriety checkpoints, that the majority opinion stated that those checkpoints were unconstitutional, but that they felt the founders and the majority would agree that they were needed( after I was stopped in one, was when my reading of the founders and american history as well as USC court cases began), I disagree on both counts( the founders did not make laws anywhere close to this invasion, and if the majority of the public agree, an ammendment would be not a hard thing to get, making it constitutional), but even then they put conditions, IIRC, it is a five point plan. They have to warn the public, they have to have an administrative order in place the public can see, it has to be put in a place that would have a higher percentage of risky people than non risky, they have to be held at times that will produce a higher number of convictions than free citizens, And most of all it has to be convenient, meaning they can't close down a freeway with thousands of people being inconvenienced for a few arrests.

Even with all these conditions, far more people are stopped, without probable cause, than are arrested for crimes. Just this last holiday season in Utah they had a checkpoint, 1000's stopped, 0 arrests. It doesn't seem to me a valid inconvenience.

To WhoWee: We know how you feel with the fourth and fifth ammendments, how about the rest. Should we take the right to free speech? The right to own guns? the right to a jury trial and due process? Or is it just the rights where you see as producing a drug and alcohol free society?

 

[SixNein]

Depends upon the employer - also in the event of an accident - OSHA might disagree?

Does OSHA even review construction? Maybe the largest jobs. There is also a lot of handy man stuff people can do.

 

[Jasongreat]

As far as the employer drug testing, isn't it convenient that the US government cant, constitutionaly, restrict personal choices, but then congress puts in place OSHA and MSHA among others, which mandate drug testing? I believe this is one of the biggest problems in the US. Congress knows they have no authority, so they put in place a regulatory agency, which goes out and does things congress would never have the guts to say aloud and which the american people would never allow. We can look at what the EPA, the DEA, the DOE, what ever agency does and one would have a hard time justifying their actions against the constitution if they were making law, as long as they are making regulations who cares? I would say I do, don't you?

Drug testing like a whiz quiz, does not test if one is high, it tests if one has used. If workplace safety is the issue, wouldn't they want to know if one was high? All it does is reduce the liability of insurance companies and corporate interests. He has used therefore he was at fault, therefore we don't have to pay anything. If one was serious about reducing workplace injuries, would the users at work be the ones you want to single out, or the ones that have used in the last week, or two weeks, or more? The down side I see is that those who smoke MJ are liable for a month or more, those who do tweek, coke, heroin, and about every other drug including prescriptions, except for valium which reacts similar to weed as in fat soluable and long lasting metabolites, are liable for less than one week, would you rather have someone smoking weed working with you or someone using alchohol or heroin or meth or cocaine? As someone who has used most all of it at one point or other in my life, and has worked with those using, most all of it, for most of my life, it is not those that use that worries me, it is those that are using while they are working which does. Let's pass mandatory blood tests, let's see how far that gets when you feel you have the right to stick a needle in everyones arm, it would never happen, that's why wiz quizzes are the way today. They reduce liabiility of the monied interests, while being unintrusive enough to allow them to go forth. At least that is the way the empirical evidence I have seen, leads me to believe.

 

[WhoWee]

BobG, you said in your earlier post: 1) Is requiring drug tests an unreasonable search on innocent people? The number of guilty people (in this case, people poor because of their own poor life decisions) denied benefits is part of the equation on reasonableness. Or in other words, the benefits can justify some invasion of privacy (the US Supreme Court upholding random sobriety checks, for example).

You have made the most reasoned arguments yet in this thread, if we look at the sobriety checkpoints isssue, we will find that in the precedent setting case allowing sobriety checkpoints, that the majority opinion stated that those checkpoints were unconstitutional, but that they felt the founders and the majority would agree that they were needed( after I was stopped in one, was when my reading of the founders and american history as well as USC court cases began), I disagree on both counts( the founders did not make laws anywhere close to this invasion, and if the majority of the public agree, an ammendment would be not a hard thing to get, making it constitutional), but even then they put conditions, IIRC, it is a five point plan. They have to warn the public, they have to have an administrative order in place the public can see, it has to be put in a place that would have a higher percentage of risky people than non risky, they have to be held at times that will produce a higher number of convictions than free citizens, And most of all it has to be convenient, meaning they can't close down a freeway with thousands of people being inconvenienced for a few arrests.

Even with all these conditions, far more people are stopped, without probable cause, than are arrested for crimes. Just this last holiday season in Utah they had a checkpoint, 1000's stopped, 0 arrests. It doesn't seem to me a valid inconvenience.

To WhoWee: We know how you feel with the fourth and fifth ammendments, how about the rest. Should we take the right to free speech? The right to own guns? the right to a jury trial and due process? Or is it just the rights where you see as producing a drug and alcohol free society?

In the context of this thread - what is wrong with a social contract whereby if you need our help - you agree to not break the law?

 

[Jasongreat]

In the context of this thread - what is wrong with a social contract whereby if you need our help - you agree to not break the law?

You are making the assumption that the drug laws are lawful. Which, IMO, takes quite a strech of the imagination if one reads the constitution. Unless one reads into it that document what they want to see, and not that which is seen. Why is it that those at the first of the century thought inorder to ban something an ammendment was needed? And then why was that ammendmend overturned? Why has government never again tried to ammend the constitution to ban things, but decides only to get a USC decision agreeing with them, means it is law? Last I heard legislation(laws) was the job of congress, not the USC.

And you still didnt answer, How about the rest of the bill of rights? How far are you willing to go with this disenfranchisement of rights?

 

[Jasongreat]

That is a very good point edward - if you're unemployed and using illegal drugs - how are you going to pass a drug test?

This assumes, drug tests are unbeatable. Let me tell you I know plenty of people who's mission in life it is to pass piss tests, and they have made a living doing it. On the other side, as I have said before, todays drug tests test to see if one has used, not if they are using.

 

[ThomasT]

In the context of this thread - what is wrong with a social contract whereby if you need our help - you agree to not break the law?

Nothing of course. It's not a breach of rights or in any way morally wrong to require people who are getting government benefits to conform to certain societal standards ... like not using illegal drugs.

My question had to do with whether such conditions/testing are actually worthwhile (wrt a cost/benefit analysis). The stats from Florida's testing of cash welfare recipients seems to indicate that the incidence of illegal drug use wrt that segment of the population is significantly less than the incidence of illegal drug use wrt the entire population.

But those statistics might be misleading in an important sense. It might be that, faced with the prospect of losing benefits via failed drug tests, a certain percentage of potential recipients of the welfare who would otherwise use illegal drugs choose not to do so because of the testing. And if that's the case, then the drug testing is a good thing, imo, by any measure, because any additional governmental expenditure will have been to good purpose in that it will have, presumably, changed lives in a positive way. Sometimes people who have habitually made bad decisions need a bit of (enforced) structure to compel them to make decisions that are good for them and those who depend on them.

So, wrt your OP, my current opinion is that, yes, government benefits should be conditionally granted. But not just wrt aid to the poor. The American financial and corporate sectors have in general habitually made some decisions and undertaken some actions which most of us would consider to be not in the best interests of America, or humanity for that matter. Of course holding the wealthy and powerful accountable is a lot harder than holding the poor and powerless accountable.

Which raises another question wrt your OP. Does it apply to wealthy and powerful corporations as well as people who need a few dollars to get sufficient food, or clothing, or housing, or transportation, etc. ?

 

[Jasongreat]

Nothing of course. It's not a breach of rights or in any way morally wrong to require people who are getting government benefits to conform to certain societal standards ... like not using illegal drugs.

My question had to do with whether such conditions/testing are actually worthwhile (wrt a cost/benefit analysis). The stats from Florida's testing of cash welfare recipients seems to indicate that the incidence of illegal drug use wrt that segment of the population is significantly less than the incidence of illegal drug use wrt the entire population.

But those statistics might be misleading in an important sense. It might be that, faced with the prospect of losing benefits via failed drug tests, a certain percentage of potential recipients of the welfare who would otherwise use illegal drugs choose not to do so because of the testing. And if that's the case, then the drug testing is a good thing, imo, by any measure, because any additional governmental expenditure will have been to good purpose in that it will have, presumably, changed lives in a positive way. Sometimes people who have habitually made bad decisions need a bit of (enforced) structure to compel them to make decisions that are good for them and those who depend on them.

So, wrt your OP, my current opinion is that, yes, government benefits should be conditionally granted. But not just wrt aid to the poor. The American financial and corporate sectors have in general habitually made some decisions and undertaken some actions which most of us would consider to be not in the best interests of America, or humanity for that matter. Of course holding the wealthy and powerful accountable is a lot harder than holding the poor and powerless accountable.

Which raises another question wrt your OP. Does it apply to wealthy and powerful corporations as well as people who need a few dollars to get sufficient food, or clothing, or housing, or transportation, etc. ?

ThomasT and WhoWee, let's look at another scenario. I don't use drugs, therefore the test won't effect me, but I use my welfare money to buy drugs, those which I sell. I am still using my welfare check to buy drugs, but I am not on drugs, how will taking my rights away keep me from buying drugs? The sad part is most welfare recipients, will only get fifty cents on the dollar for the previous discription.

 

[ThomasT]

ThomasT and WhoWee, let's look at another scenario. I don't use drugs, therefore the test won't effect me, but I use my welfare money to buy drugs, those which I sell. I am still using my welfare check to buy drugs, but I am not on drugs, how will taking my rights away keep me from buying drugs? The sad part is most welfare recipients, will only get fifty cents on the dollar for the previous discription.

Accompanying the disbursement of government funds with certain, quite reasonable imo, conditions doesn't constitute an infringement of rights.

In the scenario you outline above, the person/entrepreneur who uses their cash assistance to make a profit (whether via buying and selling drugs or whatever) is actualizing the ideal of free market capitalism.

Ironically, it's the US's archaic drug laws that make a certain sort of entrepreneurship possible, and which make drug testing necessary in the view of some.

Nevertheless, I think that doing drugs for recreational purposes, or engaging in illegal enterprises, is a self-defeating practice. So, as long as recreational drugs (except alcohol of course) are illegal, then I don't think that drug testing is altogether a bad thing and might even help a certain percentage of welfare recipients to change some of their bad habits ... to the benefit of themselves and those who depend on them. Call it "tough love". I think it actually works wrt a lot of people. Of course, I don't think for a moment that that's the reason that a particular (state, local, or federal) government might adopt the testing requirement, or why a lot of people would be in favor of it. But the net effect can be, I think, a positive one.

 

[daveb]

In the context of this thread - what is wrong with a social contract whereby if you need our help - you agree to not break the law?

Nothing at all - the problem arises when you presuppose guilt associated with breaking the law. Sobriety checkpoints was mentioned earlier - this would be the same as if at these checkpoints everyone had to go through a sobriety test, not just those the police had reasonable suspicion about. If there is reasonable suspicion about government assistance recipients breaking the law, by all means give them a drug test.

 

[ThomasT]

If there is reasonable suspicion about government assistance recipients breaking the law, by all means give them a drug test.

Afaik, there's no particular reason to assume that recipients of government assistance engage in illegal drug taking behavior to a greater extent than the general population. But I think the assumption is that a person could not be in such dire straits unless he/she was either extraordinarily stupid, or mentally ill, or addicted to drugs and/or alcohol.

But then, the financial sector has gotten a lot more government aid than poor people ever will. So ...

 

[daveb]

I was referring to specific individuals, not the group as a whole. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Moonbear]

I think personal responsibility is important. If someone needs assistance from the Government with housing, medical, food, education, transportation, utilities, communications, and cash in their pocket - shouldn't they be expected not to break the law?

That is the expectation. We also expect that our citizens are presumed innocent unless proven guilty, and a pesky 4th Amendment in the Constitution that prevents searches without probable cause. So, if someone shows up to their local benefits office clearly stoned out of their mind, sure, I have no problem with calling the cops on them and if arrested and convicted, having their benefits dropped. I do not condone testing anyone who ends up down on their luck just because they're down on their luck.

I don't know of any assistance programs that end because someone is arrested or tests positive for drugs (outside of the FL program) - do you?

Even when sentenced to jail - members of a household can still collect. We even have hiring incentives for ex-convicts.

Are all the other members of the household also guilty of a crime because one member has committed a crime? If so, why aren't they in jail too? Throw a whole family out on the street because one is a bad apple?

There is also a premise to our prison system that the idea is to rehabilitate people, which is why they get released eventually, supposedly having learned their lesson and better equipped to avoid making the same mistake again (yes, I concede that we fail miserably at this, but that's another discussion for another thread). If someone gets a 3 year prison sentence for drugs, and upon release can't get a job and can't get benefits, that's more of a life sentence. How do they survive out of prison without resorting back to criminal behavior if they can't earn an honest living and can't get government benefits? No matter how bad prison is, it starts to look pretty good compared to living in a cardboard box and begging for food. That seems like a setup to encourage a return to criminal behavior...nothing left to lose even if caught...rather than putting an end to it and helping them become a productive citizen.

But, even if we toss out the Constitution, ignore civil rights, decide that an addiction is an unforgivable crime, and cry that everyone who opposes this is a soppy, bleeding heart liberal who should be ignored because they just want to waste money on government handouts to pathetic, undeserving low-lifes, there's also a financial argument against it. First, consider the cost for every innocent person tested. Drug testing, especially if run by the government, isn't cheap. It's not just the cost of the test itself (and it's not a single test...they're somewhat done a la carte...do you test for every drug, or decide to pick a few drugs you've decided are worse than others?), but you need to employ the person who stands there and watches people pee in cups all day long (and being government, this will be a salaried position, protected by a union, and requiring benefits and vacation and sick days, meaning you actually need two people for the job so they can cover for one another during vacations, and you're going to need these people in every benefits office around the nation). Now, as those test results come back, there's going to be paperwork, and that means hiring someone to receive the paperwork, and enter it into a computer database (oh, crud, now we need a programmer to set up the database, and new work stations in every office for this person to sit at...or at least one per every so many offices depending on amount of drug test results coming in). Now we need to train the other staff in each office to access that database to look up the results as they decide if someone qualifies for benefits. That in turn will add at least a minute per day per client, but being government workers, probably will take longer. And that means their union will have a say on the matter too. You're going to need to hire an extra person to handle that extra workload (anyone who has ever worked for a government agency and/or dealt with union workers will understand how this will turn out that way).

But, aha! At this point, the argument is that surely this is all justified by the money saved by denying benefits to those who are guilty.

Okay, so now let's consider the cost of those who test positive.

First, we know the tests are not 100% accurate. I'm not even bothering with the false negatives, because in this context, everyone stays happy with a false negative...the gov't agency and public are content in the belief the test was negative, and the drug-using welfare recipient who tested negative is happy they didn't get caught. But, there are also false positives, and lab mix-ups. If someone tests positive, you're going to need to retest, just to be sure (you're still not really sure, but most people at this point are happy to ignore statistics, because they never really understood them in the first place, and they're terribly inconvenient to pay attention to this late in the game). I'm not even sure what one does about those who test positive the first time and negative the second time. Do you go for best out of three?

Anyway, now we're down to the ones we're doubly positive about. Now you're ready to take away their benefits. As you rub your hands and twirl your handlebar mustache, in walks the ACLU. Whatever you think of them, you KNOW this is the type of case they just drool about. They have lawyers who work pro bono for the sake of publicity, but the government has to pay their lawyers, even as they grumble at that pesky constitution someone still wants to enforce. Well, at least government lawyers are generally cheap compared to some out there. Oh, by the way, who pays for the courthouse, the judge's salary, the court staff and officers, added security when the throngs of reporters and protesters show up...oh, yeah, citizens' taxes. The same taxes we're saving by denying benefits to those awful drug users.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume the judge and jury have entirely lost sight of the Constitution or have been properly bribed and find in favor of the government. Finally, that druggie can be properly denied benefits, and arrested for drug use (if drug use is still a crime, a government agency can't ignore it, right?) Now we're finally going to reap the savings! Oh, yeah, there's the criminal trial now with the public footing the bill for BOTH sides! We're paying for the prosecutor and the public defender, because addicts applying for welfare benefits pretty much fit in that category of people who can't afford their own attorney, so get one appointed for them in a criminal trial. Now we finally get to toss them in prison where they belong as we deny them benefits.

Has anyone recently looked into the cost per prisoner, especially one who needs medical care for drug rehab while in prison, compared to welfare benefits? The last time I looked that up, we pay more for prisoners than we do in welfare benefits for an individual. So, even if you disregard all of the rest of the scenario of cost of testing, expected lawsuits and court costs, and added employees in the benefits office, the joke's still on us if we think it's going to save tax dollars to imprison someone rather than let them get welfare.

On the other hand, they're likely to live longer in prison than left on the streets as an addict, so there is a bit of irony that imprisoning addicts might be the more humanitarian approach if we're concerned about longevity and quality of life. But if the whole point is to save tax money by denying benefits for drug users, I think this is going to have the opposite effect of costing far more.

 

[ThomasT]

I do not condone testing anyone who ends up down on their luck just because they're down on their luck.

I can't argue with what I take to be the gist of your post. And I think your post has elevated the level of discussion in this thread, as have BobG's posts and some others. However, I think it's best to assume that if a person is without means and generally down and out, then that condition isn't a matter of bad luck but a matter of the choices that that person has made (ie., that the person really is intellectually or emotionally challenged, or mentally ill in some sense).

After some consideration, my current opinion is that, in particular, the drug testing of recipients of temporary cash assistance is not an erosion of rights, and might even improve the lives of lots of the potential recipients.

And, in general, I do think that stringent conditions should accompany any sort of government aid.

 

[WhoWee]

That is the expectation. We also expect that our citizens are presumed innocent unless proven guilty, and a pesky 4th Amendment in the Constitution that prevents searches without probable cause. So, if someone shows up to their local benefits office clearly stoned out of their mind, sure, I have no problem with calling the cops on them and if arrested and convicted, having their benefits dropped. I do not condone testing anyone who ends up down on their luck just because they're down on their luck.


Are all the other members of the household also guilty of a crime because one member has committed a crime? If so, why aren't they in jail too? Throw a whole family out on the street because one is a bad apple?

There is also a premise to our prison system that the idea is to rehabilitate people, which is why they get released eventually, supposedly having learned their lesson and better equipped to avoid making the same mistake again (yes, I concede that we fail miserably at this, but that's another discussion for another thread). If someone gets a 3 year prison sentence for drugs, and upon release can't get a job and can't get benefits, that's more of a life sentence. How do they survive out of prison without resorting back to criminal behavior if they can't earn an honest living and can't get government benefits? No matter how bad prison is, it starts to look pretty good compared to living in a cardboard box and begging for food. That seems like a setup to encourage a return to criminal behavior...nothing left to lose even if caught...rather than putting an end to it and helping them become a productive citizen.

But, even if we toss out the Constitution, ignore civil rights, decide that an addiction is an unforgivable crime, and cry that everyone who opposes this is a soppy, bleeding heart liberal who should be ignored because they just want to waste money on government handouts to pathetic, undeserving low-lifes, there's also a financial argument against it. First, consider the cost for every innocent person tested. Drug testing, especially if run by the government, isn't cheap. It's not just the cost of the test itself (and it's not a single test...they're somewhat done a la carte...do you test for every drug, or decide to pick a few drugs you've decided are worse than others?), but you need to employ the person who stands there and watches people pee in cups all day long (and being government, this will be a salaried position, protected by a union, and requiring benefits and vacation and sick days, meaning you actually need two people for the job so they can cover for one another during vacations, and you're going to need these people in every benefits office around the nation). Now, as those test results come back, there's going to be paperwork, and that means hiring someone to receive the paperwork, and enter it into a computer database (oh, crud, now we need a programmer to set up the database, and new work stations in every office for this person to sit at...or at least one per every so many offices depending on amount of drug test results coming in). Now we need to train the other staff in each office to access that database to look up the results as they decide if someone qualifies for benefits. That in turn will add at least a minute per day per client, but being government workers, probably will take longer. And that means their union will have a say on the matter too. You're going to need to hire an extra person to handle that extra workload (anyone who has ever worked for a government agency and/or dealt with union workers will understand how this will turn out that way).

But, aha! At this point, the argument is that surely this is all justified by the money saved by denying benefits to those who are guilty.

Okay, so now let's consider the cost of those who test positive.

First, we know the tests are not 100% accurate. I'm not even bothering with the false negatives, because in this context, everyone stays happy with a false negative...the gov't agency and public are content in the belief the test was negative, and the drug-using welfare recipient who tested negative is happy they didn't get caught. But, there are also false positives, and lab mix-ups. If someone tests positive, you're going to need to retest, just to be sure (you're still not really sure, but most people at this point are happy to ignore statistics, because they never really understood them in the first place, and they're terribly inconvenient to pay attention to this late in the game). I'm not even sure what one does about those who test positive the first time and negative the second time. Do you go for best out of three?

Anyway, now we're down to the ones we're doubly positive about. Now you're ready to take away their benefits. As you rub your hands and twirl your handlebar mustache, in walks the ACLU. Whatever you think of them, you KNOW this is the type of case they just drool about. They have lawyers who work pro bono for the sake of publicity, but the government has to pay their lawyers, even as they grumble at that pesky constitution someone still wants to enforce. Well, at least government lawyers are generally cheap compared to some out there. Oh, by the way, who pays for the courthouse, the judge's salary, the court staff and officers, added security when the throngs of reporters and protesters show up...oh, yeah, citizens' taxes. The same taxes we're saving by denying benefits to those awful drug users.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume the judge and jury have entirely lost sight of the Constitution or have been properly bribed and find in favor of the government. Finally, that druggie can be properly denied benefits, and arrested for drug use (if drug use is still a crime, a government agency can't ignore it, right?) Now we're finally going to reap the savings! Oh, yeah, there's the criminal trial now with the public footing the bill for BOTH sides! We're paying for the prosecutor and the public defender, because addicts applying for welfare benefits pretty much fit in that category of people who can't afford their own attorney, so get one appointed for them in a criminal trial. Now we finally get to toss them in prison where they belong as we deny them benefits.

Has anyone recently looked into the cost per prisoner, especially one who needs medical care for drug rehab while in prison, compared to welfare benefits? The last time I looked that up, we pay more for prisoners than we do in welfare benefits for an individual. So, even if you disregard all of the rest of the scenario of cost of testing, expected lawsuits and court costs, and added employees in the benefits office, the joke's still on us if we think it's going to save tax dollars to imprison someone rather than let them get welfare.

On the other hand, they're likely to live longer in prison than left on the streets as an addict, so there is a bit of irony that imprisoning addicts might be the more humanitarian approach if we're concerned about longevity and quality of life. But if the whole point is to save tax money by denying benefits for drug users, I think this is going to have the opposite effect of costing far more.

I would think the ACLU would support a social contract that helps people during a time of need and empowers the individual to take responsibility for their actions?

 

[Office_Shredder]

However, I think it's best to assume that if a person is without means and generally down and out, then that condition isn't a matter of bad luck but a matter of the choices that that person has made (ie., that the person really is intellectually or emotionally challenged, or mentally ill in some sense).

Best to assume for who? For the sake of your argument?

I would think the ACLU would support a social contract that helps people during a time of need and empowers the individual to take responsibility for their actions?

I don't think you know the ACLU very well then. The ACLU doesn't care about whether the welfare is helping people, they just care whether there's any possibility of the government infringing on somebody's rights.

EDIT TO ADD: For example they challenged the Florida law
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/07/aclu-florida-drug-testing-welfare-rick-scott_n_952209.html