Utah Welfare now drug testing

[Backroads]

Drug testing for welfare applicants.

[Guest]

I need JAG to explain this to me... how is drug testing as a requirement for welfare unconstitutional? And while we're at it, how is state-issued ID as a requirement for voting unconstitutional?

I've never understood those 2 things...

[Dravin]

I need JAG to explain this to me... how is drug testing as a requirement for welfare unconstitutional?

According to the article linked to it is an search and seizure issue. Applying for welfare isn't sufficient cause for the state to be able to demand a search of your person (via drug tests). Utah appears to be trying to get around the issue by having a questionnaire, the idea being that the answers are giving cause, not being a welfare applicant.

And while we're at it, how is state-issued ID as a requirement for voting unconstitutional?

Depends, the recent Wisconsin issue hinged on the state constitution (IIRC). Generally I hear objection based on the idea that it's a poll tax (IDs cost money), or the requirement is onerous and thus discourages voting. It should be noted that Indiana's voter ID law was upheld (Indiana ID cards can be obtained for free, and a provisional ballot can be cast even if you don't have photo ID): Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited August 2, 2012 by Dravin

[LittleWyvern]

I'm a little curious who's going to pay for all these drug tests.

[annewandering]

I'm a little curious who's going to pay for all these drug tests.

The good citizens of Utah are going to pay as they well should since they are the ones who demand it. Nice idea to create new jobs. For your sake hope its a local company that gets the contract and not the governors buddy as in Florida. At least that way the money stays in Utah.

Poll taxes are a good way to prevent the poor from voting so depending on your parties demographics it may be good for your candidate to not have them voting.

[Backroads]

The good citizens of Utah are going to pay as they well should since they are the ones who demand it.

That's how I see it.

And as a citizen of Utah, I'm okay with footing the bill.

I've personally known welfare system abusers.

[annewandering]

That's how I see it.

And as a citizen of Utah, I'm okay with footing the bill.

I've personally known welfare system abusers.

Congrats. I have personally known people who ate out of garbage cans too.

[LittleWyvern]

That's how I see it.

And as a citizen of Utah, I'm okay with footing the bill.

I've personally known welfare system abusers.

How prevalent is welfare system abuse in Utah? Do we have any hard measured numbers? I think I'd only support this if it really does decrease costs in the long run and stop welfare system abuse. Otherwise, this seems to me like the voting fraud scare: a bunch of people wanting to spend a bunch of money on a problem that is hardly even that big of a problem.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't know much about Utah's effort, but let's be honest here: No one is going to let children starve, whether the parents be addicts, compulsive gamblers, undocumented aliens, or just plain stupid with money. And the political will to remove children from the homes of such parents, just isn't there (except, to a very limited degree, with hardcore drug users).

So, regardless of token measures like what Utah's doing, the golden flow of state bennies to people who probably shouldn't be receiving them is going to continue. The alternatives are just too painful.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Backroads]

How prevalent is welfare system abuse in Utah? Do we have any hard measured numbers? I think I'd only support this if it really does decrease costs in the long run and stop welfare system abuse. Otherwise, this seems to me like the voting fraud scare: a bunch of people wanting to spend a bunch of money on a problem that is hardly even that big of a problem.

I wouldn't know the numbers, but I have had a couple relatives and neighbors who used thir welfare money to buy drugs and alcohol. Are you calling me a liar?

Are you honestly going to tell me that people have a constitutional right to drugs and alcohol? And I don't mean do they have a constitutional right to attempt to get drugs and alcohol.

Do you really expect me to believe that the purpose of the Welfare system is to PAY for drugs and alcohol?

In all honesty, I'm generally in favor of the welfare system. I believe it's a good program that can help people who really need it. I do believe the majority of people use it fairly.

All I said is that I personally knew a few people who expected the system to pay for a way of life I don't believe welfare for should pay for.

[Backroads]

Congrats. I have personally known people who ate out of garbage cans too.

So you compare alcoholics and druggies with those who are really starving?

Congratulations on having a warped sense of what really matters to sustain life.

[Backroads]

I don't know much about Utah's effort, but let's be honest here: No one is going to let children starve, whether the parents be addicts, compulsive gamblers, undocumented aliens, or just plain stupid with money. And the political will to remove children from the homes of such parents, just isn't there (except, to a very limited degree, with hardcore drug users).

So, regardless of token measures like what Utah's doing, the golden flow of state bennies to people who probably shouldn't be receiving them is going to continue. The alternatives are just too painful.

What if the state went with my father's idea of not actually giving them money, but simply pay for their rent and give them basic food staples?

[estradling75]

What if the state went with my father's idea of not actually giving them money, but simply pay for their rent and give them basic food staples?

You mean... become more like the church's welfare system?

[LittleWyvern]

I wouldn't know the numbers, but I have had a couple relatives and neighbors who used thir welfare money to buy drugs and alcohol. Are you calling me a liar?

No, not at all: I'm not saying your cases are false, I'm just curious what the numbers look like in the whole of Utah. I'm trying to see the big picture here, not just individual cases.

Are you honestly going to tell me that people have a constitutional right to drugs and alcohol? And I don't mean do they have a constitutional right to attempt to get drugs and alcohol.

Do you really expect me to believe that the purpose of the Welfare system is to PAY for drugs and alcohol?

Where on earth did you get all this? Did you even read my post? Of course I'm not trying to tell you those things, that's absolutely ridiculous. All I'm trying to figure out is whether this measure is worth the cost. That depends on both how prevalent welfare abuse is now and whether or not drug testing welfare recipients has a large enough reduction on welfare abuse to justify the cost. We don't even know if drug testing even has an effect on the problem it claims it solves, and I think we need a positive answer to this question before we start going state-wide or even nation-wide with it.

All I said is that I personally knew a few people who expected the system to pay for a way of life I don't believe welfare for should pay for.

That's fine, I'm not arguing that. Now let's find out whether drug testing will actually stop those cases of welfare abuse.

[Dravin]

I wouldn't know the numbers, but I have had a couple relatives and neighbors who used thir welfare money to buy drugs and alcohol. Are you calling me a liar?

Backroads, that you know some people who abuse welfare in such a manner doesn't make it a big problem. So no, he's not calling you a liar. I have no clue if it's a big problem or not but that you personally know abusers doesn't establish it either way. Which is why he's asking about hard numbers instead of anecdotes.

Are you honestly going to tell me that people have a constitutional right to drugs and alcohol?

That's a bit of a straw-man isn't it? I don't see were Wyvern claimed or suggested there was such. What he did do is compare it to what he feels concerns over voter fraud are, effort being expended on something that isn't a big enough issue to warrant the effort.

Do you really expect me to believe that the purpose of the Welfare system is to PAY for drugs and alcohol?

Did he say he does? You have to be careful asking random questions like that or they become essentially 'stealth' straw-men, even if unintentionally.

[Backroads]

You mean... become more like the church's welfare system?

Yes!

Sorry, Wyvern. This is a touchy subject for me just becuase of what I have seen. Somehow I was getting the impression that we shouldn't do drug testing because welfare recipients had the right so therefore we shouldn't test.

[LittleWyvern]

Sorry, Wyvern. This is a touchy subject for me just becuase of what I have seen. Somehow I was getting the impression that we shouldn't do drug testing because welfare recipients had the right so therefore we shouldn't test.

That's fine. My argument is different: let's make sure this works (and is cost-effective) first before we spend a bunch of money on a state-wide program. Maybe I've just been disillusioned a bit by that voting fraud scare.

[Backroads]

In my mind, I might be willing to pay a little more to have a more efficient system.

[Dravin]

In my mind, I might be willing to pay a little more to have a more efficient system.

When you say a more efficient system what do you mean? Wyvren's position, that of cost efficiency, that spending more on a program than is saved on the fraud it prevents is a bad idea (isn't cost efficient) is fairly straight forward to understand. Based on your past posts I'd assume something like percent of fraudulent/abused payouts but I want to make sure because there are quite a few metrics one can use to gauge a program's efficiency.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Dravin

[Backroads]

I admit, I would really have to see what the financial costs would be.

In my ideal world, an efficient system would be basic anemities and food to those who need it with a better way of screening out those who don't need it/would waste it. And I do think drug testing is a step in the right direction.

[Echo2002]

I agree with JAG, there is no way the State is going to let kids starve because mommy and daddy do drugs. I know TN was thinking about doing the drug testing but I'm not sure if they ever did.

TN just recently passed the voter ID law. I don't really see a problem with that.

[Backroads]

If they avoided giving the parents money but provided food for the children, would that help? Kids will starve regardless--give some parents welfare, they will buy drugs instead of food.

[NightSG]

I'm a little curious who's going to pay for all these drug tests.

Saliva tests are $15, and easy to administer and read. Only do urine/blood/hair/whatever tests on the ones that fail the saliva test.

It wouldn't take kicking too many abusers off the welfare rolls to balance out the cost of testing,

[Bini]

If they avoided giving the parents money but provided food for the children, would that help? Kids will starve regardless--give some parents welfare, they will buy drugs instead of food.

If something like this could work, it sounds ideal.

[LittleWyvern]

In my mind, I might be willing to pay a little more to have a more efficient system.

It wouldn't take kicking too many abusers off the welfare rolls to balance out the cost of testing,

Sure, but the thing is that we don't even know if this program even works at all yet. Arguments for welfare drug testing often intrinsically assume that it works, but I don't think we can argue like that until we can prove it. If welfare drug testing is shown to work I'd be all for it, but until then it all seems like we're going to throw a bunch of money at an unproven system and hope it works.