welfare vs minimum wage

[nbvolks]

I don't think the argument on drug testing for people claiming welfare is only one of saving money but rather of principal, should the tax payer be supporting someone's drug habit ? And maybe the people in Florida upon finding out that they would be drug tested stopped taking drugs in which case that's a good thing. Or maybe the drug tests just weren't good enough. In my opinion if you are being given financial assistance whether its welfare of unemployment then you should have to earn it, in the case of unemployment you should have to prove you are actively seeking employment, not just clicking a few buttons on website. With welfare then you should have to prove its not being used to support a drug habit.

I have no idea how extensive the Florida tests were but maybe just make them random if cost is a big issue, at least it would be some incentive for people to think twice.

I'm about to head out, so I can't pull the sources at the moment, but the research just doesn't support the practice. People associate welfare recipients with high levels of drug use, but if memory serves me, research has shown that number to be somewhere in the 2-3% range. Someone else can feel free to confirm or deny that, or I might look a little later if I have a chance.

I get that some people feel there should be a moral component to it, but I just don't see the value in adding in a check, if it's not really necessary. Much like all the hype in "battling voter fraud", when it's not really an issue. It's a red herring.

[buzztt]

It's the principal as far as I'm concerned, the same as an unemployed person having to really look for work, not just click a few buttons on a website then to back to bed. Unemployed should also be drug tested IMO.

[cheu_f50]

I'm about to head out, so I can't pull the sources at the moment, but the research just doesn't support the practice. People associate welfare recipients with high levels of drug use, but if memory serves me, research has shown that number to be somewhere in the 2-3% range. Someone else can feel free to confirm or deny that, or I might look a little later if I have a chance.

I get that some people feel there should be a moral component to it, but I just don't see the value in adding in a check, if it's not really necessary. Much like all the hype in "battling voter fraud", when it's not really an issue. It's a red herring.

and pre-employment drug test also has a very low positive drug test results. Point isnt to save money. The point is - if you commit crime, you should not be allowed to receive state/federal benefits. Dont assume people think drug test is a good idea because we are uninformed and think that welfare recipients are drug users. It's the idea that assistance should be used for strictly essentials - like food, medical care, heat for the winter and maybe some form of a shelter.

Im not going to get into the actual article however, since Cato institute is very Libertarian-y bias. The chart doesnt really make much sense if you think about it because people who are making min wage would be making min wage PLUS getting assistance from the government. So the comparison cannot really be made.

[Justin.b]

By such a margin that it is essentially the only thing they find, marijuana is the thing test catch in screening because it's detectable in the body for so long. I don't even think it's criminal in this state any longer (simple possession is a civil infraction) and possibly entirely legal in this state and many others with a prescription.

Although I certainly don't like the idea of some stoner sitting on the couch playing xbox all day on my dime (I guess I'll leave the state colleges alone on this one), I don't think casting a dragnet over the entire job-seeking population is a proportionate response.

There's only one winner in the drug testing game - companies who make money on drug tests.

So far, the only political policy that seems to have saved government money and reduced drug use is the full legalization in Portugal. They now treat drug use as a public health issue instead of a criminal one, and spend a smaller amount on huge treatment programs than they used to spend on arresting and imprisoning users. Everyone else is spending millions / billions on enforcement to make a couple of photo-op busts per year which have little to no effect on drug use overall.

The one guaranteed outcome of putting an addict in desperate circumstances is crime.

-Justin

[KPewPew]

I like charts, so my only comment is this

Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-1...-welfare-state

[cheu_f50]

I like charts, so my only comment is this

Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-1...-welfare-state

good chart.