Tom Tillis, Speaker of the House from Mecklenburg, wants to test welfare-style program beneficiaries/applicants for drug use.
Watch out.
That means you can expect a slew of news reports that tell half the story about Florida’s experience with drug testing in a deliberate attempt to keep the program from spreading here. The media here in North Carolina will tell you that it is a waste of money because only a tiny percentage of people test positive, ususally less than one percent. But watch for what the media around here won’t tell you – that nearly 20 percent of applicants declined to take the test in Florida after being asked to take it as part of their benefits application.
No doubt that’s because they feared they would test positive. Which means the program is doing its job.
Which no one is going to want to report. The Charlotte Observer already kicked off the trend by leaving this very important piece of data out of its story. Let’s see if we can find one honest media outlet in the state that reports Florida’s experience with drug testing accurately as this controversial issue heats up. If you spot a news report telling the truth on this, and by that I mean including the stats on the applicants who declined to take the test, email the link to me at tservatius@hotmail.com. We’ll keep track.
17
2011 At 5:03 pm, richie Said:
legalize drugs and rip this out by the root cause. Unless we’re framing this under the precept that drugs = bad and only doctors can authorize drugs(?) by the bye: legalize all drugs, ala Buckley.
17
2011 At 5:07 pm, Tara Servatius Said:
I look at it this way. If you can afford drugs, you don’t need to be on a welfare program. If you are addicted to drugs, you really don’t need to be on a welfare program, because it will only feed your addiction by freeing up funds to use on your habit.
18
2011 At 8:34 am, richie Said:
That’s what happens with alcohol. Last I checked, nobody was hinging beer consumption to assistance for economic hardship.
This is to say that weak arguments are weak. Unless there’s a link between econmic hardship and drugs (illegal drugs, right?) that’s stonger than the link between apples and oranges. If there were, I propose declining assistance (Incarceration!) to anyone who like apples.
I can imagine the prospect of assisting illegal immigrants with undetected drug consumption (illegal drugs, right?) while legal residents go hungry. Clearly, the prospect of ascribing drug consumption with unrelated attributes is somewhat nutty; I mean, nobody would keep a coke-sniffing drunk, a sexual deviant, or a dotting old fool from being president of the United States, so it would seem awkward to make behavior block them from food provisions. (I strongly support keeping presidents from starving, regardless of their behavior, so long as it’s not felonious.)
As a final aside, Jim Black still receives NC payments and gets the health plan too, doesn’t he? And this even after his “I don’t ‘FEEL’ guilty” felony. So it’s kind-of silly to imagine that detecting drug consumption (illegal drugs, right?) would circumvent a non-felonious NC resident from getting economic assistance for food stamps while those of Mr. Black’s ilk drape across the state.
Simply: if drugs were legal (all drugs) there wouldn’t be illegal drugs. Also: would cut healthcare costs (by a huge amount of office visits) and it’d help the brain-dead farmers (so intent on their govt assistance) realize what it’s like to do something that makes money and doesn’t require smelling-up the eastern part of the state like pig urine, or illegal aliens. I’d imagine a pot farm would not have trouble hiring legal residents – could you imagine a future with NC famers not self-implicated in illegal activity? The answer’s robustly clear, the argument that illegal drugs are bad is weak.
18
2011 At 8:54 am, clayj Said:
Lotta words there. I have a simpler version:
“If you’re a ward of the state — if you’re on welfare or food stamps — we require that you don’t engage in illegal behavior. We can’t stop every possible crime, but drug testing will let us weed out all users of illegal drugs so that no taxpayer money is ever spent on them or supporting their purchase by offsetting other expenses.”
“PS: If you commit a felony while on welfare — if you’re even charged with probable cause — your welfare payments stop. Immediately.”
18
2011 At 10:30 am, richie Said:
wonderful dogma, but it doesn’t work in the world (where people live.) That feloneous leaders of state government wallow in fiduciary misconduct and get contemporary finacial benefits while provisions are withheld from non-criminal citizens seeking to avoid starvation – is awfully (severely) far fetched, if not ridiculous.
I’d suggest this concept seems really off course. IE: in a perfect world where no drugs are evidenced, what great thing have we accomplished? Perhaps (certainly) there are better ways to spend one’s efforts… Just maybe, perhaps… it’s in the other direction.
18
2011 At 10:39 am, Rick Barton Said:
As far as I know the county is still paying for convicted thief and federal felon Bill Culp’s health insurance. Remember when he said smoking pot is what made him take all of those bribes and kickbacks from the voting machine vendors? After Mr. Culp was sent to Federal Prison, every other Volvo in Dilworth had a “we love you Bill and Dee” bumper sticker on it.
18
2011 At 12:03 pm, Logic Connection Said:
Instead of immediately losing your benefits if you test positive for drugs, why not propose some type of drug treatment as a condition of receiving further benefits? Would the commenters at MeckDeck support a program where you continue to receive benefits if you voluntarily enroll in treatment and are continually tested while receiving benefits, but a 2nd or 3rd positive test would then immediately eliminate future benefits?
18
2011 At 12:11 pm, dj Said:
Logic–yeah, I’d support your idea……
richie–how many of that 20% in FL who choose not to apply for benefits after finding out they’s be tested have starved to death? I’d suspect they just eat a little more out of their personal funds and hopefully do a little less volume of drugs…..and remember that there are other non-GOVCO sources for food from non-profits….
18
2011 At 12:39 pm, bruce Said:
Richie Richie Richie…. Surely you jest… “while provisions are withheld from non-criminal citizens seeking to avoid starvation ”
I am 52 years old and I have NEVER seen a drug user die from starvation.I have yet to see people in the streets dying from starvation. As a matter of fact the only people starving in this country are the mentally ill and they are doing it on purpose.
“That’s what happens with alcohol. Last I checked, nobody was hinging beer consumption to assistance for economic hardship.”
Even the most liberal person on the planet would not agree with the above statement. Millions of families have suffered because of alcoholism in families.
18
2011 At 1:14 pm, clayj Said:
Instead of immediately losing your benefits if you test positive for drugs, why not propose some type of drug treatment as a condition of receiving further benefits?
And who exactly is supposed to pay for THAT?
18
2011 At 2:06 pm, Logic Connection Said:
We, the taxpayers, would probably have to pay for the drug treatment, although the beneficiary could be forced to pay a small fee to offset costs. Just wanted to see if anyone would support drug treatment and continued sobriety as a condition of receiving future benefits and how we could structure a cost effective means of doing so. It seems the treatment could possibly help those with true addiction problems resolve those issues making them more productive members of society as well as hopefully getting them off of the public dole and saving taxpayers in the long term.
19
2011 At 8:15 am, Skyler the Weird Said:
Rick. Personally I don’t think any elected public official should get any type of taxpayer funded pensions nor medical care.
19
2011 At 8:48 am, richie Said:
it’s just food and dealing with it while the truly corrupt disolve the foundation of our society is nutty.
Reminds me of how a ship’s crew can intently bail-out the hull with a fixation instead of patching holes and removing the animals that bore into it in the first place.
In the same way, if welfare recipients taking illegal drugs is the problem, we’re in great shape because that means the corrupt leadership in NC, the home-grown state police (with their own joke-of labs and helicopter schools), the governor’s children, the bowles of university largess poured onto the state’s self-ascribed royalty, and the easily distracted pundits who mistake their opinions for libertarianism – have all be set straight; leaving the welfare recipients as the biggest problem. Oh what a glorious day – but I don’t think calendars go that far into the future to pretend that it’ll happen at any time. Judging from the fixations, I’d suggest it’ll never happen.