Drug testing if you have Medicaid, Fo...

Drug testing if you have Medicaid, Food Stamps, Tanf

Posted in the Bluefield Forum

First Prev
of 33
Next Last
monsterio

Oakvale, WV

#1 Jun 2, 2011
Its coming indeed!! Florida's doing it!! LOVE IT!! Whatcha gonna do now losers? Let me guess, drugs that arent tested for like Klonipin and Benadryl or something equally stupid? I love watching the drama unfold! Kudos Florida!
happy

Frisco, TX

#2 Jun 2, 2011
I cannot wait until this comes to WV. I'm so extremely tired of paying taxes so people can get high.

“Eskimoyorkian”

Since: Dec 10

Johnson City, TN

#3 Jun 2, 2011
I am hoping that it gets passes as well. It's about time stricter laws come around.

“Eskimoyorkian”

Since: Dec 10

Johnson City, TN

#4 Jun 2, 2011
*Sorry, hoping it gets *passed* here as well.

Since: Jan 11

United States

#5 Jun 2, 2011
This bill failed this past year, so the chances of it passing in West Virginia is slim to none. The testing should be required to receive public assistance, as it was required for myself to obtain employment. In the long run it only hurts the children because majority of the time drugs are the reason they are in the situation anyways. Now don't start bashing me just yet because there are actual people that are using the programs that honestly need it and don't abuse it. If you read the bill passed in Florida there is a loophole in the system, it says that if testing is not passed then someone within the household can be presented with the funds instead. Drugs isn't the only problem with the system as a pack of premium cigarettes are atleast $5. Now take $5/ day for a month (use average of 30) your looking at $150/ month. This does not even factor in alcohol or fast food (all items you can't use assistance to purchase). This is all coming from someone that when I was a child we needed public assistance due to an alcoholic father. I've not only witnessed people using public assistance for new York strip steaks and then buying 4 packs of marlboro lights and paying cash, but that was my parents life when I was a child (most of the time we had hotdogs as my dad would sell the stamps for beer money). For young people whose parents are on welfare, remember you don't have to follow in the same steps. Don't use society, help it. It's not that hard all you have to do is try. Keep watching the progress of the drug testing for public assistance as hopefully Florida can start a chain reaction, but don't count on it.
the kids

Frisco, TX

#6 Jun 2, 2011
The kids will suffer if the parents do or don't get assistance, if in fact they are in a drug existing home. Maybe this might help get children out of bad situations if they would drug test for assistance. Maybe less people would use the drugs, not use them as often, or the children could be removed from drug filled environments. I guarantee that the passing of such a law in our state could only benefit the children of WV.
This Is Wrong Headed

Port Republic, VA

#7 Jun 2, 2011
This kind of Puritanical BS is a big part of what's wrong with this country. The premise is correct: society is better without as many drug users. But how is taking away their basic money to live on, making them even more likely to commit crimes to support themselves, helping accomplish that AT ALL?

Europe has largely adopted the stance that drug use is a health problem that requires treatment such as psychiatric counseling and harm reduction strategies, rather than simply locking people up.

And these policies HAVE been shown to decrease the number of drug addicts in the societies who have tried them. I'll take proven results over ideological grandstanding any day...
My opinion

Marion, VA

#8 Jun 2, 2011
Not all families that recieve Food stamps abuse drugs. I get so tired of hearing this BS... I revieved food stamps while out of work for a short period of time and never used or abused drugs. I see NOTHING wrong with drug testing and feel it would be appropriate however I do get so tired of the sterotyping of families that get foodstamps or medicaid on on drugs. I feel if testing is done the assistance should not be just taken away but that the person should be offered assistance for his/her dependency then after a matter of time with failing the drug test take the assistance away along with any children in the home

Since: Jan 11

United States

#9 Jun 2, 2011
Here is a little fun fact for you regarding taking children out of drug users homes. Now I did not major in social work but took one class (chemistry major) in this particular class we had numerous guest speakers, not to mention a family member works for cps. You can be a known drug user but have some food (not 3 full meals) just some food, four walls, and a roof they can't take a child out of the home unless you are using drugs openly in front inspectors. Now with that being said if you don't buy your child a winter coat they can remove the child from the home. No one commented on the fact that you can actually fail the drug test and still receive funds if another person in the household passes. I agree with wrong headed addiction is health problem not just lack of will power (never been an addict but known plenty). Everyone is so quick to jump in and say "oh thank god that get more losers off the system" this may be true but I hope you have enough money saved to quit your job and guard your house all day as crime will increase drastically. Drug addicts are some of the smartest people out there if only they would use their knowledge for good instead of bad. A prime example is when they changed the formulation of oxycodone hcl tablets so that abusers couldn't smash the delayed release coating, which gives you the high, since it still wouldn't separate the active from the coating. Addicts solution, place it in the microwave which cause the coating to melt to itself and then they smash it, snort it, or shoot it. Moral of the story is they will do anything to get their drugs so be prepared. I'm not saying they shouldn't drug test public assistance receivers but when they fail mandate programs such as Europe.
the kids

Frisco, TX

#10 Jun 2, 2011
wvu fan12 wrote:
Here is a little fun fact for you regarding taking children out of drug users homes. Now I did not major in social work but took one class (chemistry major) in this particular class we had numerous guest speakers, not to mention a family member works for cps. You can be a known drug user but have some food (not 3 full meals) just some food, four walls, and a roof they can't take a child out of the home unless you are using drugs openly in front inspectors. Now with that being said if you don't buy your child a winter coat they can remove the child from the home. No one commented on the fact that you can actually fail the drug test and still receive funds if another person in the household passes. I agree with wrong headed addiction is health problem not just lack of will power (never been an addict but known plenty). Everyone is so quick to jump in and say "oh thank god that get more losers off the system" this may be true but I hope you have enough money saved to quit your job and guard your house all day as crime will increase drastically. Drug addicts are some of the smartest people out there if only they would use their knowledge for good instead of bad. A prime example is when they changed the formulation of oxycodone hcl tablets so that abusers couldn't smash the delayed release coating, which gives you the high, since it still wouldn't separate the active from the coating. Addicts solution, place it in the microwave which cause the coating to melt to itself and then they smash it, snort it, or shoot it. Moral of the story is they will do anything to get their drugs so be prepared. I'm not saying they shouldn't drug test public assistance receivers but when they fail mandate programs such as Europe.
Agreed! I'm not saying don't help them, but get the kids out of the situation and put our tax money to use and get them the help they need instead of just supporting their habit until they die. Giving them money every month to support their habit doesn't help them, the kids, or the tax payers.
Match Find

Oakvale, WV

#11 Jun 2, 2011
This Is Wrong Headed wrote:
This kind of Puritanical BS is a big part of what's wrong with this country. The premise is correct: society is better without as many drug users. But how is taking away their basic money to live on, making them even more likely to commit crimes to support themselves, helping accomplish that AT ALL?
Europe has largely adopted the stance that drug use is a health problem that requires treatment such as psychiatric counseling and harm reduction strategies, rather than simply locking people up.
And these policies HAVE been shown to decrease the number of drug addicts in the societies who have tried them. I'll take proven results over ideological grandstanding any day...
To help a druggie, they have to want help, they have to want to quit. They have to get so low they have no other alternative but to quit. They sometimes have to lose everything they have to pick themselves up. I think California is a good example that therapy doesnt help those that think it's cool to get a buzzzzz!
aaah

Las Vegas, NV

#12 Jun 2, 2011
I have to past a drug test to get a job, then if the company does a random,I get fierd for having pot in system. Now I can't collect unemploment.Who cares about me the hard working guy who got high one week 1st time in years.Who cares,nobody! Now what I have to file for wefare,food stamp,ect...It's not fair to a working person can't do drug and then denined unemployment for testing dirty,but thousands can stay high on my tax dollars on a daily base.I say FU%K em all, do drugs get your money taked away,just as I would get my unemploment taken away for me, not that I do drugs but it's not fair I bust my ass and don't have the freedom to smoke a little pot(which is a control subtance,and agaist the law)but the people on wefare don't have to past a test for FREE MONEY !!!And more than likly love sitting on their ass not working.If I have to pass a drug test to work for my money,then you on welfare have to past a test to get your free check,and that goes for any state a person lives.
Ryan

Oakvale, WV

#13 Jun 2, 2011
aaah wrote:
I have to past a drug test to get a job, then if the company does a random,I get fierd for having pot in system. Now I can't collect unemploment.Who cares about me the hard working guy who got high one week 1st time in years.Who cares,nobody! Now what I have to file for wefare,food stamp,ect...It's not fair to a working person can't do drug and then denined unemployment for testing dirty,but thousands can stay high on my tax dollars on a daily base.I say FU%K em all, do drugs get your money taked away,just as I would get my unemploment taken away for me, not that I do drugs but it's not fair I bust my ass and don't have the freedom to smoke a little pot(which is a control subtance,and agaist the law)but the people on wefare don't have to past a test for FREE MONEY !!!And more than likly love sitting on their ass not working.If I have to pass a drug test to work for my money,then you on welfare have to past a test to get your free check,and that goes for any state a person lives.
I feel your pain dude! I quit smoking pot after 28 years of enjoying herb, just for my job! Sucks too!!
This Is Wrong Headed

Port Republic, VA

#14 Jun 2, 2011
I'll give you a perfect example of a law that had the opposite intended effect, and tell you why this is the same:

The thinking is, as you've said, "if you leave drug addicts with no choice but to quit, taking everything away from them, they will!". But you obviously don't know any drug addicts, because they will always be able to prostitute themselves, steal, scam, defraud, and otherwise make money illegally. The challenge is, making it easier for them to do things BESIDES these activities to support themselves, then helping them with their need to use drugs. You won't do that by starving them to death, or making them homeless.

Here is my example of another such law:

When bicycles were popular, and cars were new technology, a huge number of people rode bikes. In the name of public safety, the government mandated that everyone must wear a helmet or face a ticket. The result? Instead of more people wearing helmets, more people began driving cars or walking rather than ride their bikes. This reduction in the number of cyclists made them less of a frequent sight on the roadways, so drivers were more likely to be taken by surprise when they saw a bike. Fatalities on bicycles rose sharply as a result of the new "safety" law.

It's easy to make policies that SOUND good. It's a lot harder to make policies that actually WORK.
Objective

Oak Ridge, TN

#15 Jun 2, 2011
aaah wrote:
I have to past a drug test to get a job, then if the company does a random,I get fierd for having pot in system. Now I can't collect unemploment.Who cares about me the hard working guy who got high one week 1st time in years.Who cares,nobody! Now what I have to file for wefare,food stamp,ect...It's not fair to a working person can't do drug and then denined unemployment for testing dirty,but thousands can stay high on my tax dollars on a daily base.I say FU%K em all, do drugs get your money taked away,just as I would get my unemploment taken away for me, not that I do drugs but it's not fair I bust my ass and don't have the freedom to smoke a little pot(which is a control subtance,and agaist the law)but the people on wefare don't have to past a test for FREE MONEY !!!And more than likly love sitting on their ass not working.If I have to pass a drug test to work for my money,then you on welfare have to past a test to get your free check,and that goes for any state a person lives.
Well, guess you should have been a responsible kind of adult, and not smoked weed. You needed to be fired if you were getting high. I wouldn't want a drugged up person working beside of me either. As far as the law, yes they should drug test people for recieving any state benefits, it may not and probably won't stop the addicts, but it may deter their usage some. Start at the top with the doctors by regulating their drug distributions, then work your way down. The government has let the drug problem get entirely out of control and are now scrambling to find a quick fix, that's the basic concept behind any of these ideas.
Ryan

Oakvale, WV

#16 Jun 2, 2011
Objective wrote:
<quoted text>Well, guess you should have been a responsible kind of adult, and not smoked weed. You needed to be fired if you were getting high. I wouldn't want a drugged up person working beside of me either. As far as the law, yes they should drug test people for recieving any state benefits, it may not and probably won't stop the addicts, but it may deter their usage some. Start at the top with the doctors by regulating their drug distributions, then work your way down. The government has let the drug problem get entirely out of control and are now scrambling to find a quick fix, that's the basic concept behind any of these ideas.
Well you arent the sharpest cheese in the shed! Just because someone smoked weed on their vacation to Mexico and was feeling its effects for a couple of hours, has absolutely no indication of how they will perform as an employee 2-3-4 weeks later!! Dang, you would crap to think that every other driver you pass on the road is under the influence of some mood, mind altering substance wouldnt you!!
Weed can stay in the system, depending on it's potency, how many tokes were taken, and how many fat cells you have for up to 6 weeks!!
Speed shows up on a blood screen for 1-2 days
Coke....1-4 days
LSD/acid...8 hours
PCP...2-8 days (oh, that's vet tranquilizer in case you didnt know, yes, that's right, it was a craze at the schools last year, probably still is)
shrooms..8 hours
heroin...1-2 days
morphine...1-2 days
benzos (ativan, xanax, valium)....1-6 weeks
codeine...1-2 days
SO, THEREFORE, your co-worker can do a whole bunch of heroin, a little coke, several hits of acid, and his old ladies diet pills on Friday night, and be clean on Monday morning! How stupid is that?? Do you feel better now, knowing that poor dude on his vacation burnt a joint in June and got busted the end of July?
Objective

Oak Ridge, TN

#17 Jun 2, 2011
Ryan wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you arent the sharpest cheese in the shed! Just because someone smoked weed on their vacation to Mexico and was feeling its effects for a couple of hours, has absolutely no indication of how they will perform as an employee 2-3-4 weeks later!! Dang, you would crap to think that every other driver you pass on the road is under the influence of some mood, mind altering substance wouldnt you!!
Weed can stay in the system, depending on it's potency, how many tokes were taken, and how many fat cells you have for up to 6 weeks!!
Speed shows up on a blood screen for 1-2 days
Coke....1-4 days
LSD/acid...8 hours
PCP...2-8 days (oh, that's vet tranquilizer in case you didnt know, yes, that's right, it was a craze at the schools last year, probably still is)
shrooms..8 hours
heroin...1-2 days
morphine...1-2 days
benzos (ativan, xanax, valium)....1-6 weeks
codeine...1-2 days
SO, THEREFORE, your co-worker can do a whole bunch of heroin, a little coke, several hits of acid, and his old ladies diet pills on Friday night, and be clean on Monday morning! How stupid is that?? Do you feel better now, knowing that poor dude on his vacation burnt a joint in June and got busted the end of July?
Yeah I feel much better that stupid ass people on drugs GET FIRED, therefore, Mr. drug expert, I say fire everyone that is Caught with drugs in their system period. I don't care about all of your expertise on dope, I just said if anyone is stupid enough to do it then they should pay the price if they get caught. If they don't want to lose their job, then it's pretty damn simple, don't do the dope. So take your facts and present them to someone who actually cares.
Ryan

Oakvale, WV

#18 Jun 2, 2011
Objective wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah I feel much better that stupid ass people on drugs GET FIRED, therefore, Mr. drug expert, I say fire everyone that is Caught with drugs in their system period. I don't care about all of your expertise on dope, I just said if anyone is stupid enough to do it then they should pay the price if they get caught. If they don't want to lose their job, then it's pretty damn simple, don't do the dope. So take your facts and present them to someone who actually cares.
You evidentally care very much because you are taking the time to answer! I dont do drugs, but I'm not so blind and narrow-minded to think that weed 6 weeks ago is going to effect the job performance of someone today!
Objective

Oak Ridge, TN

#19 Jun 2, 2011
Ryan wrote:
<quoted text>
You evidentally care very much because you are taking the time to answer! I dont do drugs, but I'm not so blind and narrow-minded to think that weed 6 weeks ago is going to effect the job performance of someone today!
If thy smoke it six weeks ago it would not be in their system, Maybe six days ago. But anyways, if they're going to do illegal drugs on a vacation, then what makes an employer think that they will not be doing illegal drugs when they are at work? Should employers just give a pass to people and let them do whatever sort of drugs they want when they're not on the clock? Should the employer pay for their insurance claims if a drugged up off duty employee gets hurt? From a company point of view, there is no way I would want my company name associated with a drug user period, not to mention the liability involved. Any upstanding business will see things the exact same way too. There are always the companies out there that don't care and hire drug users. Any good job won't tolerate it, and I agree with there policies 100%. Just a matter of opinion though.
Straw Man

Port Republic, VA

#20 Jun 2, 2011
WEED should not even be an ISSUE in this debate. The country is largely in FAVOR of legalizing and taxing it, and in other countries that have taken a more lenient stance (funneling the funds they were using for prohibition into, say, deal with ACTUAL drug addicts), the usage of pot has remained the same. Penalties and laws factor very little into someone's decision to toke up or not.

If you're going to make this argument about pot, "OBJECTIVE", it should certainly apply to alcohol as well. Should employers begin including booze in their drug tests, labeling every drinker as a "druggie dopehead", and refusing to hire them on that basis alone? Would that put YOU out of a job if they did that? How about your friends and family? I think you're beginning to see my point.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 33
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bluefield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gerry Bowman 4 hr Pathetic 5
Create your own Forum (Jun '15) 4 hr louege 4,207
4 Letter Word Game (Nov '14) 4 hr Jenna 11,702
Game - Keep a Word - Drop a Word (Jul '11) 6 hr Jon_B 13,798
Homonyms ~ A thru Z ~ 6 hr Jon_B 341
3 Word Game (Nov '16) 6 hr Jon_B 1,047
y do white people think they own the world (Jan '12) 6 hr Aunt Bee 242

Bluefield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bluefield Mortgages