MI House OKs welfare drug-testing plan

MI House OKs welfare drug-testing plan

Posted in the Grand Rapids Forum

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#1 Jun 7, 2012

“Taz say Hi”

Since: Jan 08

Holland,MI

#2 Jun 8, 2012
I wonder how much the testing will cost the state?
St Stephen

Milwaukee, WI

#3 Jun 8, 2012
Will they start testing for alcohol and junk food too? If they need welfare why should they be able to spend it on alcohol and Snickers? They shouldn't have cable TV either.

Just a bunch of republicans who continue their war on drugs (pot) and their war against the poor.

And you're right Taz this will cost the state a lot of money.
Go Blue

West Palm Beach, FL

#4 Jun 8, 2012
Gentle Taz wrote:
I wonder how much the testing will cost the state?
I like the concept, but down here they tried it and the courts knocked it down.....
Chip

Madison, WI

#5 Jun 8, 2012
St Stephen wrote:
Will they start testing for alcohol and junk food too? If they need welfare why should they be able to spend it on alcohol and Snickers? They shouldn't have cable TV either.
Just a bunch of republicans who continue their war on drugs (pot) and their war against the poor.
And you're right Taz this will cost the state a lot of money.
It's the taxpayers money, don't they have the right to know what it is being used for?

Sounds like you are concerned you won't get to throw other peoples money around.
Chip

Madison, WI

#6 Jun 8, 2012
Gentle Taz wrote:
I wonder how much the testing will cost the state?
Good question, depends on if they use union labor to do the testing or not.

If it gets some worthless people off lifetime welfare the money will be well spent.
St Stephen

Milwaukee, WI

#7 Jun 8, 2012
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the taxpayers money, don't they have the right to know what it is being used for?
Sounds like you are concerned you won't get to throw other peoples money around.
Rich people get tax payer money all the friggen time Chippy. Maybe we should drug test them too before they write off their Bentley as a 'business expense'.

You want to invade one group's right to privacy but not another. You're not making sense Chipster....
Chip

United States

#8 Jun 8, 2012
St Stephen wrote:
<quoted text>
Rich people get tax payer money all the friggen time Chippy. Maybe we should drug test them too before they write off their Bentley as a 'business expense'.
You want to invade one group's right to privacy but not another. You're not making sense Chipster....
Yet again speaking without knowledge. You can't write off a Bentley due to luxury auto rules.

Yes I feel its right to ask someone who pays nothing in taxes and takes away money from others what they are doing with it. Kind of like when a business has to inform the government what thier expenses were.

The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay over 70% percent of all individual income taxes, I don't think you need to be concerned about what they do with the rest of their income.
St Stephen

Milwaukee, WI

#9 Jun 8, 2012
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet again speaking without knowledge. You can't write off a Bentley due to luxury auto rules.
Yes I feel its right to ask someone who pays nothing in taxes and takes away money from others what they are doing with it. Kind of like when a business has to inform the government what thier expenses were.
The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay over 70% percent of all individual income taxes, I don't think you need to be concerned about what they do with the rest of their income.
You are trying to spin your way out of this Chipotle and it isn't working. When you demand that welfare recipients be tested for drugs because they are getting money from the government you are taking the lid off the cookie jar and once you apply that to welfare recipients, to be fair, you have to also apply it to all others who receive government money. You also cannot limit it to drugs, mainly pot because of how long it stays in your system. You should now make distinctions between necessities and non-necessities, alcohol is a perfect example of this. You are saying illegal drugs are bad but legal recreational ones are just fine. Do you have any idea how blatantly hypocritical that is? Using the logic involved here you then have to begin to single out things that are not necessary for day to day living. Video game systems. Like I mentioned earlier cable TV. Steak instead of hamburger? Should we keep welfare recipients from buying TV's over 30"? You certainly don't NEED one bigger than that. Brand of car they drive? The list goes on and on.

If you're not ready to do this then you have to accept the fact that this is just another invasion of people's privacy and is an extension of the failed war on drugs. If you want to call it that then fine the discussion between us is over but don't sit there and say you're worried about what welfare recipients spend their money on.

This law they are trying to pass is only done to try and pacify the voters. It's a law that they can put their finger on and say "I voted to take a stance against drugs". There is no substance to the law. It doesn't change a thing.
Chip

United States

#10 Jun 8, 2012
St Stephen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are trying to spin your way out of this Chipotle and it isn't working. When you demand that welfare recipients be tested for drugs because they are getting money from the government you are taking the lid off the cookie jar and once you apply that to welfare recipients, to be fair, you have to also apply it to all others who receive government money. You also cannot limit it to drugs, mainly pot because of how long it stays in your system. You should now make distinctions between necessities and non-necessities, alcohol is a perfect example of this. You are saying illegal drugs are bad but legal recreational ones are just fine. Do you have any idea how blatantly hypocritical that is? Using the logic involved here you then have to begin to single out things that are not necessary for day to day living. Video game systems. Like I mentioned earlier cable TV. Steak instead of hamburger? Should we keep welfare recipients from buying TV's over 30"? You certainly don't NEED one bigger than that. Brand of car they drive? The list goes on and on.
If you're not ready to do this then you have to accept the fact that this is just another invasion of people's privacy and is an extension of the failed war on drugs. If you want to call it that then fine the discussion between us is over but don't sit there and say you're worried about what welfare recipients spend their money on.
This law they are trying to pass is only done to try and pacify the voters. It's a law that they can put their finger on and say "I voted to take a stance against drugs". There is no substance to the law. It doesn't change a thing.
Looks like only one of us understands the difference between illegal and legal. Same reason employers can deny people employment because of drug use and not becuase they watch to much TV.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#11 Jun 8, 2012
Steve is only concerned about the cable bills and the alcohol because he doesn't understand the reasoning behind the bill. That, however, is no surprise, because Steve doesn't care that using pot is breaking FEDERAL law, he just doesn't like the law, therefore, he doesn't have to obey it. With Steve, like most libs, he doesn't pay attention to any law unless it inconveniences him.
Chip

United States

#12 Jun 8, 2012
I guess I'll just have to start advising my clients that when the IRS inquires about deductions on their tax return we should respond by saying its an invasion of their privacy.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#13 Jun 8, 2012
Chip wrote:
I guess I'll just have to start advising my clients that when the IRS inquires about deductions on their tax return we should respond by saying its an invasion of their privacy.
According to the libs, anything that requires accountability is an invasion of their privacy.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#14 Jun 9, 2012
It's about time. If you have enough discretionary income to spend on drugs (forget the fact that you're breaking state and federal laws), you don't need welfare; it's nothing less than asking the taxpayers to subsidize your drug habit.
Sure, it will cost the state money to do the testing but that should be offset by the losers that get dropped from the welfare rolls for doing drugs while accepting government assistance.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#15 Jun 9, 2012
Go Blue wrote:
I like the concept, but down here they tried it and the courts knocked it down.....
We'll have to see. I like the concept with the added caveat that they can remain on the welfare rolls after testing positive IF they commit to attending a drug rehab program and remain clean after testing positive the first time.
This can be a positive thing if it encourages addicts to get help and get clean; positive for them and positive for any children involved. Not to mention that it might help some of them actually get sober enough to find a job and be able to pass a drug test required by most employers these days.
St Stephen

Milwaukee, WI

#16 Jun 9, 2012
vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
We'll have to see. I like the concept with the added caveat that they can remain on the welfare rolls after testing positive IF they commit to attending a drug rehab program and remain clean after testing positive the first time.
This can be a positive thing if it encourages addicts to get help and get clean; positive for them and positive for any children involved. Not to mention that it might help some of them actually get sober enough to find a job and be able to pass a drug test required by most employers these days.
I have never heard of a pot addict but anyway...At least with your hypocritical thinking alcoholics and those abusing prescription meds will be able to continue on the welfare system. Maybe the pot smokers on welfare can just start to abuse deadly prescription meds too, or become alcoholics and beat their wives and kill people while drunk driving. I mean if you're going to use drugs you might as well go balls out right? That's the American way!
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#17 Jun 9, 2012
St Stephen wrote:
I have never heard of a pot addict but anyway...At least with your hypocritical thinking alcoholics and those abusing prescription meds will be able to continue on the welfare system. Maybe the pot smokers on welfare can just start to abuse deadly prescription meds too, or become alcoholics and beat their wives and kill people while drunk driving. I mean if you're going to use drugs you might as well go balls out right? That's the American way!
LOL...I can certainly tell what your drug of choice is by your focus on it.
Let me type this slowly so you can understand: IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING IN A FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WHILE VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW, YOU SHOULD NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT PROGRAM UNLESS OR UNTIL YOU COMMIT TO QUITTING OR ENROLLING IN A SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAM. You just can't seem to grasp the idea and you also can't see to differentiate between legal and illegal drug use.
Did I say anywhere that I was okay with people abusing alcohol and/or prescription drugs? Nope. Ideally, this bill will also address alcohol abuse (which is already screened for among welfare recipients) and pharmacies these days are doing a much better job of catching prescription drug abuseers by communicating with each other on prescriptions filled by various individuals (matched by name and birthdate primarily). Did you know that studies have shown that pot is NOT the primary drug abused by welfare recipients? Betcha didn't. Then again, neither is prescription drug abuse the primary problem (a failed smokescreen on your part, BTW) and alcohol abuse is half that of drug abuse among welfare recipients.
Did you know that drug use is one of the major obstacles preventing welfare recipients from exiting the welfare rolls? Either you didn't you just don't care. Is 'keep 'em stoned and on welfare' your policy? Sure sounds like it.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#18 Jun 9, 2012
sorry for the double post
St Stephen

Milwaukee, WI

#19 Jun 9, 2012
vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL...I can certainly tell what your drug of choice is by your focus on it.
Let me type this slowly so you can understand: IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING IN A FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WHILE VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW, YOU SHOULD NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT PROGRAM UNLESS OR UNTIL YOU COMMIT TO QUITTING OR ENROLLING IN A SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAM. You just can't seem to grasp the idea and you also can't see to differentiate between legal and illegal drug use.
Did I say anywhere that I was okay with people abusing alcohol and/or prescription drugs? Nope. Ideally, this bill will also address alcohol abuse (which is already screened for among welfare recipients) and pharmacies these days are doing a much better job of catching prescription drug abuseers by communicating with each other on prescriptions filled by various individuals (matched by name and birthdate primarily). Did you know that studies have shown that pot is NOT the primary drug abused by welfare recipients? Betcha didn't. Then again, neither is prescription drug abuse the primary problem (a failed smokescreen on your part, BTW) and alcohol abuse is half that of drug abuse among welfare recipients.
Did you know that drug use is one of the major obstacles preventing welfare recipients from exiting the welfare rolls? Either you didn't you just don't care. Is 'keep 'em stoned and on welfare' your policy? Sure sounds like it.
I am concentrating on pot because of how long it stays in your system when compared to other drugs like meth and cocaine. You do know you can go on a cocaine binge for a weekend and test clean by Wednesday. On the other hand if someone smoked a joint on the 1st of the month they would still test dirty on the 30th. That's whats wrong with your little testing plan, and always has been. A majority of people who fail drug tests fail because of pot, because of how long it takes for your body to rid itself of it, mainly because it attaches to fat cells.

I didn't read any farther into your post because you have failed to come up with a justifiable reason for your invasion of privacy scheme. You republicans hate freedom, you can't stand liberty and the thought of personal choice makes your skin crawl.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#20 Jun 9, 2012
St Stephen wrote:
I am concentrating on pot because of how long it stays in your system when compared to other drugs like meth and cocaine. You do know you can go on a cocaine binge for a weekend and test clean by Wednesday. On the other hand if someone smoked a joint on the 1st of the month they would still test dirty on the 30th. That's whats wrong with your little testing plan, and always has been. A majority of people who fail drug tests fail because of pot, because of how long it takes for your body to rid itself of it, mainly because it attaches to fat cells.
I didn't read any farther into your post because you have failed to come up with a justifiable reason for your invasion of privacy scheme. You republicans hate freedom, you can't stand liberty and the thought of personal choice makes your skin crawl.
That all depends on the method of testing. If they are testing hair samples, they catch pretty much everything and you can't flush it out of your system or beat the test.
As for the 'justifiable reason', if a person is asking the taxpayers to support them because they lost or can't find a job and drug use is a major barrier to getting a job and getting off welfare, I'd call that ample justification.
Want to keep your 'privacy' intact? Don't apply for welfare.
Libs just love to keep their supporters dependent on them; they're so much easier to manipulate and control that way.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The Latest: Trump calls Election Day 'our Indep... 10 hr Idea Maker 282
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) 10 hr Idea Maker 1,128
Local News Women (Apr '09) 13 hr Casual Observer 2,774
So glad Hillary is not President Thu Batch 37 Pain Is ... 9
Amway Fireworks (May '09) Nov 29 Amwaysux 88
News WZZM13 - Holland Police looking for non-custodi... (May '07) Nov 27 TRUTH 22
Does anyone know why the Chez Ami Bowling alley... (Sep '14) Nov 27 TruthTeller 5

Grand Rapids Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grand Rapids Mortgages