NC competes with FL for douchiest state award

[debatethis]

Drug tests AND background checks for welfare, y'all.

NC considering drug testing welfare recipients

Purchase Image
Jim Davis / MLewis
Written by
Jon Ostendorff

Filed Under

News

ASHEVILLE — Opponents are lining up against legislation that would require drug tests for those on welfare.

The state Senate Judiciary Committee backed Republican Sen. Jim Davis’ bill earlier this week.

It would require drug testing for Work First Program applicants and recipients, and make them pay for the cost of the testing.

The program gives families cash to pay for basic needs and tries to move them off welfare and into jobs.

A bill requiring background checks for welfare recipients cleared the House on Thursday. It requires all social services employees to perform background checks to bar applicants and recipients with outstanding warrants or other active violations from welfare and food stamp programs. Employees would have to report them to law enforcement.

Bill sponsor Rep. Dean Arp, a Republican from Monroe, noted the federal government already prohibits giving public assistance to fleeing felons and others with active violations.

Arp appeased many opponents after providing assurances that county offices won’t shoulder additional costs. Some Democrats previously expressed concern about creating new burdens for social services employees and the perception that the bill unfairly singles out poor people for distrust.

That bill now heads to the Senate.

Under the bill requiring drug testing, benefits would be taken away for a year for anyone who fails a drug test.

A person could get back in by completing a drug abuse treatment program, which he would have to pay for himself.

The cost of the drug test would be repaid to those who pass with a higher welfare payment.

Children of those who test positive for drugs would continue to get welfare benefits.

Law requires welfare recipients with diagnosed substance abuse problems to participate in a treatment program and submit to drug testing to continue qualifying for benefits.

Seven states require drug testing for those on welfare, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. At least 29 states have proposed laws this year.

Opponents say requiring those on welfare to pay for drug tests and treatment programs is unreasonable.

The new requirement might also mean more homelessness because people could not afford to pay for housing without welfare.

“My question would be if they don’t pass, what is the plan?” said Kathey Avery, a nurse educator and case manager at Asheville Buncombe Institute Parity of Achievement, which works to improve the health of people of color.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Florida two years ago to stop similar testing, saying the law was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

Julie Klipp Nicholson, manager attorney at Pisgah Legal Services, which helps low-income people, said she was disappointed the bill was introduced.

She said similar laws in other states end up costing the government more to administer and with little benefit. In Florida, for example, only 3 percent of the welfare population tested positive for drugs, she said.

“It is based on stereotypes that low-income folks are likely drug abusers,” she said.

Sarah Preston, policy director for the ACLU in North Carolina, was at the hearing in Raleigh on Tuesday.

She said the bill would next go to the health care committee. If it passes, it would go for a vote on the Senate floor.

Preston said the ACLU is concerned the law violates the Fourth Amendment because it requires a suspicionless search in the form of a drug test.

Davis, a Franklin dentist, said he’s concerned about legal challenges in other states but believes federal law gives North Carolina the authority to mandate testing.

He said the bill is aimed at giving children drug-free homes.

Davis said he wasn’t aware of free or low-cost drug treatment programs for those who fail a test. But, he said, that’s not a reason to abandon the bill.

“If they are on welfare and doing illegal drugs, they can divert that money to a drug treatment program,” he said.

ETA: Link www.citizen-times.com/article/20130412/NEWS/304120010/

[iammalcolmx]

Damn

[itamelions]

And we are against this why?

[Velar Fricative]

So are these background checks against welfare recipients going to be more stringent than background checks against prospective gun owners in NC? I'm going to hazard a guess and say of course they will be. Those EBT cards can kill.

[pixy0stix]

Apr 12, 2013 14:27:25 GMT -5 itamelions said:

And we are against this why?

Better question, why are you for this?

[itamelions]

I can already tell my opinion on this subject is gonna go over like a lead balloon here.

Why am I for drug testing and background checks of welfare recipients? Well, because I have to get drug tested and pass a background check to get paid at my job.. where I work for my money.

[Velar Fricative]

Here we go...

[pixy0stix]

Apr 12, 2013 14:38:29 GMT -5 itamelions said:

I can already tell my opinion on this subject is gonna go over like a lead balloon here.

Why am I for drug testing and background checks of welfare recipients? Well, because I have to get drug tested and pass a background check to get paid at my job.. where I work for my money.

Do you want the short version or the long version?

Short version: You're wrong, it doesn't work, was doomed not to work in the first place, costs the gov. more money than fraud itself, and it automatically assumes that everyone poor is on drugs.

[EllieArroway]

Anyone have some popcorn?

[Deleted]

Hey, NC...have at it. This is how well it's worked here in FL.

www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html

[debatethis]

Apr 12, 2013 14:42:19 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Apr 12, 2013 14:38:29 GMT -5 itamelions said:

I can already tell my opinion on this subject is gonna go over like a lead balloon here.

Why am I for drug testing and background checks of welfare recipients? Well, because I have to get drug tested and pass a background check to get paid at my job.. where I work for my money.

Do you want the short version or the long version?

Short version: You're wrong, it doesn't work, was doomed not to work in the first place, costs the gov. more money than fraud itself, and it automatically assumes that everyone poor is on drugs.

Oh and it's been ruled unconstitutional since Michigan tried this bullshit in 1999.

[Velar Fricative]

Apr 12, 2013 14:47:46 GMT -5 @writergal49 said:

Hey, NC...have at it. This is how well it's worked here in FL.

www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html

And as far as I remember, FL didn't even conduct background checks - just drug tests.

[Deleted]

Yup, just drug tests. So I guess we're no longer officially douchiest? (And most wasteful in this department?)

YAY! We're not #1! We're not #1!

Okay, we won't be...if NC passes this. We're still the originators of douchey and wasteful.

[pixy0stix]

Long version, and I should probably save this somewhere:

Welfare recipients in 1998 were asked to self-report on if they were using drugs while on welfare. At that time, 4% admitted to being chronic drug users. Which is what is being found in FL, un-suprisingly enough. www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief02/ and FL findings (FL actually only had 2.6% of applicants fail, without a drop in number of applications) www.politifact.com/florida/promises/scott-o-meter/promise/600/require-drug-screening-for-welfare-recipients/

In fact, it's costing FL money to catch these phantom drug users:

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state's net loss? $45,780.

"That's not counting attorneys and court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy," Newton said.

www.tampabay.com/news/courts/florida-didnt-save-money-by-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-data-shows/1225721

So the underlying assumption that most welfare recipients are using drugs is false. The underlying assumption that drug testing would save the state money is also false.

[laurenpetro]

oh good. i needed some short-sighted dumbfuckery in my afternoon.

[zelda25]

Apr 12, 2013 14:38:29 GMT -5 itamelions said:

I can already tell my opinion on this subject is gonna go over like a lead balloon here.

Why am I for drug testing and background checks of welfare recipients? Well, because I have to get drug tested and pass a background check to get paid at my job.. where I work for my money.

So, you're in favor of this because you want to make sure welfare recipients get to share the pee in a cup love?  That's it?

[pixy0stix]

Now let's look at WHY we want to test welfare recipients. Mainly the prevailing "welfare queen" myth that is widely heralded as truth.

Lengthy article describing the birth of the myth and how the demographics have changed: www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/weflare-queen

A good blog piece with links back to the supporting documents: www.junkland.net/2012/01/8-myths-about-welfare-queens-debunked.html

The largest of which is that it also debunks the racial undertone in the drug testing narrative that we're out to catch the BLACK drug users. According to the statistics 36% of the families are black, 33% are white, and 26% are hispanic.

[pixy0stix]

But hang on, I'm not done. Now we need to talk about the requirements to receive assistance and how it's not a walk in the park, and that these families often have to scrape to get the $30-35 together to be able to pay for the piss test.

For an idea, most states base their assistance on criteria dealing with the federal poverty guidelines. You have to be at or below the amount listed in the tables found here: aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm#guidelines

Most applicants are well below those levels.

[pixy0stix]

Now it needs to be said that there are requirements that must be met while receiving assistance. Mainly you *have* to be employed, or actively looking for a job, in order to receive the benefits. Many of those jobs, as itamelions mentioned, DO require drug tests. So the work for the government is already done. Legally, without breaking the constitution.

I could continue more about the impacts to the children who are indirectly receiving the benefits through the parents, but honestly, I think she has enough to chew on.

[cookiemdough]

I am lmao that someone on public assistance just has money laying around for a drug treatment program.

[Deleted]

Apr 12, 2013 14:57:29 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Long version, and I should probably save this somewhere:

Welfare recipients in 1998 were asked to self-report on if they were using drugs while on welfare. At that time, 4% admitted to being chronic drug users. Which is what is being found in FL, un-suprisingly enough. www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief02/ and FL findings (FL actually only had 2.6% of applicants fail, without a drop in number of applications) www.politifact.com/florida/promises/scott-o-meter/promise/600/require-drug-screening-for-welfare-recipients/

In fact, it's costing FL money to catch these phantom drug users:

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state's net loss? $45,780.

"That's not counting attorneys and court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy," Newton said.

www.tampabay.com/news/courts/florida-didnt-save-money-by-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-data-shows/1225721

So the underlying assumption that most welfare recipients are using drugs is false. The underlying assumption that drug testing would save the state money is also false.

Is that the assumption? I thought the assumption was that taxpayer money shouldn't go to buy drugs. I thought that's why they tested government employees as well - you're saying it's assumed that anyone seeking employment with the government must be on drugs?

[MrsAxilla]

Apr 14, 2013 11:56:40 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Apr 12, 2013 14:57:29 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Long version, and I should probably save this somewhere:

Welfare recipients in 1998 were asked to self-report on if they were using drugs while on welfare. At that time, 4% admitted to being chronic drug users. Which is what is being found in FL, un-suprisingly enough. www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief02/ and FL findings (FL actually only had 2.6% of applicants fail, without a drop in number of applications) www.politifact.com/florida/promises/scott-o-meter/promise/600/require-drug-screening-for-welfare-recipients/

In fact, it's costing FL money to catch these phantom drug users:

So the underlying assumption that most welfare recipients are using drugs is false. The underlying assumption that drug testing would save the state money is also false.

Is that the assumption? I thought the assumption was that taxpayer money shouldn't go to buy drugs. I thought that's why they tested government employees as well - you're saying it's assumed that anyone seeking employment with the government must be on drugs?

Very few government employees are drug tested, actually.  The assumption is that taxpayer money shouldn't go to buy drugs AND that most welfare recipients are on drugs.  

[Deleted]

Apr 14, 2013 12:03:07 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Apr 14, 2013 11:56:40 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Is that the assumption? I thought the assumption was that taxpayer money shouldn't go to buy drugs. I thought that's why they tested government employees as well - you're saying it's assumed that anyone seeking employment with the government must be on drugs?

Very few government employees are drug tested, actually.  The assumption is that taxpayer money shouldn't go to buy drugs AND that most welfare recipients are on drugs.  

I was.  Because you know, drugged accounting is a menace to society.

[MrsAxilla]

Apr 14, 2013 12:17:28 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Apr 14, 2013 12:03:07 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Very few government employees are drug tested, actually.  The assumption is that taxpayer money shouldn't go to buy drugs AND that most welfare recipients are on drugs.  

I was.  Because you know, drugged accounting is a menace to society.

Well clearly!  You may very well embezzle money to support your hookers and blow habit!

DH is in enviro compliance and his department doesn't drug test.

[aurademystere]

Annnnnnd bookmarked for the next time one of those stupid memes shows up on my FB feed....

[Deleted]

Apr 14, 2013 12:22:32 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Apr 14, 2013 12:17:28 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

I was.  Because you know, drugged accounting is a menace to society.

Well clearly!  You may very well embezzle money to support your hookers and blow habit!

DH is in enviro compliance and his department doesn't drug test.

Is that federal or state?

[MrsAxilla]

Apr 14, 2013 17:56:04 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Apr 14, 2013 12:22:32 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Well clearly!  You may very well embezzle money to support your hookers and blow habit!

DH is in enviro compliance and his department doesn't drug test.

Is that federal or state?

Feds.

[Deleted]

Apr 14, 2013 18:16:02 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Apr 14, 2013 17:56:04 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Is that federal or state?

Feds.

Ok, so neither one of us really works as a comparison, since public assistance is on a state level.
The town I worked for drug tested every single position before hiring, and then randomly re-tested anyone who drove as part of their job.  I can't imagine what that costs!  I'm pretty sure the state drug tests too, but I could be wrong.

[MrsAxilla]

Apr 14, 2013 18:47:17 GMT -5 sandsonik said:

Apr 14, 2013 18:16:02 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Feds.

Ok, so neither one of us really works as a comparison, since public assistance is on a state level.
The town I worked for drug tested every single position before hiring, and then randomly re-tested anyone who drove as part of their job.  I can't imagine what that costs!  I'm pretty sure the state drug tests too, but I could be wrong.

I think it varies.  I personally have never worked for the state, but I have several friends who do or did and they weren't drug test either.

But I live in Colorado, so there's that.