Put Down the Resume, Stoner

[spini4]

Back in August, I wrote about Orrin Hatch's plans to demand mandatory drug tests for welfare and unemployment beneficiaries. At the time, it seemed like a crazy fringe suggestion from a well-known enemy of the poor. However, it seems like Hatch is no longer stranded on the lonely loony plane.
A state lawmaker wants random drug testing of adult Kentuckians who receive food stamps, Medicaid or other state assistance.
Those who fail the test would lose their benefits under House Bill 208, filed by Rep. Lonnie Napier, R-Lancaster.

Napier's proposal has won the backing of powerful House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, but critics say it would stigmatize welfare recipients and possibly harm their innocent children.


Yeah, the children. It seems pro-life Republicans have the strangest habit of forgetting those little critters once they're post-womb.

St. Napier says he's not a bad guy, but rather he's just looking out for the interests of the unwashed masses.
"I'm not a hard-hearted guy," said Napier. "I believe there is a need for public assistance for those who need it, but I understand some are using these funds to buy drugs."

Napier said the goal "is to get people off drugs."


A couple of points here. This proposed legislation means Kentuckians must be willing to assume a couple things: 1) Jobless Americans are inferior creatures that deserve to be put through humiliating obstacles for the crime of being unemployed, and 2) Drug addicts are also lesser beings that should be punished -- instead of treated -- for their vices.

I hate to break it to Napier, but a drug addict who has their state assistance cut off probably isn't going to rationally reexamine their life, quit cold turkey, run out to secure a minimum wage job (a real breeze in this market,) and open a college fund for their kids. The process of detox and recovery is a long, arduous struggle. If officials are really, truly doing this because they have some desire to see addicts become self-sufficient, they would be better off working to decriminalize drugs in order to place addicts into clinics instead of prison cells.

Now, it's entirely possible Napier and company aren't doing this to help drug addicts, but rather to squeeze some more money from the poorest among us. Why else implement such a generalized form of collective punishment? Even if the welfare system is teeming with drug addicts, as Napier alleges, they're still a small percentage of the overall pool, so why put everyone through the humiliating process of drug testing?

This kind of legislation appears to be another step in the overall process of stigmatizing the poor. Remember, debt prisons are already a reality in six states (no one from Goldman Sachs has yet gone to jail), a system approved by Social Security privatization hawks, Tea Party candidate Carl Paladino wanted to stick welfare recipients in prison dorms, employers check credit scores during the hiring process (as if a high credit score indicates good work ethic. I'm sure Bernie Madoff had great credit), and some employers refuse to even consider the resumes of unemployed people. College-age students acquire enormous debt due to loans, and they face a dauntingly diminished job market upon graduation, while the poor sustain themselves on credit cards, racking up enormous interest that may permanently bury them in debt.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/put-down-the-resume-stone_b_809972.html

 

[kaywholed]

How much does it cost to administer said tests?
I guess the welfare cheques are going to get even smaller.

 

[slimvictor]

Good article.
Thanks for posting.

 

[hobhead]

have been on welfare ages ago and i was using any thing i could score .
in retrospect i know i was a scumbag sucking on the public tit and should have been drug tested.

kentucky has real big financial problems and has since tobacco use has been shunned by so many.

it's dead wrong for ppl to sell food stamps and use the jing to buy hillbilly heroin .

 

[killermunchies]

I really don't have a huge problem with this, as long as a failed drug test doesn't lead to legal consequences for these people. If you are receiving government money to get by, you really shouldn't be spending your time and tax dollars on drugs. I believe we should be free to do what we please as long as it doesn't harm others. Selling food stamps for heroin harms every tax payer in the country.

 

[23536]

Florida and Louisiana are trying to do this too.

 

[slimvictor]

I bet they won't test 'em for alcohol, or nicotine.
Those drugs are perfectly okay, even though they cost money as well.
But try to use a less addictive, less harmful drug like cannabis or magic mushrooms, and they go ape shit.
Fucked up priorities. Bastards.

 

[slimvictor]

I really don't have a huge problem with this, as long as a failed drug test doesn't lead to legal consequences for these people. If you are receiving government money to get by, you really shouldn't be spending your time and tax dollars on drugs. I believe we should be free to do what we please as long as it doesn't harm others. Selling food stamps for heroin harms every tax payer in the country.

As long as you test them for alcohol and tobacco and caffeine, I would say you are being fair about it.
But as for your assumption that poor people, who need to ask for help, don't deserve the release or respite or relaxation of drugs, I cannot agree with that one.
If I were so poor that I could not survive without food stamps, I could picture myself wanting to smoke cannabis (after work) to make my life more bearable.
Would you kick me off of the list, then?
What if I had no job, but spent 8 hours a day looking for a job, and smoked some cannabis after finishing my degrading, disappointing job search each day - would you kick me off the list, then?
What if I were trying to find a direction in my life and took magic mushrooms once in order to search for meaning. Would you stop giving me food money then?
I can't think anything except how cold-hearted it sounds.
We deserve the basic freedom to alter our consciousness.
Rich and poor alike.

 

[Kurrupt]

This will really cause people to quit drugs! Genius! 8)

In reality, crime will go up, program will eventually get pulled, money wasted and here we are back at stage one.

 

[Heroin Girl]

^agree 100%. Nothing good can come of this.

 

[|>R()|)!G/-\|_]

I believe all drugs should be tested for, including nicotine and alcohol. I don't believe nicotine presence should disqualify somebody but do believe (s)he should be required to enroll in a smoking cessation program.

I do not believe that presence of an illegal drug should be grounds for termination of benefits. In fact, I believe the test should allow for presence of one drug's metabolites not in excess of certain amounts. For example, a subject may test positive for MJ metabolites. If no other drugs are present and the metabolites indicate that (s)he consumes less than 7 g/wk, then no problem.

I believe the tests should test for polydrug use and single drug abuse. If a subject tests positive for multiple drugs or high levels of a single drug, benefits are terminated until the subject completes treatment.

I don't think this is as two-sided as some make it out to be. There are real benefits to having checks and balances built into the welfare system. I feel these checks and balances hold the beneficiary accountable, challenges him/her to reassess his/her priorities, and rewards him/her for positive progress.

 

[slimvictor]

^ Seems pretty arbitrary to determine that welfare recipients can use one drug, but not too much/heavily/often, and not two drugs.

What if some people need to smoke 0.5 gram just to feel high, but others can get high 5 times off of this amount? Is it fair to permit one person to get high 14 times, and another to get high 70 times a week?

What if some people are more productive when they mix small amounts of multiple drugs, like someone who functions best with cannabis to relax enough to go job hunting but heroin or alcohol to calm down after a disappointing day and get to sleep? Or someone who needs caffeine every day to avoid withdrawal symptoms and wants to smoke cannabis on Friday nights?

Why does presence of nicotine trigger enrollment in a program but presence of alcohol not? What about heroin, or crack? What about steroids?

Of course your proposed laws would force people to reassess their priorities - since they are based on your priorities, which are completely arbitrary.

It all sounds ridiculous to me.
People have been getting high for all of history.
People will never stop wanting to get high.
We should have the fundamental right to alter our consciousness.
Welfare recipients are not convicted felons, who some can argue deserve to lose their rights.

 

[AndroidsDreamofBTC]

Typical American Gung-Ho "Kill em now! Think Later!". I can imagine the the unforeseen consequences of this kind of law be very costly indeed. But drugs users are always an easy target when it comes to American politics.

 

[killermunchies]

As long as you test them for alcohol and tobacco and caffeine, I would say you are being fair about it.
But as for your assumption that poor people, who need to ask for help, don't deserve the release or respite or relaxation of drugs, I cannot agree with that one.
If I were so poor that I could not survive without food stamps, I could picture myself wanting to smoke cannabis (after work) to make my life more bearable.
Would you kick me off of the list, then?
What if I had no job, but spent 8 hours a day looking for a job, and smoked some cannabis after finishing my degrading, disappointing job search each day - would you kick me off the list, then?
What if I were trying to find a direction in my life and took magic mushrooms once in order to search for meaning. Would you stop giving me food money then?
I can't think anything except how cold-hearted it sounds.
We deserve the basic freedom to alter our consciousness.
Rich and poor alike.

The scenarios you listed are fine in my book. The problem lies with the opiate addicts who are blowing through ungodly amounts of money for heroin and pills just to stave off withdrawals. These people stand less of a chance to get and hold a job and many get their habit at least partially paid for by the government. That is just wrong. If someone wants to do this with their lives, I have no problem with it as long as they use their own money. For this proposed law, I would very much support alcohol testing too. I don't think nicotine and caffeine do anything to hurt the chances of landing a job.

I'm all for helping out the poor. But if significant amounts of welfare money are being spent on drugs, that's less money for the people who actually deserve it. Welfare should be a privilege, not a right. The goal of it is to keep people fed, clothed, and sheltered, not to keep people high. And as for smoking a joint at the end of the day to calm down, that's still a luxury. Unless you are using weed for medical purposes, it is never necessary, and shouldn't be paid for by the government.

 

[|>R()|)!G/-\|_]

Seems pretty arbitrary to determine that welfare recipients can use one drug, but not too much/heavily/often, and not two drugs.

In my mind, the difference is how polydrug use is more indicative of abusive behavior whereas one drug's presence, in amounts within a certain window, only indicates medicinal or even reasonable recreational use (even daily). That way, this :

What if I had no job, but spent 8 hours a day looking for a job, and smoked some cannabis after finishing my degrading, disappointing job search each day - would you kick me off the list, then?

wouldn't happen.

What if some people need to smoke 0.5 gram just to feel high, but others can get high 5 times off of this amount? Is it fair to permit one person to get high 14 times, and another to get high 70 times a week?

That's why there would be a window with a maximum allowable value. Everyone gets their chance to get high. If one must use amounts above the max value, then perhaps it's a sign that quitting/cutting back to reduce tolerance = a good idea.

What if some people are more productive when they mix small amounts of multiple drugs, like someone who functions best with cannabis to relax enough to go job hunting but heroin or alcohol to calm down after a disappointing day and get to sleep? Or someone who needs caffeine every day to avoid withdrawal symptoms and wants to smoke cannabis on Friday nights?

The human mind and body does not require heroin, cannabis, or alcohol to calm down or sleep after a dissapointing day unless one has voluntarily developed a dependence. At that point, it is fair to ask that individual whether they would exchange their dependence on drugs for their body's dependence on food, water, and/or shelter. Anyone unwilling to meet their body's most basic physiological needs in favor of a fix is clearly addicted and would benefit more from treatment than welfare.

Of course your proposed laws would force people to reassess their priorities - since they are based on your priorities, which are completely arbitrary.

No. The laws are not based on my priorities, they align with the purpose of welfare, which is

to keep people fed, clothed, and sheltered, not to keep people high.

In the end, one has the right to choose to get high. This law does not violate that right. It just does not use tax payers' money to subsidize drug habits.

 

[23536]

Abolish all private wealth. Problem solved

 

[DrGonzo899]

^Easy, feasible and not at all impossible!

 

[Roger&Me]

This law does not violate that right. It just does not use tax payers' money to subsidize drug habits.

The government wastes so much tax payer money on stupid shit already, I say why not buy people drugs too? :D

 

[|>R()|)!G/-\|_]

The government wastes so much tax payer money on stupid shit already, I say why not buy people drugs too?

If you break one of your legs, should you break the other just so you have a matching pair?

 

[purple_cloud]

I'm all for helping out the poor. But if significant amounts of welfare money are being spent on drugs, that's less money for the people who actually deserve it. Welfare should be a privilege, not a right. The goal of it is to keep people fed, clothed, and sheltered, not to keep people high. And as for smoking a joint at the end of the day to calm down, that's still a luxury. Unless you are using weed for medical purposes, it is never necessary, and shouldn't be paid for by the government.

Although this point has been argued against, since it's a drug forum we are chatting on, I agree with killermunchies. Unless the drugs you are using are for medicinal purposes (to include common ones in here, caffeine is a GREAT headache remedy especially if you don't consume it often) they are a luxury, and not something tax dollars should be paying for. I'd rather keep that extra piece of my paycheck (I'm a recent MA-grad so currently unemployed but not receiving aid, living off loans that I saved for now) and get high MYSELF, not give someone else the chance to.

A friend of mine went to Papua New Guinea this summer for research and I asked him about any sort of substance abuse over there...his response was that the people were too busy doing things to survive (attaining food/water/other resources) to even consider it, although for ceremonial purposes and other such reasons they use natural stuff like Kava. [These people don't have electricity or indoor plumbing either to give a better picture.] This is relevant IMO because it supports that our industrialized notion of "everyone deserves to take a break from reality" just isn't true, and is definitely NOT our government's responsibility to support it.