Fundie lite's take on drug testing and welfare

[BelieveinScience]

I saw this blog in Zsu Zsus blog list. The first post there was on drug testing and it actually makes some sort of sense. http://gesslerfamily.blogspot.com/2012/11/should-there-be-drug-testing-for.html

I like this quote the best

"Most drugs, save Marijuana, are out of a person's system in 24 to 72 hours making it extremely difficult to detect. I wonder if the real issue at hand is to catch those using pot? I do not use Marijuana. I do not consider Marijuana a harmful drug. Actually, I don't consider it a drug at all, but a very beneficial plant when used appropriately. It has many, many healing and disease curing abilities. It is 100% less harmful than any illegal or legal drug/alcohol. No one has EVER died from an overdose unlike all other "drugs". It would be perfectly acceptable for a recipient on welfare/PA to receive morphine, antidepressants or benzodiazepine's even though all of those are harmful and addictive and have caused many deaths. All recipients would need testing several times each month to "catch" them. Can you imagine how much that will cost?"

[Guest Anonymous]

I saw this blog in Zsu Zsus blog list. The first post there was on drug testing and it actually makes some sort of sense. http://gesslerfamily.blogspot.com/2012/ ... g-for.html

I like this quote the best

Bolded #1: So a drug is only a 'drug' if you don't like it? If you find it acceptable, it becomes a 'beneficial plant'. Coca is a beneficial plant, the opium poppy is a beneficial plant, that doesn't stop cocaine and heroin from being drugs.

Bolded #2: This has a whiff of "mainstream medicine is evil". I only skimmed the rest of blog post, but one of the other reasons she gives against drug testing is that it's a slippery slope before the evil government starts poisoning people by forcing them to have 'poison vaccine injections'.

Edited: wording and bolding.

[GolightlyGrrl]

You know who we have to worry about being on drugs? Wall Street types. These guys are so into blow, and not to mention strippers and hookers, they'd make Charlie Sheen say, "Whoa, slow down a bit."

[Kitty]

Marijuana is fine and dandy, but antidepressants are EVIL.

Someone really doesn't like mainstream medicine. Marijuana is not nearly harmful enough to justify it being illegal, but its really stupid to compare it to antidepressants while acting like antidepressants are recreational drugs.

[Kitty]

You know who we have to worry about being on drugs? Wall Street types. These guys are so into blow, and not to mention strippers and hookers, they'd make Charlie Sheen say, "Whoa, slow down a bit."

Oh, so that explains the financial crisis...

[Witsec7]

I'm not going to address the evils of weed. But simply address piss testing folks who receive public benefits. I do not believe that simply being poor qualifies one for drug testing. It's just another means of 'othering' the poor.

I've mentioned many times that the man who picks up my trash gets drug tested, and the military aid that carries the keys to the nuclear arsenal of this country doesn't have to. It's something to think about.

[GolightlyGrrl]

Oh, so that explains the financial crisis...

I'm not kidding. You should rent the Oscar-winning documentary "Inside Job." A lot of these Wall Street types are complete sociopaths with no concern for other people's well-being. Yikes!

[Guest Anonymous]

I saw this blog in Zsu Zsus blog list. The first post there was on drug testing and it actually makes some sort of sense. http://gesslerfamily.blogspot.com/2012/ ... g-for.html

I like this quote the best

If I didn't know that she thinks antidepressants are always evil, I'd agree with her 100%. Antidepressants have caused deaths. A side effect of suicidal tendencies, and an aunt of mine tried gutting herself in front of the family while on Wellbutrin. She's alive because she was stopped after the first stab to the gut. But people can take stuff like that, and even be hooked on Xanax, and still get welfare, but the push has been pushing for a drug test that will get pot? For so long the government has focused on pot because it's supposed to be a gateway drug when it's not. If the point if testing is to try to weed out people who might be spending money on unneeded things, even though anyone can grow it but you have to spend money buying cigarettes and alcohol, which are completely allowed, then they're only going to hurt people who probably aren't spending anything.

[AddieBelle]

I thought it was more along the lines of if you can pay for drugs then you dont need assistance. Not that I agree with it but I thought that was the reasoning.

[IceQueen]

I just had this conversation with my sister. She doesn't want her hard earned money buying someone's illegal drugs. Or legal ones for that matter that's what *jobs* are for. Anyway I personally believe that if you have your shit together enough to get yourself to the DHS office to get on public assistance to feed yourself and your family chances are you actually do need the food and money. I don't have any research to back claim up.

[B5SnowDog]

One of my friends posted a meme supporting drug testing everyone on welfare in order to save tax dollars. I commented with a link to a NY Times article that stated the drug testing policy actually cost FL over $45,000 in less than a year; she didn't respond.

[PraiseSeitan]

Testing in Florida also found that welfare recipients use drugs at a much lower rate than the general population. Which makes sense, because drugs cost money.

[mirele]

If I didn't know that she thinks antidepressants are always evil, I'd agree with her 100%. Antidepressants have caused deaths. A side effect of suicidal tendencies, and an aunt of mine tried gutting herself in front of the family while on Wellbutrin. She's alive because she was stopped after the first stab to the gut. But people can take stuff like that, and even be hooked on Xanax, and still get welfare, but the push has been pushing for a drug test that will get pot? For so long the government has focused on pot because it's supposed to be a gateway drug when it's not. If the point if testing is to try to weed out people who might be spending money on unneeded things, even though anyone can grow it but you have to spend money buying cigarettes and alcohol, which are completely allowed, then they're only going to hurt people who probably aren't spending anything.

OK, I am a mental health drug consumer, and, in fact, I just took my daily dose of Wellbutrin (and another antidepressant, plus my drugs for acid reflux, high blood pressure and the dreaded diabeetus). My point: all of these drugs can have side effects. Some can even kill. I have an injectable drug (also for diabetes) that has a black box warning--it could cause thyroid cancer.

But, and I'm militant about this, the antidepressants gave me my fucking life back. I don't become insanely depressed to where I want to take out my sharp embroidery scissors and start opening veins. I have a good, nay, a great life, thanks to ebil, ebil Wellbutrin.

In my not so humble opinion, antidepressants are just as necessary to my continued well-being as Metformin. And I resent that people demonize these drugs to the point where people are scared of taking them. *I* was scared of taking them for a long time and it took a stay in a padded cell place for me to realize that I had to do something to save my life, otherwise I was going to end up deader than dead.

[HOTW]

There is a way to catch months worth of drug use and that is by hair analysis.

[Georgiana]

As I've said here a few times before, my brother and sister were adopted out of the US Foster Care system. BOTH of them came from mothers on government assistance. And there were even more children who came in to our lives, but we didn't adopt. My point is, I grew up seeing a side of government assistance that many people don't see.

One of my siblings had a mother who was a hard-working immigrant woman who just couldn't get a break. She was young, alone, and too trusting. She was continually preyed upon by those who should have helped her. SHE was the woman that everyone want to help, because honestly, she deserved it. The other had a cocaine junkie who WOULDN'T go to rehab and couldn't hold down a job with her addiction.

But as far as I am concerned, the status of the mothers shouldn't matter. Because NEITHER of those situations were my siblings' fault. And they BOTH deserved all the help they could get.

If you know addiction, you know that most addicts will live in a box rather than go without their fix. Did government assistance enable my sis' mother to have a house, food, and medical care while spending all her money on coke? Yes. But it ALSO gave my sister those things. And eventually, it got my sister out.

Stopping government assistance for addicts wont help anyone. But it will hurt everyone who depends on that addict. Honest to God, the fact that addicts CAN get help from the government for themselves and their families encourages them to come in for it. And that allows other people to make sure that the children/elderly in that household are safe and being adequately taken care of. If you take that away, the problems will STILL continue, but it will be so much harder for the innocent victims to get help.

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR ADDICTS SAVED MY SISTER'S LIFE. And I wont sacrifice the life of even ONE child for just deserts for 10,000 addicts. Or some budget. In my book, it just isn't worth it.

[emmiedahl]

There is a way to catch months worth of drug use and that is by hair analysis.

1. Hair tests cost several times more than urine tests, and drug testing programs have already been found to cost much more than they save. How much are the tax payers willing to pay to catch the occasional pothead on food stamps?

2. So a parent does drugs. How does that affect a child's need to eat or to have a home? Maybe we should drug test all parents who have children in public schools and kick the kids out if their parents come up dirty. Public education costs more than welfare.

3. Hair tests can test for legal drugs like alcohol. Maybe we should kick people off for having an occasional glass of Two Buck Chuck while we are at it. :roll:

4. There are shampoos that can foil the test, so more experienced drug users may still not be caught.

5. Hair tests can go several years back. Will we deny a family food because dad smoked pot 3 years ago when he was not even on benefits?

[Witsec7]

There is a way to catch months worth of drug use and that is by hair analysis.

A 60 yo guy I know thought he was going to pee test for a mill and got the hair test instead. He was prepared for the UA with a dependable valence, but not for the hair test.

The next time he was up for job he shaved his entire body (he was almost bald anyway :D ) and he took a valence as well. When they couldn't get a hair they made him pee and he got the job. This is a mature adult who would never work high (it's a fucking mill) and doesn't drive under the influence.

Yea private industry will pay for a hair test, but considering how much piss testing cost FL, it's not likely state govts. can afford to do this.

[Funky Chicken]

I sort of wanted to stay out of this, but can't help myself... I'm an addiction medicine doctor. I'm not so sure that THC should be considered to be a "harmless" drug, given its propensity to precipitate psychosis in susceptible individuals (which can then lead to behaviour resulting in death!); also, for those who do become dependent, withdrawal symptoms can cause them to be quite impulsive and violent. OTOH, for a lot of people this isn't an issue and it can have some role in pain management (although it's not the perfect panacea some would have it be seen as). Having said that, plenty of other drugs are also hideous, both illegal and prescribed - I loathe amphetamines with a deadly loathing, and prescribed benzodiazepines are a personal hate of mine (and for many I work with). (Oddly enough, if people had access to quantified amounts, clean injecting equipment, and didn't mix it with other drugs, heroin-related harm would be a hell of a lot less)...

But on drug testing of "welfare recipients" - here's the thing. Drug dependence is an illness. If someone is incapable of controlling their intake so as to give a clean urine sample, then they have a problem. Obviously nobody wants their taxes being spent on drugs, but denying these persons assistance is unlikely to cause them to suddenly clean up their act and stop using. If anything, they'll use more due to the hopelessness of their situation. At least if there is some money coming in regularly, their kids might get food, their electricity might get paid, etc.

Anyway, where do you draw the line? I'll bet a lot of these people bleating that somewhere, someone is getting something they didn't "work" for, smoke tobacco or drink alcohol. In my opinion, nicotine is the true gateway drug anyway. I see plenty of people who started their heroin use by smoking. Don't tell me that cigarette smoking doesn't "normalise" that concept...

As far as prescribed medications go, just because they have side effects (and ALL drugs that work WILL have side effects), I'm not sure how that justifies defining a non-prescribed, illicit drug that also causes considerable harm, as being OK.

Sorry, I know this is mainly about pot and I've digressed a tad... /endrant.