Drug testing for welfare

[Derek Sutton]

do we do this in Alberta? anywhere in Canada?

I'm kind of in a debate this with a cousin in the US. Some states do this to varying degrees and he is quick to point out how much of a failure it is....everywhere no questions asked. He does make a good point using the children of welfare recipients as the backbone of his argument, but I still support the idea of being drug free in order to get your cheque.

Anyways I was just wondering if this is done anywhere in Canada.

[rubecube]

Thankfully not.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Thankfully not.

Is it really a bad idea? How many people are on welfare because of a drug habit, and are using it to continually fuel it?

[Tron_fdc]

My argument is I would rather give them welfare willingly that have them steal things when they get strung out.

Not sure if that's any kind of scientific theory or fact, but I'm comfortable with it.

[Rathji]

Logically thinking:

You would spend a whole lot of money to eliminate support for a small group of people who have an addiction that they feel is important enough to spend a meager welfare check on. Those people would have to support themselves, so it would be highly likely that they would turn to crime, prostitution or other generally bad/dangerous/immoral/etc things to do that.

Then you end up spending even more money on the criminal justice system, or social programs to deal with not only the direct results of that crime/whatever, but the results of kids who would be raised on a situation where they would be even more likely to end up either in foster care or without a real functioning parent/family to help them grow and develop.

Emotionally thinking:

These guys are getting free money for smoking pot/crack/whatever. They are screwing up their lives and the lives of their kids (see above with crime/fostercare etc), plus I am footing the bill for it, in a very small way.

Even if both of those arguments have merit, and there is a sizable number of people which do this, which way of thinking would you rather use? Which is the most productive for society (and our taxes) and the kids/families involved?

People who do drugs, whether is it pot or crack or whatever have some pretty serious issues. If you want to put resources into stopping people who are on a welfare check from doing drugs, the best way is to stop the situation that is causing the drug use (addiction, environment, lack of social supports).

You take away their money, and they will still be drug users, but they will need to turn to crime and mess up their lives even more to support themselves (and their kids), which poses a greater cost on society.

[PsYcNeT]

Well according to this pro-drug prohibition site, enacting such laws in Florida last year cost the state more money than it ended up saving.

[Fusebox]

Drug testing for welfare recipients is a terrible idea. What do you think those drug users are going to do if you don't give them their welfare check? Go out and get real jobs like good citizens or go out and steal some car stereos to feed their habit?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by pylon

Is it really a bad idea? How many people are on welfare because of a drug habit, and are using it to continually fuel it?

2 Cases:

1) Of those people who are true addicts, however many their are, how many of them would change because they didn't get a welfare check every month?

I bet the answer is close to zero.

2) How many would change if you spent that same money on social programs that would help them deal with their addiction? Maybe not many, but I bet it is more than the other case.

The only argument that makes sense to support a program like this is an emotional one based on "As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for this guy to smoke pot all day". This is a valid consideration, but economically and socially, it doesn't provide the return to society on the dollars invested.

You put that money into anti-drug education, treatment programs, programs that keep kids in school, after school programs, parenting courses, etc and you will get a much larger return for each dollar spent, plus it will allow for people to break cycle that exists for the children involved in these situations.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by pylon

Is it really a bad idea? How many people are on welfare because of a drug habit, and are using it to continually fuel it?

Yes it really is a bad idea.

It's just mean spirited punitive policy that will have the exact opposite impacts of those who support the policy.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Fusebox

Drug testing for welfare recipients is a terrible idea. What do you think those drug users are going to do if you don't give them their welfare check? Go out and get real jobs like good citizens or go out and steal some car stereos to feed their habit?

There's a bit of a difference between Canada and the US though.

I'm not saying they would, and I'm not saying they wouldn't, but if a person in Canada was declined welfare due to a drug habit, they could get help with their addiction for free.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

At the end of the day, I don't like the idea that the government could randomly test me if I was receiving welfare.

If that is the case, does it open a slippery slope?

If I'm drug tested for welfare, shouldn't I be drug tested for EI (receiving government funds for 'free').

If I'm drug tested for welfare can those test results be used in a court of law? The test would be "voluntary" as you have the choice to not apply for welfare (or EI if you accept the premise they are closely linked in kind). So if I'm at a party and someone smokes weed, it could throw off my test results (we have t discussed how trace amounts would affect welfare recipients).

What kind of test blood, breath, hair? If hair, those with long hair are Arab disadvantage as opposed to those who are bald.

All this not to mention you're forcing people into a drug test, something that is (supposed to be) protected under your charter right of unreasonable searh and seizure.

I may not have a problem if you're convicted of a drug offense, as the test is independent of the welfare. But that should be on a case by case basis, not a hard and fast rule.

What about those on welfare that don't have capacity to consent to drug testing. Are they going to be at a disadvantage because they might not understand the complications and ramifications of a failed drug test?

All this without going into a financial cost-benefit analysis.

So, no. It's a bad idea.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FireFly

There's a bit of a difference between Canada and the US though.

I'm not saying they would, and I'm not saying they wouldn't, but if a person in Canada was declined welfare due to a drug habit, they could get help with their addiction for free.

Explain please.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think the question should be why are you on welfare more then are you using drugs and sitting around in your underwear but your able bodied and should be able to work.

I believe that there should be heavier monitoring for welfare fraud.

[dsavillian]

I think if you are going to do drug testing for welfare, you should do drug testing for any and all money that is handed out by the government.

Tax breaks because you set yourself up as a corporation for your consulting business? Drug test.

Student loan relief? Drug test.

Flood relief? Drug test.

CPP? Drug test.

Civil servant pay cheque? Drug Test!!!!

I don't want any of my tax money going to any illicit drug use!

/green text off

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think the question should be why are you on welfare more then are you using drugs and sitting around in your underwear but your able bodied and should be able to work.

I believe that there should be heavier monitoring for welfare fraud.

Except that ends up costing the government more than if you just gave them welfare, as posted above, since only a small fraction of welfare recipients are users.

See http://www.drugfree.org/join-togethe...e-data-reveals

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

I think if you are going to do drug testing for welfare, you should do drug testing for any and all money that is handed out by the government.

Tax breaks because you set yourself up as a corporation for your consulting business? Drug test.

Student loan relief? Drug test.

Its not a basically forever thing, you eventually have to pay it back.

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Flood relief? Drug test.

That makes no sense at all, what does flooding have to do with drugs. I know your trying to be sarcastic and cool and all that, but there has to be some logic involved.

Originally Posted by dsavillian

CPP? Drug test.

They are considered to be no longer work eligible, plus they paid into it.

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Civil servant pay cheque? Drug Test!!!!

I think there's merit to this especially in jobs where drugs would effect worker safety and productivity. You see drug testing all over the private sector, why not the public sector.

Originally Posted by dsavillian

I don't want any of my tax money going to any illicit drug use!

/green text off

I would prefer that government money is not going to support a drug habit personally. I know that there is a major cost effect to testing for drugs on Welfare. I am all over random check ins on people that are on Welfare to make sure that whatever put them on welfare is a condition that still exists.

Just like I like the idea of EI reform, since its supposed to be a temporary emergency fund and not a long term source of income.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Except that ends up costing the government more than if you just gave them welfare, as posted above, since only a small fraction of welfare recipients are users.

See http://www.drugfree.org/join-togethe...e-data-reveals

I think you missed my point Psyc. I'm more concerned with people collecting welfare that really shouldn't be on welfare.

I'm all for random checkups on people not in terms of drug usage, but to make sure that the conditions that put them in the system are still existing conditions. that's why we pay Welfare agents and EI agents.

[ernie]

I know it is at times galling to see someone receive welfare who might be an addict or misspending that money but it is a system that people use as a result of tax monies being collected.

I know this may not be the popular view but do we test people for drugs to use the roads or the park? Simplistic example I know but I would think the abuse of the system is of much more of a concern than the addict using the welfare money for drugs. In fact I'd wager it ends up catching out a recreational user who may in fact be otherwise an upstanding citizen that is down on their luck. Especially in the states where they will fire you or restrict access for a minute amount of marijuana in your system.



But this is a very american thing to do. Man you wouldn't believe the complaining people did around here about the temporary FEMA housing. Constant arguments that if those people were responsible they would have had insurance or been able to find somewhere else to go. That they would all just abuse the housing and you'll never get them out etc. Not only were they wrong they refuse to realize that keeping those people in the area is BY FAR the best thing for the community recovering from a disaster. You can make the same arguments with centralized healthcare. It is cheaper in the long wrong as instead of having to treat disease that has progressed to an advanced state (can't go to doctor because it costs too much) you go at the beginning when it is easy to deal with.

[Matata]

Drug tests also show false positives ~10% of the time, which is a pretty crappy reason to starve a single mother of 4 children.

[Cyclops]

Drug testing turns the pot smoker into a user of heavier drugs that won't show up after 2 or 3 days, this is one of the many reasons why drug testing is a joke and somewhat counter-productive.