2012-2013 data shows only 12 tested positive in screenings
"Opponents of the policy say it unfairly stigmatizes poor people."Dear "opponents"- the policy withholds rewards from people who
are violating other laws.If YOU want to voluntarily give YOUR money to a
bunch of unrepentant and unreformed druggies, go ahead, but I do not want a
penny of my TAX dollars going to them.People need to be responsible
for their choices, and if you choose to do drugs, you forfeit any claim to
public welfare. If you choose to rob banks, you do not get to keep the
proceeds. If you walk in middle of the freeway at night in dark clothes you may
forfeit your life, but it is not the job of taxpayers to prevent you from doing
stupid or illegal stuff.And, a drug test that relies on written
questions instead of either 100% screening or at least random tests of everyone
is a joke to begin with. Military members are ALL (officer and enlisted)
subject to random tests at any time, why not welfare recipients?Meanwhile, saving $350,000 with an investment of $30,000 sounds like a great
investment to me. 100% testing would probably save millions.
Utah ranks fourth in the nation in deaths from prescription drug overdoses,
according to the CDC.(2011)Are there drug treatment and detox
programs available for the poor?
I'm accused of being a rampant liberal, but this is one conservative idea I
can fully embrace.I just hope that when someone tests positive, they
are at least offered treatment.
Drug testing unfairly stigmatizes welfare recipients? "There is this notion
that if you're struggling to find employment, it must be because
you're using drugs."My husband, both my daughters, my son and I
ALL had to pass a drug test in order to work at our places of employment. In
addition, random drug tests are sometimes given. My husband had to take one
about two months ago. Can someone please explain to me why it's okay to
have to pass a drug test in order to find and retain employment, but drug
testing welfare applicants stigmatizes them? 'Cause I really don't get
Because many employers require you to pass their Drug screening to obtain and
hold a job it only seems right to require that welfare recipients also pass the
same screening.We need to identify them and get them help so that they can
pass an employers tests and obtain a position that will help them to remove
their family from the welfare rolls.
I grow extremely weary of the poor shaming that goes on in America, and
particularly in Utah. For a population that claims to love Jesus Christ so
much, I sure feel that he would be disappointed in the failure of our culture to
receive his message.
Schwa, if you think Jesus was in favor of poor people continuing to keep
themselves trapped in poverty due to addiction while society continues to fund
it, you've got some scripture studying to do.
As soon as they test any and all politicians randomly maybe in between lobbying
sessions than this could be acceptable.12 people at a cost of 30 thousand
dollars? "There's no information about why those 250
people failed to meet the requirements, so it's a leap to assume they all
had drug issues," Cornia said.Arizona officials believed that
testing could save the state $1.7 million a year. But in 2012, three years
and 87,000 screenings later, only one person had failed a drug test.Total
savings from denying that one person benefits? $560. Total benefits paid out in
that time? $200 million. The trend is…It's a waste of resources
that makes some folks feel morally superior and that's about it.I
would like to see an article on who got the contract for the testing in Utah,
pretty sure they'll find relationship to wilson or osmond somehow.
I think that Jesus said that if you want to be next to God you should sell all
your worldly possessions and minister to the poor. Never once did I read about
Jesus asking someone if they lived a good and virtuous lifestyle BEFORE helping
them out. If memory serves, he cohorted with the dredges of society. I tend to
think that a lot of people who think they are righteous are really much like the
Pharisees of old.
re: SchwaJesus said alot of things. Stop being so selective.If I recall correctly He always loved people/sinners but never once was
He "accepting" of sin.Seems like the Utah program offers
drug treatment to help improve the person and lift them out of the mess they are
in.The problem overall is that govt keeps inserting itself in
peoples lives and now we have the pervasive attitude that the govt is supposed
to take care of poor people. Many people view it as they no longer
"have" to do anything to give service/help people because they pay taxes
to the govt to do that.We all know the govt does a poor job of
administering these benefits meanwhile people stand around and no longer have
responsibility to help people in need within their communities.Once
again the liberal form of forced "help" really has backfired.If communities were totally responsible for the poor there would be alot less
abuse, the poor who truly are in need would get alot more help, and we would
still have more money left over in our pockets by avoiding the govt waste
administrating these programs.Liberal Democrats say no.
"There is this notion that if you're struggling to find employment, it
must be because you're using drugs," said Gina CorniaSo
tell us, Gina, why they fail to meet the requirements? The money
does not belong to them, they do not have an inalienable right to it; it is
state charity, and as such, the state has the right to set the requirements, to
protect the interests of the taxpayers. You know, those poor schleps who have
to FUND everything?"Utah's law also doesn't disqualify
people who test positive from receiving benefits. Instead, it requires them to
enter substance abuse treatment"T-seeker and all those who
agreedsee the above paragraph BEFORE asking about detox programs.Schwa,To the woman take in adultery, He said, "Neither do I condemn
thee; go thy way and SIN NO MORE"I think those who condemn
others as being unchristian because they expect people to try to rise above the
natural man ALWAYS forget the last three words He said to her.
Of course they did not find a lot of failed tests - those who knew they would
fail did not apply for the benefits!I wonder why nobody thinks that
drug testing of top athletes might possibly "stigmatize" them. Once an
athlete reaches a certain level of performance he has to be available for random
drug tests - the doping agency needs to know where he is at all times and can
randomly show up at his door anytime to collect a sample. If he is not
available, it is a reason to consider the test as failed.
Is this about saving money or helping the poor get off of drugs? It sounds like
it is a punishment on people who are already down. And, chances are, that the
only people it really hurts are the children of the drug abusers. I say give
them the welfare on the spot, while assisting them in treatment. This is one of
the most un-Christlike things I've seen out of a "Christian" state.
Have some compassion, Utah!
Seems like an odd way to "help" the poor. If children are involved I
guess the state and the people on this comment thread are fine with making
children suffer for the bad choices of their parents. @The Final
Word - The reason the federal government has involved itself in providing for
the poor is because too many local communities have proven that they are
incapable or unwilling to help the needy. Look at states like Utah and Texas
that turned down the opportunity to expand access to health care coverage for
many that could use such help.
No dope is no joke!
I think this is a great idea and would support this on a national level in a
heartbeat. It offers access to programs to help people overcome their
addictions, and at the same time stops subsidizing drug use. If a drug user has
limited funds to begin with, he/she has less money available to buy drugs. Give
that person food stamps, and all of a sudden the money that used to go towards
food can now go towards drugs. How is this a difficult concept?I do
think it's great that people who fail the initial drug test can re-apply
for benefits after a time that allows them to get clean, and that those who test
positive while receiving benefits do not immediately lose those benefits, but
instead are given the chance to receive help. Sounds to me like repentance is
pretty central in this program.
Drug testing is not a stigma on poor people. Many of the jobs that I have held,
required drug testing upon being hired and while I worked there, they required
random drug testing on all employees.Drug testing is a fact of life
in our society. It's a huge liability. And if we can just help one druggie
in this effort to turn their life around, then isn't it worth it?C'mon liberals and democrats where is the bleeding heart to help the one?
Turtles -100% of drug addicted parents inflict suffering on their
children. Transferring blame to society only enables the parents to
continue to abuse/neglect their children through their addiction.Society should not take the role of drug use enabler.
1) I'm skeptical of the state's claims2) I grow weary of a
nation that treats drug addiction has a crime and not a public health issue3) Poor shaming is disgusting. Being poor is not a crime
This is not true. They are try trying to play with the numbers to appear they
are saving money when in fact only 12 out of 5000 people tested positive for
illegal drug use. Padding the money saved by those who didn't agree to test
isn't saving you money. Those people may have moved or found work. This
isn't about helping people it is about making money for the drug testing
company. It is wrong to test people to see if they deserve food. As for,"I
have to drug test why shouldn't you" argument, who do you think this
benefits? The taxpayers or the drug company and the lawmakers who help them? It
is a money making scam that is wasting tax dollars. Let's see who is really
making money here and who is benefiting from lying to the public to continue
This article makes a HUGE assumption, that the "250 individuals who stayed
away... [and] would have received $350,000 in benefits" all stayed away
because they knew they would fail a drug screen. This is completely
unverifiable, and a distorted spin to try and make this abysmal failure of a
program seem positive. It plays on stereotypes and ignorance of those
commenters above who refuse to abandon their individual ideologies that support
their "I'm better than they are" mentality, and politicians who
need talking points to pander. Why is poverty so frightening to those who
"have"? Maybe because it necessitates a good long look in the mirror
that some just cannot handle. There for the grace of God go I?
Suggesting that this legislation is a success when you only know why ~4% of the
"somewhat randomly selected pool" tested positive for drugs and the
remaining 96% did not complete the paperwork is simply silly.
"...cities are reporting a 30 percent spike in violent offenders who are
high on synthetic drugs when they commit violent crimes." How do we account
for this ? Being druggies, they can not get or hold a job (drug testing/war on
drugs); and you know "we've got to get those bums off welfare".
What's left for them to do ? It's usually young men, too. Are we to
suppose that many more bad people were born so many years ago, "a bumper
crop" ? Sometimes, what originates as a political problem ends up being a