The reporter says it is important to know why 250 have floated outside of the
umbrella by having their aid discontinued. The reporter answers his own
question and it is very obvious what has happened. If people test positive and
their aid is dependent upon they then submitting to a drug diversion program and
instead of doing this they forego the aid, then the answer simply is the drugs
and getting high mean more to them than the aid. They simply don't want to
give up the drugs. You can't force them to take the aid and thereby be
compliant with the drug policy. The real problem is that there might be
children who are not getting adequate nutrition and hopefully these people can
turn to Catholic Charities or a Bishops Storehouse or a Methodist outreach to
pick up the slack. Thank goodness for faith based charities as you never hear
of an atheist foodbank or outreach...which speaks volumes.
Welfare is usually aimed the kids well being so making a drug addict stay away
from the welfare office may just drive up crime or prostitution. The
requirement should be rehab not scaring them off.
"The Department of Workforce Services, which administers the program, says
12 people were denied benefits during the year after testing positive for drugs.
An estimated 250 people were either turned away from assistance programs or
withdrew applications, presumably because of drug issues."This
is a huge assumption and not a fact, 12 people were denied, the others
can't be counted as "assumed" unless guessing is now good enough
for statistics.This is spinning the facts so that the public
doesn't see that administering this law costs more than it saves, but makes
someone feel better morally. Drug tests are easy to cheat, and many of these
kits are available in your town.I wonder who's relative got the
contract to do the testing?
How come you didn't mention children in this article. Because nobody wants
to admit that most of the savings from doing this comes from money that would
have given food to children. The article admits that it probably does little to
stop people from using drugs. What should be done? I think that if you continue
this program, you should see if there is a way to find out how it affects the
children. Maybe there is a better way to help people who are addicts.Well, some
people could care less about that.
The addicted and desperate are getting less and less help from the
self-righteous Utah Legislature.
The real irony is that people prioritize their lives and some put drugs first.
Many who abuse drugs do not want to stop, but the public purse is not obligated
to subsidize their drug habit. If parents put their drug habit about their
childrens' welfare, child protective services should intervene. Blaming
the legislature is a desperate diversion from the real issue.
Every member of the military (officer and enlisted) is subject to random drug
tests, and can expect to take the "whiz quiz" several times a year.Welfare recipients should be subject to at least that level of scrutiny
if they want to love off tax dollars. I reject as incredible the
notion that stopping welfare is hurting the children of drug abusers. The drug
abusers are hurting their kids by spending their money on drugs long before they
get to the welfare stage, and you can be sure they will spend our tax dollars on
drugs without giving a thought to their kids too.Step up the
testing, and make it the "whiz quiz" not some written test "Do you
do drugs?" I mean how many druggies do you think are so stoned that they
will answer yes? (The answer is 12, plus another 250 who were smart enough to
not answer). Treatment of addictions is separate from welfare to
the truly needy. People need to be held responsible for the choices they make,
not rewarded for bad choices.
"Welfare recipients should be subject to at least that level of scrutiny if
they want to love (sic) off tax dollars."Well if that includes
legislators, defense contractors and banks that received bail-outs, that'd
@DN Subscriber 2. The cost for a welfare whizquiz would break the
program. That is why this silly written exam came about, to save money. Fact is we don't know why 250 people withdrew. I would just assume have
NOT saved 350K on welfare and saved it on cutting our legislature's
benefits, would would amount to saving millions.
If the rational behind the drug testing of welfare recipients is a good and
valid Constitutional thing to do, and if the prime justification is that
taxpayer money is involved, would it not be a good and valid thing to do if we
test all people receiving tax money?It seems to me that society
would be better served by fighting and controlling all illegal drug use, not
just welfare recipients. I think the public is placed in more danger by drug
use by police, fire, other public servants, university personnel, food
suppliers, doctors etc. Would it be to our advantage that these people who live
on tax money also be drug free? I distrust the notion of forced
participation in any private enterprise and so would rather the government be
the source of treatment. Sort of like when a medical care giver would rather
maintain his patient rather than cure the patient and lose the revenue.
Oh good!More money wasted for solutions in search of a problem. Typical of our GOP controlled Legislature.