Page 1 of 3
#1
LANSING — Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation today that creates a drug-testing program for adult welfare recipients who are suspected of using drugs.

The Republican-backed proposals, House Bill 4118 and Senate Bill 275, were among several bills approved by Snyder. The one-year pilot program will be implemented in three counties that have not yet been determined.

Under the program, welfare recipients or applicants suspected of drug use will be required to take a substance abuse test. Refusal to take the test will result in being ineligible for benefits for six months.

A positive drug test would lead to referrals to treatment programs. If an individual refuses to participate in the program or fails to submit to periodic substance abuse testing required under the program, their assistance will be terminated. Benefits can be restored after a person passes a substance abuse test.

"We want to remove the barriers that are keeping people from getting good jobs, supporting their families and living independently," Snyder said in a press release. "This pilot program is intended to help ensure recipients get the wrap-around services they need to overcome drug addiction and lead successful lives. We'll then have opportunity to assess effectiveness and outcomes."


http://on.freep.com/1ATceND

what do you think of this?
i don't know why i feel so dry
#2
just seems like an excuse to cut peoples benefits whilst at the same time pandering to the anti drugs lobby
#3
It's stupid, counterproductive tea party lawmaking scapegoating the poor and wasting money.
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#4
Its stupid and a proven waste of taxpayer money, but it gets the stupid, reactionary Republican vote. They don't believe in experts or statistics.
BOOM-SHAKALAKALAKA-BOOM-SHAKALAKUNGA
#6
Quote by snipelfritz
Its stupid and a proven waste of taxpayer money, but it gets the stupid, reactionary Republican vote. They don't believe in experts or statistics.


On it's face, it seems like a good idea, but I'm really curious as to what the downsides are.....care to enlighten me? I'm genuinely interested, because there's been similar suggestions made in Australia recently
Come back if you want to
And remember who you are
‘Cause there's nothing here for you my dear
And everything must pass
#7
I just don't understand why we even have to fund welfare and drugs. We should cut all funding on both IMO
.
#8
Quote by Fat Lard
I just don't understand why we even have to fund welfare and drugs. We should cut all funding on both IMO


Welfare is definitely a cornerstone of civilised society. The ability for a Government to care for it's citizens whilst in times for need (e.g. Unemployment, Illness) is definitely a good thing IMO. I would think that perhaps more needs to be done to weed out the dole bludgers and the people who rort the system.
Come back if you want to
And remember who you are
‘Cause there's nothing here for you my dear
And everything must pass
#9
PS Gov Rick Scott already did this shit with his drug-test-comp count wife. It didn't work out PS, so gtso of here w/ ur 3 undetermined cuntries that do not matter
.
#10
Quote by i_lovemetallica
Welfare is definitely a cornerstone of civilised society. The ability for a Government to care for it's citizens whilst in times for need (e.g. Unemployment, Illness) is definitely a good thing IMO. I would think that perhaps more needs to be done to weed out the dole bludgers and the people who rort the system.


Gr8 analysis m8 keep it up
.
#11
I dunno, initially I'm really against it because we don't need any more laws attacking the poor. However, if you're poor enough that you need my tax money for it, you probably shouldn't be spending it on illegal stuff. I'm even pro-legalization of weed, but if you can't just not smoke weed for a few months until you get a job and get off welfare, maybe you're just dumb enough to lose it.

The law's more expensive than the money it'll save finding abusers and cutting them off, which is the biggest reason it shouldn't even be considered. I don't really know how this is a Left or a Right issue, either. Why did this thing become so partisan?
OBEY THE MIGHTY SHITKICKER
#12
I think they should just get rid of all of the welfare programs and instead give every citizen a basic monthly stipend (adjusted for employment, children, etc.) that they can use for whatever they need throughout the month.

Vote Brad.
#13
Quote by bradulator
I think they should just get rid of all of the welfare programs and instead give every citizen a basic monthly stipend (adjusted for employment, children, etc.) that they can use for whatever they need throughout the month.

Vote Brad.


What are you, Pedro? We need effort in the clan - that would never work.
.
#16
How about we round up all the bankers at the big time Wall Street fat cat banks who took bailout money and test them for drugs. OH WAIT THEY'RE RICH AND THIS IS AMERIKKA, LAND OF THE (NOTHING IS) FREE (NOT EVEN JUSTICE) #RonPaul
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#17
We should drug test anyone that gets money from the people (except for the legistlators/job creators)
.
#18
we should abolish drug tests because they are immoral
Quote by korinaflyingv
On the come up we were listening to Grateful Dead and the music started passing through my bowel and out my arsehole as this violet stream of light. I shat music. It was beautiful.
#19
Didn't Florida try this a few years ago and it turned out that only a few percent of welfare recipients tested positive and like 98% of them were drug free, and it ended up costing the taxpayers a load of money.

Oh and the Florida senator(?) who pushed for the bill part owned or had shares in the drug testing firm... So the whole thing was a shady corrupt scam to make him rich and win him votes...

Leave the poor alone. I grew up in a poor family who needed the welfare state for 6 years before my parents could pick themselves up and not one of them were using illegal drugs. My old man did hit the booze hard though which didn't help, but we are all gravy now.
Sat in a lab, curing diseases. They actually LET me play with chemicals!
#20
Quote by bradulator
I think they should just get rid of all of the welfare programs and instead give every citizen a basic monthly stipend (adjusted for employment, children, etc.) that they can use for whatever they need throughout the month.

Vote Brad.


I came in here to say this. I don't think Brad and I agree on many things politically, but this is one. BIPARTISANSHIP.
#DTWD
#21
Quote by bradulator
I think they should just get rid of all of the welfare programs and instead give every citizen a basic monthly stipend (adjusted for employment, children, etc.) that they can use for whatever they need throughout the month.

Vote Brad.

Well, that'll certainly **** immigrants, won't it? If they're coming from a country with lower living costs(and therefore in receipt of a much lower stipend), how will they be able to afford to live until they gain citizenship in their new country of residence?
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#22
Don't have any problem spending their welfare on what they want really, it shouldn't be limited to just stuff like food and basics

But drugs are a whole different thing because no one wants their tax money funding illegal activities. We all know that drug money can go into things worse than drugs, so I think this is fair enough - one to stop taxpayer money funding criminal activities, and two, so we can refer drug users to to treatment programmes so they can help their problems.
#23
This just seems so wrong to me.
'You don't like us invading your privacy because you're poor and we assume that you're probably an addict because your people always are? That's fine, you can also choose to starve and not buy clothes for your kids.'
#24
I'd much rather my money go to the local drug dealer than the rich shitstain who only got it because his bet on the stock market went south.
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
#25
Quote by Cianyx
I'd much rather my money go to the local drug dealer than the rich shitstain who only got it because his bet on the stock market went south.


#26
I don't like laws that are designed solely to attack the dignity of the poor so no thx
#27
^^It's really not though. I mean if you want to argue that investment bankers provide us a valuable service go ahead
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
Last edited by Cianyx at Dec 27, 2014,
#29
And who the hell decides and by what criteria do they decide on who gets tested?
So how would they determine who to test?
You live in a shit neighborhood?
Wrong skin color?
Wrong color shirt?

Yeah, if you light up your crack pipe while in the welfare office, you shouldn't get shit.

It would be interesting to see the demographics of the counties they select.


Quote by EndTheRapture51
Saying "would rather tax money go to drug dealers than BANKERS!!" is edgy 13 year old level shit
Maybe so, but looking at it another way, the drug dealer would probably spend that money locally whereas the banker would probably spend it in the Bahamas.
Unless the banker spent it on local hookers. Then it would probably still end up with the drug dealer.
Last edited by CodeMonk at Dec 27, 2014,
#31
Quote by CodeMonk


Maybe so, but looking at it another way, the drug dealer would probably spend that money locally whereas the banker would probably spend it in the Bahamas.
Unless the banker spent it on local hookers. Then it would probably still end up with the drug dealer.


Or the dealer could recirculate the money into criminal activities

Which any normal person would agree is not a good thing
#32
We already know these programs don't find anyone. The whole point of them is to attack what remaining dignity the working class retain. It's also pretty sad that middle class people will justify supporting this under the guise of "muh taxes" when they know full well that a huge number of people receiving welfare are in work and paying taxes themselves.

I think it's a morally repugnant law to carry out and wholly harmful to the state of mind of welfare recipients.
#33
Quote by EndTheRapture51
Saying "would rather tax money go to drug dealers than BANKERS!!" is edgy 13 year old level shit

So?

Quote by EndTheRapture51
Or the dealer could recirculate the money into criminal activities

Which any normal person would agree is not a good thing

And yet, money is still recirculated within the white market which as a citizen, has done more for me than offshore accounts. You should also elaborate on your 'good' point.
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
#34
Quote by EndTheRapture51
Or the dealer could recirculate the money into criminal activities

Which any normal person would agree is not a good thing


I'm sure any money a drug dealer gets goes to a variety of places, both legal and illegal.
#35
To be fair, bankers can recirculate money into criminal activities as well. And on a much larger scale than your local drug dealer.
#36
Quote by CodeMonk
I'm sure any money a drug dealer gets goes to a variety of places, both legal and illegal.

Drug dealers only do their food shopping in illegal Whole Foods.

Quote by ante21768
We already know these programs don't find anyone. The whole point of them is to attack what remaining dignity the working class retain. It's also pretty sad that middle class people will justify supporting this under the guise of "muh taxes" when they know full well that a huge number of people receiving welfare are in work and paying taxes themselves.

I think it's a morally repugnant law to carry out and wholly harmful to the state of mind of welfare recipients.

They do find people who have tested positive. It tends to be minimal, and in some of those cases, it could be that someone has tested positive because on of their(employed) friends smokes weed from time to time, sometimes even(gasp!) when other people are around, making the test effectively a false positive(in that, even though the substance being tested for was found, it's an environmental contaminant for the subject, not something they actively took).

Of course, some of the people who get tested will be really ****ing boring stoners who can just **** off and find something except weed to talk about(like how their welfare has just been cut ), some will be genuine false positives(there will also be some false negatives too, but IDGAF), and some will just have been exposed, socially, to enough of a substance for it to register.

Frankly, I would have thought living in Michigan was punishment enough, but whatevs.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
Last edited by slapsymcdougal at Dec 27, 2014,
#37
Quote by slapsymcdougal
Drug dealers only do their food shopping in illegal Whole Foods.

Are you saying they get their fresh veg at the black market?
#38
You have convinced me that this policy is a bad idea.

You have no convinced me that letting tax money go into the hands of illegal drug dealers is better than spending money on legal things, and that blaming everything on the bankers is somehow a legitimate argument.
#39
But you misrepresented my point, of course you wouldn't be convinced by that
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
Page 1 of 3