I received this in an email from my Mom, it is based on a Canadian company and system, but I thought it could be rather useful regardless of the nation to which it was used....

Quote:



What do you think?  Any merit to the concept?  All discussion is welcome and wanted.

Cat

I've seen a similar one from here in the States, and am 100% behind it.  But that would cut out a major voting block, so it will never happen.

Jerry

Quote:


Not a bad thought at all.

mike

stevegeebe wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 8:28pm:


True--but I'm all for finding ways to thin the herd.   

Best,

George

IMHO, any urine test (other than by a doctor to check for diseases) is an unethical invasion of privacy.

... but Big Brother knows what's good for us.  



                 

Bob, I appreciate your thoughts and comments, and those of others, that's exactly the kind of discussions I was hoping to see.  

Perhaps I should have added a few clarifications to the original quote.  First, welfare is still alive in Canada albeit very much revised and there are fewer 'welfare generation families' than there used to be.  

The random urine testing that was in my mind was similar to that the military has to go through - commonly known as the whiz quiz.  They are tested for EVERY substance, and if they have a prescription for something it is a non issue - it's the substances they don't have prescriptions for that become an issue.  

Secondly, I know from first hand experience that there is a certain amount of leniency built into the whiz quiz system (at least in terms of the military) that allows you to explain yourself.  There was a case of an athlete I believe, who tested positive for marijuana - he'd never smoked it himself, but was at a party where others were smoking it and he tested positive based on residual.

I myself had to turn to the welfare system in Canada for a 3 month time frame after my first marriage fell apart and I needed assistance - it's demoralizing and degrading and humiliating to go to the bank and have to present a welfare check for deposit when you've worked all your life, so adding in a whiz quiz would be salt in the wound for sure.  I honestly don't know if I'm for or against this kind of thing, it opens a pandora's box for sure.

Part of my interest in a discussion on the issue is the talk of the civil defense force (or whatever the hell it's being called these days) and what something like this could mean to that type of scenario.

There are many employees who must submit to a whiz quiz as a prerequisite to their employment.  I don't see how something like this could be implemented without the participants knowledge and consent before accepting assistance.  

I've known too many people who take their welfare assistance and abuse the system in ways I simply couldn't even think up - when I was living in subsidized housing as a single mom going to school full time, one of my neighbors took full advantage.  You see, the way it used to work, you turned in your utility bills and you were allotted a certain amount of money for your utilities based on what the amounts were.  There was a month in there that the gas rates were increased by a little more than double because of a billing glitch.  She turned in the high bill and received that as her utility income every month - additionally, the system used to pay out a clothing allowance and that amount was based on your monthly bills.  She had 3 kids, all of them were filthy and allowed to run around where when and with whom they    pleased, don't get me wrong, they were fed, but they were poorly taken care of IMO - especially when she used a majority of her welfare income to party in the bars a minimum of 3 nights a week.  

I begrudge no one assistance when they fall on hard times, that's what we all pay those damn taxes and unemployment insurance and workers comp payments for.  What I wonder about, is if people who receive subsidized income or housing etc. were told up front that they were fully able to receive the benefits they had paid into, but had to be willing to submit to a whiz quiz to ensure a) they weren't abusing the purpose of the assistance and b) (and probably most importantly) that they weren't falling into a situation that could potentially destroy their lives.

It's real easy when you are down on your luck and life is giving you hell at every turn to fall into a pattern of behavior that is destructive.  Of course, the conundrum becomes, who is it that should be monitoring that kind of possibility?  The government whom hands out the financial assistance?  The state who is supposed to be monitoring child welfare?  The employed populace who are providing said income through their tax payments?

Obviously there is no clear or easy answer, but there are circumstances and jobs where something like a whiz quiz is mandatory for very good reasons.  I personally don't want an active duty soldier who is an expert shot with a 9mm and M16 shooting meth, or a police officer who is high on cocaine responding to a drug raid etc.

I am merely looking for discussion and thoughtful insight on the pros and cons of how such a condition might affect society - good bad or ugly.

As far as invasion of privacy, quite frankly, my opinion of that is that it's already gone - I've had too many personal experiences where personal privacy means about as much as a 100% wage increase to a person earning $0 an hour.  Maybe one day I'll send you an example of what I mean - which btw, you cannot find on the internet, it was erased

Cat

as an aside I'd like for this to remain a good clean debate, with all the usual passion and conviction that we are used to but without any personal attacks (and that is not to say that has already happened in this thread, it's just my thoughts and wishes for the debate)

tuck wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2009 at 9:58pm:


What's illegal for you might not be illegal for the next guy. Millions of people are on prescribed opiates. Millions of others are using them illegally. Which ones are you going to test for? Who is going to approve or disapprove the "note from your doctor"???
I see a new underground market for those notes and a need for more lawyers.
BTW, cocaine is a legally prescribed medication. I once had a script for it for my clusters.

Who said anything about booze? It was mentioned in the original letter. The author didn't like people on assistance sitting at home drinking. He didn't seem to draw any lines and the government can never draw a straight line either.

But tell me. You have a problem with someone on assistance sitting at home smoking marijuana but have no problem with them sitting at home drinking a bottle of Tequila? If you were King, would you withhold the check from both?

Illegal drugs? What about the people in the states where medical marijuana is legal?

Should we make everyone on assistance stop smoking? its legal but its an addiction. It harms them physically and in the end, costs all the taxpayers money in increased health care and insurance costs. 

"Nobody here wants to hurt the poor working mom or the out of work carpenter"

When governments pass laws and rules, it is always done with a brush that paints with too wide a brush and there is ALWAYS collateral damage. ALWAYS.

I said in my original post that the term "welfare" wasn't defined, hence the broad brush I used.
I should care that some disabled vet gets stoned once a month?
I care that he feels he NEEDS to get stoned once a month and I care  that we don't do enough for him/her in the first place. I sure as hell am not going to make him/her take a test to get a check. I'd rather buy him the joint.
Some of those people with "dug-out" imprints are disabled vets with PTSD and have a hard enough time holding down their food, let alone a job.

I know every system is abused, "welfare" included. But systems are abused by some people at every level. From polititians to lawyers to judges, to bankers to single moms, to the police. The poor and disadvantaged are just the easiest ones to control.

What pissed me off about the original letter was this line: Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.
When people say this, as a disclaimer to whats about to come, its been my experience that following some questioning, they usually end up saying...."but if they can breath, they can work damn it"
They have absolutely no empathy for anyone down on their luck.

JM2C,
Bob

Callico wrote on Jan 4^th, 2009 at 2:51am:


Nuff said!  

Pinkfloyd wrote on Jan 4^th, 2009 at 3:15pm:


Did anyone say there wasnt?

There is a certain practicality in not pee testing unemployment recipients.  That I know of, two new unemployment offices have opened nearby to handle the overcrowding.  


Quote:


A check is issued by calling a recorded message and answering questions.  The offices are basically used for job hunting assistance -- classes, seminars, computer use -- with an astonishing amount of people waiting, even at libraries for computer time.  If each of these people had to report for testing also, there is no way to handle the disgruntled crowds, and an added cost to employers paying in would seem forseeable.
 Breaking the law and going to probation has testing, but there are also probation fees to pay.  And yes, I paid for the privilege three years to stand in line outside the building waiting for it to open early in the morning through rain, cold, and impatient edgy milling crowds to get in, as well as paying independent testing for a year by the shrink sessions required.  Being unemployed through outsourcing or bad times is a desperate enough situation for someone who has done no wrong.  Testing for unemployment wouldn't be pretty scene.

Quote:


In that effort, I took to bear a moment with opinion for unemployment testing left aside here.  

As a comparison system/solution, when I first moved from Ontario to New York, there were a great many things that I had to adjust to - subtle differences that I never expected.  

Of course the biggest adjustment was marrying into the military.  When I got pregnant with Ayden, Clark was an E7 MSgt with 16 years of service.  Because our immigration wasn't complete I could not work and we had to live on Clark's salary alone.  We were in base housing, so that wasn't an issue, but what I found interesting was that Clark's wage was low enough for us to qualify for free lunches for our 2 oldest kids, and that I qualified for WIC (women infant and children) during my pregnancy and for the entire first year after Ayden was born.

What I thought was unique and probably quite effective, is how the system was set up - and yes I know people who abused that system as well, it just wasn't as easy as if you were handed a cash equivalent check.  

During pregnancy, you could go to the grocery store with your WIC check and purchase (within the dollar amount determined for your particular region in the country) items that were listed on the check - milk, cheese, grains etc and things like cheese were even classified further - no kraft slices - real cheese only.

After Ayden was born, the WIC checks changed to include foods required for mothers who were breastfeeding, or, formula for those who weren't.  As Ayden grew, the items available changed to include things like peanut butter and whole milk - foods that were determined to be essential to good nutrition for a growing infant.

It seemed to me that kind of a system was a much better way to ensure that low income families received assistance in a manner that was helpful, healthy and less demeaning, and compared to the system in Ontario, a more efficient and fiscally responsible means of assisting.

Yes, you were required to attend WIC appointments - but at no time did I feel the appointments were punitive in nature;  they were designed to help struggling mothers with just about every kind of situation, including how to apply for further assistance.

IMO that kind of assistance program has a great many merits with limited access for abuse (but remember I am not the kind of person who can even think up ways to abuse a system to begin with).  I don't recall having to do a whiz quiz, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Aside from being astounded that a man who had worked 16 years for an employer still qualified for low income subsidies, (which our family of 5 qualified for up until about 3 years ago), I wonder why there aren't many more similar types of assistance programs available for those low income, and at risk families.  Perhaps there are and I am just ignorant to their existence.

I don't know any easy answers to problems of this nature, and most certainly there will be a great deal more people needing help over the next several months and probably years.  Is testing for illicit substances a way to ensure fiscal responsibility of how tax dollars are being used to assist others?  At what point does an outside source step in?  

There just seem to be far more questions than answers .....

ETA:  My purpose with this post was wondering if a system like WIC or at least how it operates would be a way to avoid the whiz quiz issue.  It seems certain that 'change' is coming, with the economy in the shape it's in, how do we as a society ensure the sanctity of human decency while preventing (or at least attempting to prevent) the defrauding of the programs set up to assist.

Quote:


    No name-calling....please!