this post was submitted on
295 points (85% like it)
357 up votes 62 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

all 149 comments

[–]CountNoAccount 24 points25 points ago

Notice they won't test for alcohol. If you want to spend your insurance benefits on getting drunk, go right ahead.

[–]pastasauce 0 points1 point ago

In Oregon you can't buy alcohol or tobacco with food stamps, however, you can get cash back like a debit card. I always wondered how many people use it for beer or cigs.

[–]Code347 3 points4 points ago

No. You cannot get cash back in Oregon from EBT. If you are receiving TANF and Food Benefits, they can be accessed from the same card, and TANF can be taken in the form of cash.

[–]pandagron 0 points1 point ago

Former Oregonian food stamp recipient (2007-2010). This person speaks truth.

[–]pastasauce 1 point2 points ago

Thank you for clearing up my confusion on the subject.

[–]Gary13579 2 points3 points ago

This is a pretty common misconception. I'm not positive about Oregon specifically, but after some quick Googling it seems to support my original thought. Food stamps specifically can only be used on food. The same card (usually called an EBT card) also houses cash, which is an easy way for people to recieve electronic welfare deposits and other forms of government income. It's basically two seperate accounts on the same card. Not trying to bitch you out, just hate this misconception as you really cannot get cash back from foodstamps (although you used to, back in the paper stamps days, you could buy something for 20 cents with a $5 paper food stamp and get a bunch of cash, repeat till you have enough for whatever you want).

Not trying to say that spending welfare money on cigs or alcohol is any less retarded, though. It's just as fucked up.

[–]illujun 0 points1 point ago

You can't buy weed with food stamps either.

[–]tetedmerde 0 points1 point ago

Not true, drug dealers get hungry too!

[–]illujun 0 points1 point ago

So do friends who will by another friend some booze in exchange for food stamps.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

because that money will be going right back into the 'real' taxable legal economy. if your welfare money is going to buy crank at 2 am from snoopy, that money is going right into the black market economy.

welfare is less about what goes in your body, but more where the governments money goes.

as much as i love mary jane, i cannot support anyone using welfare money to buy it or any drug. i fully support this measure. i've met far to many individuals using large amounts of their welfare cash on all kinds of drugs.

[–]CountNoAccount 1 point2 points ago

As an American I don't want to be assumed guilty and forced to prove my innocence. I'm especially leery of getting drug tested by the state. What else happens when an applicant fails? Forced rehab? Law enforcement surveillance?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

you would prefer to be tested by the feds? the state can at least get it done right. and rehab and surveillance would be a waste of resources on someone who isn't actively dealing. all you would have to do is cut them from welfare.

[–]CountNoAccount 2 points3 points ago

I'd rather not be tested by any government agency without having been convicted of a crime. Being unemployed is not a crime.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

well the government IS giving you a check. it is within their rights to attach strings to that check.

[–]CountNoAccount 4 points5 points ago

The money in that check came from payroll taxes I paid into a system specifically designed to protect me when I am out of work due to no fault of my own. That doesn't give the government the right to tell me what I can and can't do in my own home. It's not free money and they don't own me just be giving me my money back.

[–]PumbaBear 0 points1 point ago

Yyyyup!

[–]ChaosMotor 10 points11 points ago

Nothing like a massive, indefensible waste of taxpayer money while abrogating the rights of the people.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points ago

buying meth with taxpayer dollars isn't a right. we aren't entitled to welfare money, so its fine to add extra strings to it.

we don't want to be supporting a crack head.

[–]Code347 2 points3 points ago

You are entitled to welfare money. It is what taxes are meant to pay for. It is not a system to leech off of for a lifetime, but it is there for you to use if you need it, and in this economy, I see a lot of people having to rely on it.

[–]nofreedom4theUS 0 points1 point ago

Then why am I paying into it, considered "poor" by my salary, but can't get welfare? BTW...the Constitution does not say that we should take from the working to give to the unwilling to work.

[–]AngryData 0 points1 point ago

You do realize that most hard drugs are out of your system in 2 days right? They do it to test for weed which stays in your system a long time.

[–]SkunkMonkey 48 points49 points ago

So when do we get to test our masters for drugs? I have to imagine that most of Congress is fucked up on drugs. I mean, just look at this shit legislation they are foisting on us.

At what point do we agree the Congress is no longer acting in the best interest of the people who they are supposed to represent? We better find out soon, because if we don't it will be too late to do anything about it!

[–]labajada 29 points30 points ago

I would be interested in knowing which congressmen have a vested interest in the companies who make the drug test.

[–]Terex 17 points18 points ago

More millions of dollars wasted. Nothing says small government like mandatory drug testing!

[–]captininsanity 0 points1 point ago

Didn't they learn from the whole clusterfuck in Florida? It doesn't do anything, and it costs a LOT of money. These people are crazy. Not only are they pushing for something stupid, but they are pushing for something stupid that has been tested and shown to be a failure.

[–]Terex 0 points1 point ago

it costs a LOT of money.

This is the problem. And then when you add that these clowns owns the very same companies that perform the tests, it becomes onion headline news. The audacity that these fuckers think no one sees it makes me feel like I like live in twilight zone. The only thing I can do is vote against it though. Too bad lesser educated and aware people get to vote too.

[–]BlasphemyAway 2 points3 points ago

I remember reading about this in the Florida story.

[–]sli 7 points8 points ago

Yep. Our governor owns a bunch of drug testing labs. Well, did. He gave them to someone else when he was elected. That someone is his wife.

And it saved us... wait, a huge negative amount of money? Huh. Turns out people that can't afford drugs don't tend to do drugs. Who knew?

[–]DeadAlready 10 points11 points ago

Did you know it's considered unconstitutional to require drug tests to get in political office?

Until this legislation, it has been considered unconstitutional for the government to require drug tests without individual suspicion.

[–]Terex 5 points6 points ago

How about once they are in office? A drug test everyday before they begin legislative voting.

[–]DeadAlready 0 points1 point ago

If memory serves, the Supreme Court decided that it's not constitutional for the government to require broad testing such as this because it was considered a search and only viable upon suspicion of the individual. I also believe that this decision only applied to holding political office, as it was a case based on a state requiring testing for its legislators.

The issue of testing political office holders, IIRC, was decided by the supreme court. This is legislation that can be nullified judicially as well.

[–]Terex 0 points1 point ago*

My google-fu is weak with this one. Could you point me in some type of direction to back up your claims? Otherwise the same "laws" that are passed against the populace are unconstitutional too.

One of the things that kills me that people in authority like to think they are some how above everyone else unless a law or amendment is passed. BUT there is nothing that says they are not...

[–]DeadAlready 0 points1 point ago

This at least confirms it exists, I never tried to sound too confident though.

[–]Terex 0 points1 point ago

Candidates and incumbents are not the same though. I'm going to read more into this. Like what justices voted for and against, the rationale, and so on...

If legislatures become undeniably above the law the system is beyond broke. May as well start making start drawing parallels to how the roman republic became broke when they started giving emperors free reign.

[–]dick_long_wigwam 0 points1 point ago

A while back there was a drug test that you could conduct using residue from handheld objects. All we need is to test the anus of any DC call boy.

[–]Moarbrains 2 points3 points ago

Some have been tested before. The tests are trivially easy to cheat on. If you have a bit of cash they are even easier.

[–]MisterSquidz 0 points1 point ago

See: Charlie Sheen.

[–]dick_long_wigwam 0 points1 point ago

Look up your representative and see if they voted on it. If they did, vote for their opponent and tell them you did so. Then stop whining.

[–]SkunkMonkey 0 points1 point ago

The problem with your black and white view is that the other guy was worse. This is the problem with our political situation, you are given the choice between two evils and voting for the lesser evil is still evil.

Until we can vote for a no confidence option and if it gets the majority vote forces new candidates to be presented, we are going to keep getting elected officials that aren't what we want, but what are forced upon us.

[–]dick_long_wigwam 0 points1 point ago

OK we'll race and see who can get pot legalized faster.

[–]carefoot 0 points1 point ago

So do a random 'citizens drug test' to a senator at gunpoint. Would make a hell of an article.

[–]xxxsirkillalot 20 points21 points ago

I'm fairly certain this theory was tested in the USA already and more than 99% of the people on welfare where clean. This cost the government somewhere in the millions of dollars of losses (because they have to pay companies to drug test the people on welfare) and saved them next to nothing.

[–]Vhu 17 points18 points ago

99% of the people on welfare in the USA were clean? Where exactly are these staggering statistics found?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

12 seconds ago in his mind. i've met more people on welfare using all kinds of drugs than perfectly sober. or even alcoholics. it is absolutely not 99%

edit: though the majority would still likely pass clean

[–]TrickyTramp 6 points7 points ago

Only 2% of people on welfare are on some illegal substance, compared to 9% of the general population. Most of those people are just smoking weed anyway.

[–]MistaBig 0 points1 point ago

so taking drugs increases your chances of getting a job?

[–]Bricktosser 6 points7 points ago

the daily shows segments have been vicious lately, this one and the Peta one come to mind...

I like it, I know they are a comedy show, but they really seem to be grasping that no one else has the balls to call people out on their bullshit quite as publicly.

[–]Ghijkl 0 points1 point ago*

I hadn't watched the Peta one until now, that was great.

I hope they continue on this path of calling people out.

[–]Ishouldnt_be_on_here 2 points3 points ago

2% of people who submitted to the test failed. If you were poor and on drugs you probably wouldn't pay $30 just to confirm it.

[–]nofreedom4theUS -1 points0 points ago

LMAO...I know MANY on welfare and 99% of them ARE on drugs. This is the one case where I am happy to help the 1%.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points ago

Florida tried and and yes to the most part, the fees were paid by the people on welfare. So it didn't cost the gov't that much really, probably all admin level stuff pushing the paperwork.

[–]Ghijkl 12 points13 points ago

From the video I posted as a reply above:

The people that are poor and suffering financially have to pay for the test themselves out of pocket.

It costs approximately $30 and then they get reimbursed if they passed the test.

2% failed the drug tests.

The net loss to the state of Florida was $200,000.

[–]xxxsirkillalot 3 points4 points ago

Wow i thought the state was paying for the test themselves. So you have to pay to be on welfare?

Fucking fantastic logic!

[–]Ghijkl 3 points4 points ago

Yes, it is crazy.

I wonder how much of the 2% falls in to the following category:

Oh you can't afford to pay the $30 to be tested to be on welfare? Well then, you must be a drug user. So you just failed automatically.

[–]Code347 1 point2 points ago

...and then...no welfare. Creating even more of a problem.

[–]pentestscribble 1 point2 points ago

Gov Scott runs drug testing centers and pushed for this legislation.

[–]sli 2 points3 points ago

No he doesn't. He gave them to his wife when he was elected.

Oh, wait.. that's pretty much the same thing. Carry on.

[–]kirbence 0 points1 point ago

Did they account for the number of people that left welfare in that loss figure?

[–]Ghijkl 0 points1 point ago

I don't know.

[–]andrewse 5 points6 points ago

Does congress really believe that once someone is refused social benefits they simply disappear? You pay in to unemployment insurance while smoking the odd joint. If you get laid off you are then refused unemployment insurance for failing the drug test. So far you've not spent one dime of UI money on drugs. Next to the welfare office where (I assume) you'll also soon have to pass a drug test. When you are refused help where do you go?

What an enormous waste of resources. In the end the worker is cheated out of his/her UI payments and the state ends up paying out way more money because the worker now has to steal to survive. Not to mention the cost of drug testing that will likely eclipse the money saved on UI payments.

Why is US so determined to push it's citizens into lower and lower classes of society? What happens when there's so many people living destitute or in prison that the country can no longer support itself? How many more years are left before that happens?

[–]pahncrd 1 point2 points ago

What happens when there's so many people living destitute or in prison that the country can no longer support itself?

Authoritarianism.

How many more years are left before that happens?

I think there are not that many. We have had a lot of our economical problems masked by easy debt and inflation. That will not be the case forever though.

[–]CountNoAccount 7 points8 points ago

Lost your job? You are now guilty of being a drug user. You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Thank you, Republicans for adding a whole new stigma to being unemployed: suspected drug user.

[–]NichaelBluth 1 point2 points ago

what was the actual bill number so I can look it up and the voting record?

[–]Re-Bone 2 points3 points ago*

It looks to me like this bill will increase unemployment while increasing the illicit drug trade. Way to go. As an employer, I think this will save business owners money on unemployment in the long term, which is good. But it sure does seem like an invasion of privacy, and I am not sure it's worth the tradeoff. Of course there are easy ways around drug tests, so the whole issue is moot. It's just more of our rights eroding away before our eyes....

[–]mrgreyshadow 2 points3 points ago

"None of those workers was laid off because of drug use."

I twitched audibly.

[–]Toadette 1 point2 points ago

I wonder if the drug test lab companies helped lobby for this, considering they now have guaranteed profits from government funds to pay for all these extra tests?

[–]layout420 2 points3 points ago

In the state of florida (where I'm a resident) the governor Rick Scott aka Fucking scum bag, he really pushed for the drug testing and when it passed the contract went to a company owned by his wife. Keeping it in the family. No one likes him I don't know why he hasn't been asked to resign.

[–]MesaDixon 1 point2 points ago

I swear it took three tries to convince me this wasn't an article from The Onion.

[–]mjpirate 1 point2 points ago

What a waste of money. We will now be using federal money to make lab techs test urine that other labs put together, ala fake urine samples, under $40 a shot.

[–]Radar_Monkey 0 points1 point ago

While I may advocate drug testing for certain dangerous fields, this is ridiculous. I know that drug use can interfere with employment opportunities, but it rarely has anything to do with being laid off.

[–]Reddittfailedme 1 point2 points ago

Now which mother fucking congresscrook going to make money off the drug test. I hate these crooked bribe taking POS.

[–]SilentNick3 0 points1 point ago

4th amendment?

[–]nofreedom4theUS 0 points1 point ago

That's gone

Yours truly, Obama

[–]nofreedom4theUS 0 points1 point ago

WTF...why not welfare? We have to work to get the unemployment while welfare is free. Hate to say it, but I know welfare "lifers" that make more money than I do and I work 40+ hours a week.

[–]AngryData 0 points1 point ago

If someone makes more money off welfare than you make at your job you qualify for welfare. So you are making 10k a year?

[–]agentmage2012 0 points1 point ago

Congress punishes all drug users because of abuse from an indeterminable percent of users who don't actually look for another job after getting fired.

[–]Khuddle2310 0 points1 point ago

My question is, how the hell did they pass that so fast? When they seem to continue to ignore the rest of the publics demands of legalization. Not right.

[–]tritonx 0 points1 point ago

Damn,

They will find it hard to give up nicotine and alcohol.

[–]autotldr 0 points1 point ago

This is an automatically generated TL;DR, original reduced by 78%.

Republicans had initially called for drug testing for everybody seeking unemployment benefits, but Democrats balked before backtracking and agreeing to allow testing for those who lost their jobs because of drug use and those applying for jobs in industries where drug testing is prevalent.

Drug testing is also more likely to be imposed on lower skilled workers than on white collar workers because those sectors are where drug testing is most prevalent now.

Democratic lawmakers downplayed the extent of drug testing about to be foisted on laid-off workers, while Republicans said they would be widespread. The bill requires the Labor Department to draft regulations to determine who will be subjected to drug testing.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top three keywords: drug#1 test#2 work#3

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]CountNoAccount 8 points9 points ago*

If you want to spend your own money on drugs, that's totally fine but don't expect other people to let you spend their tax dollars on it.

Unemployment benefits are NOT paid by taxpayers. They are paid by premiums paid in by the worker that collects the benefits.

Unemployment benefits are a form of insurance. If I get unemployment benefits, that means I paid for them to begin with. I earned that money and it is nobody else's but mine and I will do with it what I please.

You should learn a little about what you are spouting off about.

[–]fade_like_a_sigh -2 points-1 points ago

Wow, I'm from Britain and that system just seems fucked up to me.

What do people do if they've never worked but can't find a job?

[–]CountNoAccount 4 points5 points ago

Live with their parents or on the streets I guess. If you don't pay into the system, the system gives not a fuck about you, oh my brother. You see, the government doesn't help you get a job, it only punishes you for losing your job and makes it easier for corporations to fire people and hire cheaper people. A nation of fearful, easily manipulated workers is beneficial for big industry, and they own the government, so there is no incentive to help people get jobs. The government makes it easier for us to lose our jobs ("right to work" states) and easier to lose benefits that were ours to begin with (drug testing for unemployment benefits).

If we don't live exactly the way the government and the corporations say we should, we die a slow, painful, penniless death. It's the American way.

[–]papajohn56 -2 points-1 points ago

Since unemployment benefits were extended by the 99 weeks, they are actually paid for by the taxpayer in many cases. Simple math unfortunately

[–]CountNoAccount 2 points3 points ago

That was a temporary federal program. I'm talking about state unemployment benefits.

[–]papajohn56 0 points1 point ago

The federal government forced the states to largely foot the bill - plus how do you think this works? Do you think social security you get out what you put in?

[–]CountNoAccount 1 point2 points ago

No, but you pay for social security the way you pay for unemployment insurance, unemoyment just happens to be there for you when social security isn't. It's not an entitlement, but conservatives want to act like they can withhold help from those that need it and have earned it.

[–]papajohn56 0 points1 point ago

So why not privatize unemployment insurance? It would lead to lower rates, and employees could choose to opt in. If they don't want to, they can keep more of their check up front

[–]pahncrd 2 points3 points ago

Yeah, so shall we keep track and prevent all non-necessary expenditures? "Oh, you rented a movie, so obviously you should lose your benefits"

[–]artfulpain 4 points5 points ago

Quite presumptuous don't you think? If we are going to drug test the unemployed then so should Congress.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]CountNoAccount 2 points3 points ago

Is it the government's place to tell people they can't waste their own money? Unemployment benefits are earned, not given. Do you support a law telling people they can't waste paychecks on buying beanie babies, for example?

[–]artfulpain 1 point2 points ago

You're assuming that the unemployed are all on drugs. They've already proven in Florida that this will cost money to the state. I don't know if you've been unemployed, but $30 is hard to come by for some. This just puts the burden on the person who already pays into unemployment.

[–]fade_like_a_sigh 1 point2 points ago

You're assuming that the unemployed are all on drugs.

Sorry but that's absolute bullshit, I never implied anything even close to this.

What I said is that IF you are unemployed, there's a very good chance that drugs are a waste of money when you could be using your money things for better things like: Housing, food, bills, savings.

I was under the impression that the US had some form of welfare system for unemployment but apparently that's false, you just have to pay for yourself and hope you've had a job or you're screwed.

My post was written under the assumption these were tax payer dollars being spent on drugs which is a total waste of money. If you pay for your own unemployment it's fair enough that you can spend it on whatever you want.

[–]MrDectol -5 points-4 points ago

Perhaps nobody should be buying any extras when on govt assistance.

[–]pahncrd 5 points6 points ago

Your point is valid, shall we invade the lives of anyone receiving government money and make damned sure that they are behaving in accordance with our arbitrary morality rules?

[–]MrDectol 0 points1 point ago

Sure. nobody should be purchasing extras off of other people's dime. When you throw your hands up and declare that the government has to take care of you, you should have to submit to them monitoring your expenditures as part of the contract. Even if they don't monitor you, you should act honorably and not spend extra.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

the point is not to give money to those who will abuse it on illegal substances.

if Tookie on 4th street is spending half his welfare money to support his crack habit, he should be cut off from all welfare money.

this country is getting strapped for cash, so we need to control our spending. and welfare is a huge portion of our budget. so we need to make sure those who will not abuse this privilege keep getting their welfare check. and those who abuse this and buy drugs get cut off.

[–]illujun -1 points0 points ago

What if Chad decides to use his welfare money to buy a case of Natty Ice? Is that ok?

[–]MrDectol 0 points1 point ago

Why would it be okay? Alcohol is an extra. Cookies are extras. Soda is an extra. Flying to see your family for Thanksgiving is an extra. There are people who aren't on welfare who can't afford to fly out and see their families. How is that right? That's not what I want my taxes going toward. Wouldn't it be great if people who are on support were grateful that they are receiving money out of the grace of the government? If somebody sent back every single penny extra that they had while on welfare, I'd have a lot of respect for them.

[–]AngryData 0 points1 point ago

To bad unemployment money is pulled out of the peoples checks hwile they are working.