No doubt you’ve seen the message on social media or received it via email from a friend, “You should have to pass a drug test for welfare because I have to pass one to be able to work my ass off to earn it for you!” The implied message is clear, even though it is written between the lines. If you are poor, our guess is that you are also somehow morally corrupt and we need to rid you of that corruption before we will help you. Otherwise, all we will be doing is enabling your morally corrupt life.
The second part of this message is to insist that all benefits the poor receive from government must come with strings attached. We will assist you financially, but even after we are sure that your soul is pure, we demand weekly or monthly inspections of your behavior to see that you have not strayed from your moral compass. We know that “free money” as welfare is seen, can be an intoxicating thing, leading many to a life of lethargy – unless of course the free money is in the form of an inheritance. You see, when wealthy people receive free money from a relative, it does not corrupt their soul. They remain morally pure, industrious, and kind. Corruption involving lethargy, addiction, and other evils is only evident when a poor citizen receives free money from government.
Ask the people who send this message if we ought to do the same drug test with the farmers who receive billions in farm subsidies, the Wall Street banks, or any one of the big corporate welfare recipients in America and they will tell you that like the aforementioned heirs of family fortune, no, this is not a problem as these companies and wealthy individuals are hardworking types who clearly will use the money for good. The fact that they are wealthy is proof of virtue while the fact that someone is poor is proof of vice. This being the case we need to demand, as a people, that the poor and only the poor be tested for immoral behavior prior to giving them assistance.
To this crowd, it matters not that all the recent attempts to screen welfare recipients have proven to be expensive undertakings that seem to prove that the poor actually take fewer illegal drugs than the general population. It does not matter to them that the money spent on these tests could be used to really help the poor in positive ways. It does not matter to them that even when the drug user is discovered, we need to stop treating addiction as a crime and begin to treat it as a disease. No, what matters to them is this: Shaming the Poor.
Last night I had enough of this. I cut ties with a few friends who post this vile message on occasion. Usually I’d engage in debate, offering data, personal anecdote, scholarly articles and more in an effort to persuade them to stop, reconsider, and change their view, but it’s no use. No matter how much I try, it’s clear to me that all they want to do is Shame the Poor. Who needs friends like that? Not me.
Just saying. We’re all in this together, and hopefully the tie is stronger than politics. People sometimes post things without thinking them through.
You’re probably right not to argue, but you can also just move on, or try humor. Here’s one you can use:
“Sorry, bills piling up? I can spot you some drug money.”
I hear you about not cutting ties, but the weekly sometimes daily barrage of offensive emails and social media posts from a few people gets toxic. I have plenty of good friends. Not all agree with me and that is not the template I use. As a matter of fact, possibly my dearest friend is someone who is a staunch pro-capitalism free market Republican. But we respect each other and hold civil conversations.
Just a simple question John, do you use? Maybe smoke a little weed? Hmmmmmmm? It’s OK, I don’t mind if you use and collect, shoot who am I to tell you what to do with your life.
Do you use?
Someone did hit close to the mark. About 15 years ago, my wife was diagnosed with a very deadly strain of cancer. Due to a cascade of disasters, we could not afford health insurance and my wife was then covered by Medicaid. (Mass Health) The idea that, under these proposed regulations, the authorities would force my wife to submit to a test for illegal drugs prior to delivering life saving medical care and then possibly deny or delay treatment because of it is something I find repulsive. Yes, someone hit close to the mark. Do I use? Does my wife? I’d rather rely on my fourth amendment rights but it seems that some would be happy to shred the Constitution if it involves shaming the poor.
I’m just saying that if you use, you can consider many employment opportunities lost. That’s all. Again you don’t have to answer the question.
In my dotage I have become friends with three people younger than me who have multiple criminal convictions related to drugs. One is a veteran with PTSD (and I am not pulling a Palin here) who has developed addictions to scrip opioids and alcohol but also has a scrip for media-weed. He is currently in the county house of corrections.
The second is a former high-flying businessman/coke addict who is living in a half-way house while he is being treated for cancer.
The third friend was an abused child who married the wrong guy and she spent a few years in what we call “a gated community” because she covered for her multi-drug addicted husband (the scum bag ran, BTW and is still on the lam).
You are one person among many families and friends who are thinking about the stupidity of our drug policy. Please keep telling your story.
… if every last poor person in the CommonWealth ingested all the drugs they were physically capable of ingesting, they wouldn’t consume even a quarter of the drugs sold.
Poor people aren’t rich enough (duh) to have a drug problem.
Small business owners, on the other hand, often get grants, low- or no- interest loans and a variety of tax perks, from the government. Should we test them? If we did test small business owners, would you pass?
LOL ROFLMAO! Oh dear, and he’s serious too!
I asked you a question and I await your answer…
LOL – I know you are too proud to walk that one back, so I’ll just ask, how is the view on top of mount bull shit?
… which is about what I expected. Trolls are predictable.
… Still waiting for an answer…
The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population.
… But in Tennessee, where drug testing was enacted for welfare recipients last month, only one person in the 800 who applied for help tested positive. In Florida, during the four months the state tested for drug use, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive. Meanwhile, Florida has an illegal drug use rate of 8%, meaning far fewer people on services are using drugs than their better-off counterparts.
On February 26, 2013, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit preliminarily found in Lebron v. Florida Department of Children and Families that suspicionless drug testing of welfare recipients is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, and that requiring consent to such testing as a condition of receiving welfare violates the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions.
But hey, why waste a opportunity to Shame Poor People when you can?
it’s none of your G D business, fool.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I’m just saying it’s a lot easier to find a job if you’re not using that’s all. In terms of employment opportunities, there are an awful lot of doors that are closed to you when you use.
From what I’m reading it sounds like john is “cutting ties” with his friends because in his mind ‘they believe people must pass a drug test in order to receive “welfare.” He cites an example from 15 years ago, yet kept those very same “friends” all this time … what’s changed?
Again, I don’t care if he’s using while collecting benefits. I’d just like to remind him there are a great many employers that would not hire people who use drugs. And if he is using I’d recommend that he consider the ramifications of his behavior.
Welfare isn’t “an employment opportunity.” It’s government assistance based on need. Need, as in food and shelter.
If we spend precious government resources drug-testing people who need help, we are taking those resources away from others who need help. We undercut the mission of the assistance.
Maybe you could stick to the diary’s topic, and not attack the person who wrote it.
Yes I am aware of that jim, however if you would like to get off welfare the best way to do that is to find a job that supports you. My point is this jim, there are many employers who drug test before they hire. If one wishes to get off welfare and find a good job, they should get of the junk. Otherwise many opportunities are closed to them.
I have just one question for you, “thebaker”:
Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?
LOL
But I’ll hazard a guess that you’d object to, say, a Coca-Cola ban in Boston. That would be government intrusion.
And you might even object to random drug-testing of people not on welfare. Reminder, we’re talking about illegal drugs, any user is violating the law.
But people on welfare MUST be tested, or else they don’t get the assistance they need. Is this what you’re arguing for? (You don’t have to answer.)
We don’t drink it in my home. In fact I think soda is a hell of a lot worse for you than most people believe. As far as an official ban goes, I never really though of banning soda at the state or federal level … I just ban it from my home. It’s a pretty deep question though.
[rolling eyes] Oh boy here we go yet again. No, in fact no where in this thread have I said “people on welfare MUST be tested, or else they don’t get the assistance they need.” Those are the words that others are trying to put in my mouth. Nice try though.
Thanks for providing a real world example of the sort of people I am cutting ties with. As the saying goes, I am making changes in my life. If you don’t hear from me, you’re one of them. Good bye “thebaker.”
from the fact that you’re a troll—a concern troll in this case–and a word that partly rhymes with it.
Too bad Denis Leary doesn’t sing his song about you these day. If anyone wants to listen to it, here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrgpZ0fUixs
It took 30 seconds for me to get into this slow starter but it is one of the funniest and most appropriate explanation of the troll. I mean a**troll.
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2015/12/stochastic-terrorism/#comment-372707
to punch you in the face? Not much has changed.
…by an assumption that poor people are also junkies so much as being tight-fisted generally about public money, though I suppose some might and do assume that. You see it in public agencies as well where you jump through hoops to dispose some old item and have to justify getting rid of it. Personally I think the burden of proof should go the other direction, but I can understand the impulse to want to make sure that limited public funds to help with necessities actually go toward necessities.
I will say though, that this reminds me of an experience I had calling delegates for Warren Tolman in 2014. We were supposed to lead with his advocacy of smart gun technology which would ensure only the owner could fire a given weapon, but on one call I got pushback to the effect that we should be focusing on food stamp fraud. I was calling on behalf of the campaign so I held my tongue, but I wanted to tell the delegate that I’m a lot more concerned about the wrong person getting his hands on a gun than the “wrong person” getting a bite to eat.