San Francisco’s mayor wants drug testing for welfare recipients

[Grim Reaper 6]

Recipients of public assistance — in a city once known for its embrace of counterculture drugs — would have to submit to tests for substance use under a proposal announced Tuesday by Mayor London Breed as she faces mounting pressure to address San Francisco’s fentanyl epidemic.

Her proposal — which progressive critics immediately compared to Republican-style welfare mandates — would require all recipients of locally-funded cash assistance participate in a substance abuse treatment program if screening showed drug use.

“No more handouts without accountability,” Breed said at a City Hall news conference. “People are not accepting help. Now, it’s time to make sure that we are cutting off resources that continue to allow this behavior.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/26/san-francisco-mayor-drug-testing-00118274

[+and-then]

If she was truly concerned, she'd simply push to repeal the state laws that make the criminal behavior made accountable again.  I wonder how long it will take average Democrat voters to admit that the implosion of major Blue cities has been intentional?  

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

It’s a racist policy, designed to harm… ohh she’s a Democrat? It’s a caring policy designed to lift up the least of us. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

6 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

It’s a racist policy, designed to harm… ohh she’s a Democrat? It’s a caring policy designed to lift up the least of us. 

I don’t know what kind of policy this is, but it’s certainly a valid policy the welfare programs in the United States are broken. Accountability, is needed in these programs and this is the first time in many years that any politician has suggested a change in policy. Will, it actually happen, I don’t but I hope it does.

Edited September 27 by Grim Reaper 6

[+Paranoid Android]

I'm fundamentally against drug testing anyone who is collecting government handouts and withholding or threatening to withhold said funding for failing said test. Programs such as this will only marginalise the already marginalised. With that said, I don't quite understand the American welfare system, it's not quite the same as Australia, but here I am 100% against such a system (we had a similar program trialled in some areas, I was against it then, and I still am against it). Maybe there's something I'm missing that will make the system work better there, but my initial reaction is negative to any attempt to test the most vulnerable like this. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

7 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm fundamentally against drug testing anyone who is collecting government handouts and withholding or threatening to withhold said funding for failing said test. Programs such as this will only marginalise the already marginalised. With that said, I don't quite understand the American welfare system, it's not quite the same as Australia, but here I am 100% against such a system (we had a similar program trialled in some areas, I was against it then, and I still am against it). Maybe there's something I'm missing that will make the system work better there, but my initial reaction is negative to any attempt to test the most vulnerable like this. 

If this policy ever becomes law, those who fail a drug test will be required to attend a Rehab Program. If their behavior continues after Rehab, only then will their benefits be removed. This is all explained in the article in the OP, I suppose you missed it.

[+Paranoid Android]

Just now, Grim Reaper 6 said:

If this policy ever becomes law, those who fail a drug test will be required to attend a Rehab Program. If their behavior continues after Rehab, only then will their benefits be removed. This is all explained in the article in the OP, I suppose you missed it.

Why does the State get to dictate whether someone should go into a rehab program or not? And whose responsibility is it to submit to such a program? Will the State pay for residential rehab, or is this out-of-pocket expenses for the addict? How long will the rehab program last for, is it a two-week detox or a 9 month long term program? With addiction, rates of relapse are directly related to such factors, and unless the State is willing to pay for months (or even years) of long term residential rehab, this will only serve to cut off those who are most at risk. 

Whatever the answers are, I cannot support a State program that forces welfare recipients to get drug screened or else lose welfare. Addiction is far too complex an issue to callously think like that. I have seen that some States in America have such rules, and I 100% disagree with those States. Most of those States seem to be Republican controlled, but this is one area that I think the Republicans have 100% wrong. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

5 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Why does the State get to dictate whether someone should go into a rehab program or not? And whose responsibility is it to submit to such a program? Will the State pay for residential rehab, or is this out-of-pocket expenses for the addict? How long will the rehab program last for, is it a two-week detox or a 9 month long term program? With addiction, rates of relapse are directly related to such factors, and unless the State is willing to pay for months (or even years) of long term residential rehab, this will only serve to cut off those who are most at risk.

Well, the state has the legal authority to determine who receives Social Welfare benefits, now they are unable to force Rehab on anyone. However, they can make it a requirement if someone is receiving welfare benefits, all that requires is an update of the current rules and regulations for receiving welfare. As for your other questions above, currently there is no way to say who will foot the bill for Rehab. But, logically Rehab would have to be paid for by the state, because Welfare Recipients obviously can not afford the cost of those programs. 

5 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Whatever the answers are, I cannot support a State program that forces welfare recipients to get drug screened or else lose welfare. Addiction is far too complex an issue to callously think like that. I have seen that some States in America have such rules, and I 100% disagree with those States. Most of those States seem to be Republican controlled, but this is one area that I think the Republicans have 100% wrong. 

Like you said in your previous post you don’t really understand the American Welfare System. Because, in America the Social Welfare System has become a crutch, which allows far too many Americans to take advantage of the programs. I would respectfully suggest that you research the issue, I think you would be surprised how broken these programs actually are.

JIMHO

[+Paranoid Android]

10 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Well, the state has the legal authority to determine who receives Social Welfare benefits, now they are unable to force Rehab on anyone. However, they can make it a requirement if someone is receiving welfare benefits, all that requires is an update of the current rules and regulations for receiving welfare. As for your other questions above, currently there is no way to say who will foot the bill for Rehab. But, logically Rehab would have to be paid for by the state, because Welfare Recipients obviously can not afford the cost of those programs. 

I understand the logistics behind it. I disagree with the morality behind it. If the State does choose to cover the costs of rehab, that's an interesting angle. Here in Australia some rehab facilities are covered by State welfare too, but no one is ever "forced" to enter a rehab program, it's all voluntary (the most likely that can be said is that some criminals are given a choice to attend rehab or go to prison). 

 

10 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Like you said in your previous post you don’t really understand the American Welfare System. Because, in America the Social Welfare System has become a crutch, which allows far too many Americans to take advantage of the programs. I would respectfully suggest that you research the issue, I think you would be surprised how broken these programs actually are.

JIMHO

Depends on who you ask, but some would say the same thing about welfare in Australia. Considering I was able to spend years on welfare while being an alcoholic maybe they have a point. And the reason I'm not an alcoholic anymore (or at least not a practising alcoholic, this Saturday will be my 4 year anniversary being sober, and approximately 7 years since I quit alcohol) was that the government paid for my rehab program (because I was on welfare). But my decision to go into rehab was one made between me and my doctor, it wasn't a decision foisted on me by the government.

Whatever the case, I'm not saying that the system is perfect and shouldn't be changed. What I'm saying is that whatever system you have, drug testing welfare recipients should NEVER be among the requirements to receiving welfare. That is a true fact no matter what else the government may choose to do - the answer to broken welfare isn't to break it further! 

Edited September 27 by Paranoid Android

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm fundamentally against drug testing anyone who is collecting government handouts and withholding or threatening to withhold said funding for failing said test. Programs such as this will only marginalise the already marginalised. With that said, I don't quite understand the American welfare system, it's not quite the same as Australia, but here I am 100% against such a system (we had a similar program trialled in some areas, I was against it then, and I still am against it). Maybe there's something I'm missing that will make the system work better there, but my initial reaction is negative to any attempt to test the most vulnerable like this. 

Absolutely.

Don’t imprison them.. just find out who the dealer is and imprison them. 

[jmccr8]

6 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Absolutely.

Don’t imprison them.. just find out who the dealer is and imprison them. 

Hi Sir

That won't change things as someone else will step up and depending on influence will call shots from inside or work for the guy that replaced him.

I don't really see a problem, anyone that works for a living is accountable to their employer where drug testing is manditory with rehab options available and future employment conditions so think it is fair.

Have seen many families that were/are generational drug and alcohol addicts on welfare. If they are given life skills instruction guidance along with inspections may have been one of many families that are able to break a cycle. Many children born to addicts are born addicted and the breast they suckle is tainted milk.

 

[pellinore]

26 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Absolutely.

Don’t imprison them.. just find out who the dealer is and imprison them. 

In the UK the dealer is likely to be the person allocating the benefits. No, that's an exaggeration, but there is evidence the middle classes consume more drugs by value than the poorest. Which makes economic sense. UM won't let me post links at the moment, but this is from a recent article:

Middle-class people consume more alcohol and illegal drugs than those living below the poverty line, according to a report by a cross-party group of academics and campaigners.

The report, compiled by the Social Metrics Commission, compared the circumstances of those living above and below the poverty line. It found two-thirds (66%) of those who are comparatively better off have drunk to excess in the last year, compared with just 58% of the most deprived. It also found 22% had taken illegal drugs, 9% higher than less well-off people.

 

Edited September 27 by pellinore

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I understand the logistics behind it. I disagree with the morality behind it. If the State does choose to cover the costs of rehab, that's an interesting angle. Here in Australia some rehab facilities are covered by State welfare too, but no one is ever "forced" to enter a rehab program, it's all voluntary (the most likely that can be said is that some criminals are given a choice to attend rehab or go to prison).

Disagreement with the morality behind it is you choice, but I fully support it because my tax dollars are paying for people who abuse the system. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Depends on who you ask, but some would say the same thing about welfare in Australia. Considering I was able to spend years on welfare while being an alcoholic maybe they have a point. And the reason I'm not an alcoholic anymore (or at least not a practising alcoholic, this Saturday will be my 4 year anniversary being sober, and approximately 7 years since I quit alcohol) was that the government paid for my rehab program (because I was on welfare). But my decision to go into rehab was one made between me and my doctor, it wasn't a decision foisted on me by the government.

The social welfare system in the United States wasn’t designed to allow people to live off the programs alone originally. However, today entire generations of families use these programs as a way of life without ever seriously looking for work. I don’t know the exact percentage that live this way, but if I had to guess I would say it’s close 50%.

During, the time period you were using alcohol and receiving welfare did you ever cheat the system?

I personally and sincerely applaud you for putting up the good fight and stopping yourself from using alcohol. I fully realize that as you hinted at above, with alcoholism once you become an addict your always one drink away from relapsing. Also, unlike with Opiates you must detox under a doctor’s supervision or you can die. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Whatever the case, I'm not saying that the system is perfect and shouldn't be changed. What I'm saying is that whatever system you have, drug testing welfare recipients should NEVER be among the requirements to receiving welfare. That is a true fact no matter what else the government may choose to do - the answer to broken welfare isn't to break it further! 

Well with all due respect I totally disagree with you, I think it’s a positive way to begin to fix a broken system.

PEACE

Edited September 27 by Grim Reaper 6

[Hankenhunter]

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Why does the State get to dictate whether someone should go into a rehab program or not? And whose responsibility is it to submit to such a program? Will the State pay for residential rehab, or is this out-of-pocket expenses for the addict? How long will the rehab program last for, is it a two-week detox or a 9 month long term program? With addiction, rates of relapse are directly related to such factors, and unless the State is willing to pay for months (or even years) of long term residential rehab, this will only serve to cut off those who are most at risk. 

Whatever the answers are, I cannot support a State program that forces welfare recipients to get drug screened or else lose welfare. Addiction is far too complex an issue to callously think like that. I have seen that some States in America have such rules, and I 100% disagree with those States. Most of those States seem to be Republican controlled, but this is one area that I think the Republicans have 100% wrong. 

You, and I seldom agree on anything, but this post is exellent. I couldn't have said it better. A lot of people will die from hardship, and starvation if this is implemented. In Canada, all you need is a legit residence, and prove you're actively looking for work. 

     So "tip o the hat to you sir." 

Hank

Edited to add; I highly doubt this will be implemented. It would be challenged in court with a high probability of the proposal being tossed. Draconian gov't is draconian.

Edited September 27 by Hankenhunter
Content

[Hankenhunter]

A far better idea is a universal living wage. Think of all that cash being spent, and the boon to the economy it would be. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

3 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Sir

That won't change things as someone else will step up and depending on influence will call shots from inside or work for the guy that replaced him.

I don't really see a problem, anyone that works for a living is accountable to their employer where drug testing is manditory with rehab options available and future employment conditions so think it is fair.

Have seen many families that were/are generational drug and alcohol addicts on welfare. If they are given life skills instruction guidance along with inspections may have been one of many families that are able to break a cycle. Many children born to addicts are born addicted and the breast they suckle is tainted milk.

 

I’m happy to take on dealer off the street at a time. 

[jmccr8]

6 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I’m happy to take on dealer off the street at a time. 

Hi Sir

Yes but taking his customers away is better

[Edumakated]

11 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm fundamentally against drug testing anyone who is collecting government handouts and withholding or threatening to withhold said funding for failing said test. Programs such as this will only marginalise the already marginalised. With that said, I don't quite understand the American welfare system, it's not quite the same as Australia, but here I am 100% against such a system (we had a similar program trialled in some areas, I was against it then, and I still am against it). Maybe there's something I'm missing that will make the system work better there, but my initial reaction is negative to any attempt to test the most vulnerable like this. 

Welfare has become a way of life for many people with generations being on the dole.    Generally, I think most people don't have an issue with a safety net, but in the case of welfare in the US, it has become a safety hammock.  A big part of the problem is that the government system is setup so that it encourages the wrong behavior.  For example, if you make 1 penny over some prescribed amount, then ALL of the benefits are removed.  This prevents people from improving their situation for fear of losing needed benefits.  

The other thing it does is that it encourages social dysfunction by incentivizing single mothers aka broken homes.  You don't get any benefits for being married.  This is why the baby mama culture is so prevalent in the black community and poorer communities in general.  This has been studied ad nauseum for 60 years and is undeniable.

As far as drug testing, I have no issue with it.  Beggers cannot be choosy.  If you want to get high, then you need to do it on your own dime, not the taxpayers.  I do agree though that providing rehab services is critical and would support rehab being offered.

 

[+Paranoid Android]

18 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Disagreement with the morality behind it is you choice, but I fully support it because my tax dollars are paying for people who abuse the system. 

I understand that, my tax dollars once went to a similar program and I 100% disagreed with it, but I still had to pay my taxes. Death, taxes, and arguing on UM, as you know are the three constants in life  

 

18 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

During, the time period you were using alcohol and receiving welfare did you ever cheat the system?

No, but I knew of others who did. When I was living out bush I got to know the locals, one of them left their wallet behind at my table at the pub one day while I was playing poker, but I didn't know which one owned the wallet so I opened it to look at the ID. I recognised the picture on the ID in the wallet, but the name was different. I mentioned that to a local aboriginal elder who was also playing poker that night (the person who left the wallet was also indigenous) and he said that the name belonged to the person's mother, who died fifteen years ago. He then said that it's not uncommon in the aboriginal community to assume the name of dead relatives in order to continue receiving welfare benefits, so while I don't have 100% proof, I'm pretty sure that person was cashing two welfare payments - $750/fortnight is not enough to live off, but that's welfare payments in Australia, but doubling that to $750/week is only $100 less than minimum wage, and she doesn't need to work 40 hours a week to achieve it.

He didn't say how common it was, but it was common enough that he seemed to see nothing odd in someone having an ID with the name of a dead person on it.

 

18 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

I personally and sincerely applaud you for putting up the good fight and stopping yourself from using alcohol. I fully realize that as you hinted at above, with alcoholism once you become an addict your always one drink away from relapsing. Also, unlike with Opiates you must detox under a doctor’s supervision or you can die. 

One drink is too many, a thousand is not enough. It's a curse, but it's also an addiction caused by a set of choices that I made. I can't complain about those choices, I can only endeavour to make good choices going forward (and I am proud that Saturday will mark my 4 year anniversary without a relapse, and the last relapse was literally only a one day slip up, so yay for positive choices).  

 

18 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Well with all due respect I totally disagree with you, I think it’s a positive way to begin to fix a broken system.

PEACE

And that's your right, we have different values. I respect them, even if I have a different set of values. I think we can both agree that the system is broken and needs fixing, we just have different ideas of how to fix it, by the looks of it. 

[+Paranoid Android]

17 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

You, and I seldom agree on anything, but this post is exellent. I couldn't have said it better. A lot of people will die from hardship, and starvation if this is implemented. In Canada, all you need is a legit residence, and prove you're actively looking for work. 

     So "tip o the hat to you sir." 

Hank

Edited to add; I highly doubt this will be implemented. It would be challenged in court with a high probability of the proposal being tossed. Draconian gov't is draconian.

Nice to know it can happen. I think if we took discussion offline and were talking in real life you'd probably realise there's even more we agree on. Many of those issues don't get discussed often on UM so it seems I do write more often about conservative issues, but I've never considered myself a conservative (if you believe the Political Compass quizzes and such, those usually point to me being a Libertarian - socially liberal on most issues but a desire for less government interference - and yet I also believe in universal healthcare, which is about as Big Government as you can get, sue me, though universal healthcare is an exception to that rule, I am happy for less government involvement in most things).  

I'll try to post more about liberal issues if they arise, and maybe we can agree more often  

[Grim Reaper 6]

8 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I understand that, my tax dollars once went to a similar program and I 100% disagreed with it, but I still had to pay my taxes. Death, taxes, and arguing on UM, as you know are the three constants in life  

 

No, but I knew of others who did. When I was living out bush I got to know the locals, one of them left their wallet behind at my table at the pub one day while I was playing poker, but I didn't know which one owned the wallet so I opened it to look at the ID. I recognised the picture on the ID in the wallet, but the name was different. I mentioned that to a local aboriginal elder who was also playing poker that night (the person who left the wallet was also indigenous) and he said that the name belonged to the person's mother, who died fifteen years ago. He then said that it's not uncommon in the aboriginal community to assume the name of dead relatives in order to continue receiving welfare benefits, so while I don't have 100% proof, I'm pretty sure that person was cashing two welfare payments - $750/fortnight is not enough to live off, but that's welfare payments in Australia, but doubling that to $750/week is only $100 less than minimum wage, and she doesn't need to work 40 hours a week to achieve it.

He didn't say how common it was, but it was common enough that he seemed to see nothing odd in someone having an ID with the name of a dead person on it.

 

One drink is too many, a thousand is not enough. It's a curse, but it's also an addiction caused by a set of choices that I made. I can't complain about those choices, I can only endeavour to make good choices going forward (and I am proud that Saturday will mark my 4 year anniversary without a relapse, and the last relapse was literally only a one day slip up, so yay for positive choices).  

 

And that's your right, we have different values. I respect them, even if I have a different set of values. I think we can both agree that the system is broken and needs fixing, we just have different ideas of how to fix it, by the looks of it. 

Thank you for the honesty in your reply, I sincerely respect that. I also sincerely hope your sobriety continues for the rest of your life!!

Respectfully thank you for your Candor!!!!!!!!

[+Paranoid Android]

11 hours ago, Edumakated said:

Welfare has become a way of life for many people with generations being on the dole.    Generally, I think most people don't have an issue with a safety net, but in the case of welfare in the US, it has become a safety hammock.  A big part of the problem is that the government system is setup so that it encourages the wrong behavior.  For example, if you make 1 penny over some prescribed amount, then ALL of the benefits are removed.  This prevents people from improving their situation for fear of losing needed benefits.  

The other thing it does is that it encourages social dysfunction by incentivizing single mothers aka broken homes.  You don't get any benefits for being married.  This is why the baby mama culture is so prevalent in the black community and poorer communities in general.  This has been studied ad nauseum for 60 years and is undeniable.

As far as drug testing, I have no issue with it.  Beggers cannot be choosy.  If you want to get high, then you need to do it on your own dime, not the taxpayers.  I do agree though that providing rehab services is critical and would support rehab being offered.

 

Similar problems exist here, but it seems to a lesser extent. If you earn money in Australia while you're on welfare, I do believe it scales (as in, they will cut $1 from your welfare for every $1 you earn above a certain amount - I don't know the formula, it's not 1:1, so don't quote me on that) so you won't lose your benefits all at once, but many who are entrenched on the dole (what we call welfare here) see it the same - they lose their benefits if they earn too much, and they would rather do a cash-in-hand job that pays $300 and supplement it with a dole payment. 

Incentivising single homes seems to be a uniquely American problem (or at least, it's not one that is shared by Australia). There's a lot of welfare programs America could learn from Australia, in my opinion, but we aren't perfect either, as you can tell from this discussion. 

[DieChecker]

On 9/26/2023 at 5:40 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

“No more handouts without accountability,”

I'm surprised by this coming out of London Breeds administration. It's not at all what her far left supporters would want.

That said, I do believe in accountability and am pleased by this move.

 

[+OverSword]

On 9/26/2023 at 7:00 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

I don’t know what kind of policy this is, but it’s certainly a valid policy the welfare programs in the United States are broken. Accountability, is needed in these programs and this is the first time in many years that any politician has suggested a change in policy. Will, it actually happen, I don’t but I hope it does.

Since when is sobriety a condition of receiving govt. aid?  This will never get through.

[moonman]

IF the state is footing the bill for the rehab, I can't say this is such a bad idea - but I'd be very surprised if they were. It's probably more like "we aren't helping you anymore until you get clean all by yourself", which is not going to work, and people will likely die with no help at all.

Edited September 28 by moonman