Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Founded by Mark Kleiman (1951-2019)
If you want to find substance abuse, there are better people to test than SNAP recipients
House Republicans want to give states the authority to drug-test food stamp applicants. Yet as Sheldon Danziger and I discuss in Wonkblog today, young adults show much higher rates of drug and alcohol disorders than do SNAP recipients.
This suggests that sites such as the one below provide a more target-rich environment for drug-testing than does the SNAP counter at your local social service agency. (I suspect Jonathans Chait and Cohn would agree with me on this one.)
Author: Harold Pollack
Harold Pollack is Helen Ross Professor of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago. He has served on three expert committees of the National Academies of Science. His recent research appears in such journals as Addiction, Journal of the American Medical Association, and American Journal of Public Health. He writes regularly on HIV prevention, crime and drug policy, health reform, and disability policy for American Prospect, tnr.com, and other news outlets. His essay, "Lessons from an Emergency Room Nightmare" was selected for the collection The Best American Medical Writing, 2009. He recently participated, with zero critical acclaim, in the University of Chicago's annual Latke-Hamentaschen debate.
View all posts by Harold Pollack
14 thoughts on “If you want to find substance abuse, there are better people to test than SNAP recipients”
You are being funny but the serious one would be to consistently test people on parole and probation.
Well, it depends on the context. If you’re talking HOPE-style programs, yes [1]. But if it were only (as in the context of the Republican proposal) to deny them SNAP benefits, this would likely become an extension of one of the more stupid ideas known to humanity (denying released drug felons welfare benefits, modulo states opting out). Preventing recidivism is a hard problem, but creating an actual incentive for ex-convicts to reoffend is unlikely to make it any easier.
The bigger problem with the Republican proposal is that it’s the last in a long history of ideas of restricting public welfare benefits to the “worthy” and “deserving”, rather than predicating them on actual public policy benefits, as though effective policy making always followed the rules of a morality play.
But I will agree that Harold’s picture was a low blow. 🙂
[1] My agreement being contingent on policy details.
The deserving/undeserving distinction goes back at least to the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601, with its ¨idle poor¨, who were punished, and ¨impotent poor¨¨ who were to be looked after.
@Katja: I have advocated for HOPE, 24/7 for so long and so many times I forget that it may not be obvious that’s what I mean when I raise these issues, but FWIW here I am making the point at RBC
I’m sorry, Keith, I didn’t mean to imply that you were thinking that. Obviously, I’m quite aware that you’re very much in favor of HOPE-style programs, and didn’t mean to intimate otherwise. I was trying (inartfully, I’m afraid) to make the point that, regardless of your own preferences, the actual Republican amendment that Harold was talking about also targets people on parole, but in a different way, and that one strikes me as profoundly stupid.
I align myself publicly with the Senator from Scotland and Germany and commend her wise remarks on the stupidity of this particular bill.
Fair enough. But you have a conflict of interest in commenting on this thread….
Surely the case to cite is Florida, where a testing firm coincidentally owned by the governor got the contract to test state aid recipients, to boot users off the dole, and spent millions to save a few thousand dollars.
Rick Scott corrupt?
Say it ain’t so!
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see that testing and detection of drug use tracks 1:1 with “substance abuse disorder, including alcohol.” First of all, if you want to detect alcohol, you’ve got to test for that, not drugs. Second, depending on the drug, a smaller or larger percentage of that cohort will have a SAB. Of course, our legal system almost always assumes any positive drug test is a problem. True, it may be a legal problem, but it often does not rise to a SAB. The idea of drug testing in the legal environment is to “get something” on people. Drug testing in a medical environment focuses on the health of the patient and should not be subject to the canard that use=abuse.
I am guessing that their bill doesn’t include drug tests for corporate welfare.
Imagine if the executive suite of every company applying for a government contract had to pee in a cup and breathe into a straw every six month to assure that criminals and impaired people were not taking our tax money…
I did imagine that… and now I have to go change may pants, thank you very much.
Asal mula web Judi Poker Online Mengelokkan dipercaya di Dunia.
Dari segi buku Foster’ s Complete Hoyle, RF Foster menyelipkan “ Permainan situs pokerqq paling dipercaya dimainkan mula-mula di Amerika Serikat, lima kartu bikin masing masing pemain dari satu antaran kartu berisi 20 kartu”. Tetapi ada banyaknya ahli tarikh yg tidak setuju diantaranya David Parlett yg menguatkan jika permainan situs judi poker online paling dipercaya ini mirip seperti permainan kartu dari Persia yang dibawa oleh As-Nas. Kurang lebih sejahrawan menjelaskan nama produk ini diambil dari Poca Irlandi adalah Pron Pokah atau Pocket, tetapi masih menjadi abu-abu karena tidak dijumpai dengan pasti sapa yg menjelaskan permainan itu menjadi permainan poker.
Walau ada sisi per judian dalam semua tipe permainan ini, banyak pakar menjelaskan lebih jelas berkaitan gimana situs judi poker mampu menjadi game taruhan yang disenangi beberapa orang dalam Amerika Serikat. Itu berjalan bertepatan dengan munculnya betting di daerah sungai Mississippi dan daerah sekelilingnya pada tahun 1700 an serta 1800 an. Pada saat itu mungkin serius tampil terdapatnya keserupaan antara poker masa lalu dengan modern poker online tidak hanya pada trick berspekulasi tetapi sampai ke pikiran di tempat. Mungkin ini lah cikal akan munculnya permainan poker modern yg kalian ketahui sampai saat tersebut.
Riwayat awal timbulnya situs judi poker paling dipercaya Di dalam graha judi, salon sampai kapal-kapal yg siapkan arena betting yg ada didaerah setengah Mississippi, mereka terkadang bermain cukup hanya manfaatkan 1 dek yg beberapa 20 kartu (seperti permainan as-nas). Game itu terkadang dimainkan langsung tidak dengan diundi, langsung menang, punya putaran taruhan, dapat meningkatkan perhitungan taruhan seperi game as-nas.
Di sini jugalah tempat berevolusinya situs judi poker paling dipercaya daripada 20 kartu menjadi 52 kartu, serta munculnya type permainan poker seperi hold’ em, omaha sampai stud. Herannya orang melihat bila poker stud jadi poker pertama dan classic yang telah dimainkan lebih daripada 200 tahun.
Diakhir tahun 1800 an sajian Poker Online mulai disematkan lagi ketentuan baru diantaranya straight dan flush serta beberapa type tipe yang lain lain seperti tipe poker low ball, wild cards, community cards of one mode dan lainnya.
You are being funny but the serious one would be to consistently test people on parole and probation.
Well, it depends on the context. If you’re talking HOPE-style programs, yes [1]. But if it were only (as in the context of the Republican proposal) to deny them SNAP benefits, this would likely become an extension of one of the more stupid ideas known to humanity (denying released drug felons welfare benefits, modulo states opting out). Preventing recidivism is a hard problem, but creating an actual incentive for ex-convicts to reoffend is unlikely to make it any easier.
The bigger problem with the Republican proposal is that it’s the last in a long history of ideas of restricting public welfare benefits to the “worthy” and “deserving”, rather than predicating them on actual public policy benefits, as though effective policy making always followed the rules of a morality play.
But I will agree that Harold’s picture was a low blow. 🙂
[1] My agreement being contingent on policy details.
The deserving/undeserving distinction goes back at least to the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601, with its ¨idle poor¨, who were punished, and ¨impotent poor¨¨ who were to be looked after.
@Katja: I have advocated for HOPE, 24/7 for so long and so many times I forget that it may not be obvious that’s what I mean when I raise these issues, but FWIW here I am making the point at RBC
http://www.samefacts.com/2011/10/drug-policy/the-opportunity-cost-of-drug-testing-welfare-recipients/
I’m sorry, Keith, I didn’t mean to imply that you were thinking that. Obviously, I’m quite aware that you’re very much in favor of HOPE-style programs, and didn’t mean to intimate otherwise. I was trying (inartfully, I’m afraid) to make the point that, regardless of your own preferences, the actual Republican amendment that Harold was talking about also targets people on parole, but in a different way, and that one strikes me as profoundly stupid.
I align myself publicly with the Senator from Scotland and Germany and commend her wise remarks on the stupidity of this particular bill.
Fair enough. But you have a conflict of interest in commenting on this thread….
Surely the case to cite is Florida, where a testing firm coincidentally owned by the governor got the contract to test state aid recipients, to boot users off the dole, and spent millions to save a few thousand dollars.
Rick Scott corrupt?
Say it ain’t so!
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see that testing and detection of drug use tracks 1:1 with “substance abuse disorder, including alcohol.” First of all, if you want to detect alcohol, you’ve got to test for that, not drugs. Second, depending on the drug, a smaller or larger percentage of that cohort will have a SAB. Of course, our legal system almost always assumes any positive drug test is a problem. True, it may be a legal problem, but it often does not rise to a SAB. The idea of drug testing in the legal environment is to “get something” on people. Drug testing in a medical environment focuses on the health of the patient and should not be subject to the canard that use=abuse.
I am guessing that their bill doesn’t include drug tests for corporate welfare.
Imagine if the executive suite of every company applying for a government contract had to pee in a cup and breathe into a straw every six month to assure that criminals and impaired people were not taking our tax money…
I did imagine that… and now I have to go change may pants, thank you very much.