Utah's drug-screening program

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 24, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    Oh good!

    More money wasted for solutions in search of a problem.

    Typical of our GOP controlled Legislature.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 24, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    If the rational behind the drug testing of welfare recipients is a good and valid Constitutional thing to do, and if the prime justification is that taxpayer money is involved, would it not be a good and valid thing to do if we test all people receiving tax money?

    It seems to me that society would be better served by fighting and controlling all illegal drug use, not just welfare recipients. I think the public is placed in more danger by drug use by police, fire, other public servants, university personnel, food suppliers, doctors etc. Would it be to our advantage that these people who live on tax money also be drug free?

    I distrust the notion of forced participation in any private enterprise and so would rather the government be the source of treatment. Sort of like when a medical care giver would rather maintain his patient rather than cure the patient and lose the revenue.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Sept. 24, 2013 7:21 a.m.

    @DN Subscriber 2.
    The cost for a welfare whizquiz would break the program. That is why this silly written exam came about, to save money.
    Fact is we don't know why 250 people withdrew. I would just assume have NOT saved 350K on welfare and saved it on cutting our legislature's benefits, would would amount to saving millions.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 8:16 p.m.

    "Welfare recipients should be subject to at least that level of scrutiny if they want to love (sic) off tax dollars."

    Well if that includes legislators, defense contractors and banks that received bail-outs, that'd be fair.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 6:00 p.m.

    Every member of the military (officer and enlisted) is subject to random drug tests, and can expect to take the "whiz quiz" several times a year.

    Welfare recipients should be subject to at least that level of scrutiny if they want to love off tax dollars.

    I reject as incredible the notion that stopping welfare is hurting the children of drug abusers. The drug abusers are hurting their kids by spending their money on drugs long before they get to the welfare stage, and you can be sure they will spend our tax dollars on drugs without giving a thought to their kids too.

    Step up the testing, and make it the "whiz quiz" not some written test "Do you do drugs?" I mean how many druggies do you think are so stoned that they will answer yes? (The answer is 12, plus another 250 who were smart enough to not answer).

    Treatment of addictions is separate from welfare to the truly needy. People need to be held responsible for the choices they make, not rewarded for bad choices.

  • elisabeth American Fork, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 1:40 p.m.


  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    The real irony is that people prioritize their lives and some put drugs first. Many who abuse drugs do not want to stop, but the public purse is not obligated to subsidize their drug habit. If parents put their drug habit about their childrens' welfare, child protective services should intervene. Blaming the legislature is a desperate diversion from the real issue.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Sept. 23, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    The addicted and desperate are getting less and less help from the self-righteous Utah Legislature.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    How come you didn't mention children in this article. Because nobody wants to admit that most of the savings from doing this comes from money that would have given food to children. The article admits that it probably does little to stop people from using drugs. What should be done? I think that if you continue this program, you should see if there is a way to find out how it affects the children. Maybe there is a better way to help people who are addicts.Well, some people could care less about that.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    "The Department of Workforce Services, which administers the program, says 12 people were denied benefits during the year after testing positive for drugs. An estimated 250 people were either turned away from assistance programs or withdrew applications, presumably because of drug issues."

    This is a huge assumption and not a fact, 12 people were denied, the others can't be counted as "assumed" unless guessing is now good enough for statistics.

    This is spinning the facts so that the public doesn't see that administering this law costs more than it saves, but makes someone feel better morally. Drug tests are easy to cheat, and many of these kits are available in your town.

    I wonder who's relative got the contract to do the testing?

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Sept. 23, 2013 6:45 a.m.

    Welfare is usually aimed the kids well being so making a drug addict stay away from the welfare office may just drive up crime or prostitution.

    The requirement should be rehab not scaring them off.

  • sukiyhtaky us, CA
    Sept. 23, 2013 1:39 a.m.

    The reporter says it is important to know why 250 have floated outside of the umbrella by having their aid discontinued. The reporter answers his own question and it is very obvious what has happened. If people test positive and their aid is dependent upon they then submitting to a drug diversion program and instead of doing this they forego the aid, then the answer simply is the drugs and getting high mean more to them than the aid. They simply don't want to give up the drugs. You can't force them to take the aid and thereby be compliant with the drug policy. The real problem is that there might be children who are not getting adequate nutrition and hopefully these people can turn to Catholic Charities or a Bishops Storehouse or a Methodist outreach to pick up the slack. Thank goodness for faith based charities as you never hear of an atheist foodbank or outreach...which speaks volumes.