I recently got into a heated debate on the FaceBook about urine testing welfare recipients. To me, it was a question of dignity. To them, it was a question of why the poor were allowed to avoid testing to pick up free money while someone working a minimum wage job had to throw down a cup of urine every now and again.
Their arguments revolved around money wasted, undeserving people getting money, and general outrage that someone could use a foodstamp card to help with getting drugs, junk food, and 'luxuries' (I believe they were referring to things like the Perrier water you get for the same price as a Coke).
I attempted, first, to appeal to their sense of empathy. Between their two counties, some 750,000 people were on food stamps, as cited by various census figures and government fact sheets. One study I found, after quickly and not terribly carefully googling the subject, found that about 2% of people on foodstamps nationally are engaged in some sort of drug use. So for the sake of catching and punishing 14,000 people, 736,000 others would have to go through the humiliating process of drug testing.
This approach was ineffective. Outrage, hatred, and the need for revenge against those who took advantage of the system outweighed pity (they failed to critique the data).
My second attempt centered around costs. From the websites of both states, the benefits (cost to government) of each individual would be ~$800, given an average and non-separated family of four (the accuracy of this assumption is... dubious but gets us a number that is likely within 25% of the correct amount). So those 14,000 people were costing their two states in the order of $12M. That's not chump change, so I can safely say that there does exist a problem within the foodstamp system. Unfortunately, the proposed solution, drug testing of all recipients, would cost both states ~$36M when one goes with a price per person per test of $42 (which, given the pork politics in both states is unlikely to be the actual price). The cure is worse than the disease.
This approach was ineffective. Outrage, hatred, and the need for revenge do not care about budgetary constraints (again, they failed to critique or second guess the data).
My third attempt was focused on the safety net features of the food stamps system. How many people, and I used this next part word for word, were Reaganites who have had a "Come to Jesus" moment when they see how easy it is to fall from grace in society? I had no idea and they didn't care to have one either.
This approach was ineffective. Outrage, hatred, and the need for revenge differentiate between the people who deserve aid (the Reaganites) and the people who do not (everyone else).
I neglected to continue the conversation at this point. Emotional appeals, data centric appeals, and UsvThem appeals failed. The parties in question were rashly defriended on the spot, as I couldn't stand the thought of hearing from them again on anything resembling policy.
What I could have gone on with, would be alternative solutions to what is somewhere around a $12M problem.
>Open rehabilitation centers free from police harassment (see InSite)
>Education on how to save money by eating un-prepared meals
>Making the punishments more severe for those caught using 'hard' (higher schedule) drugs whilst on foodstamps (blacklists, higher prison times, separate offenses, etc)
>Varying the amount of money used by the card for different kinds of purchases ($1.15 for each $1 debited for 'junk foods' or $0.80 for each $1 debited for 'proper groceries'... a hackle raising term, I know)
I'm sure the list could go on a fair ways, with evidence that could be found to support or undermine the case for each.
But that's the problem, the people we argue with don't want to chose the best solution. They want the solution that punishes people. Extra-judicially. They want to see someone suffer for their slight against society. They didn't want them to go under review and have their case sorted out, the best (both physically and monetarily) solutions found. They wanted to see blame and shame. Stigma. A face to hate, as opposed to the bodies they saw stumbling through the convenience store door each evening.
It's a huge problem facing the right wing (Republicans, Free Market Folks, Conservatives, Libertarians, you name it) people in this country. They have a solution that satisfies their immediate emotional and ideological needs, and that should apparently be good enough for the country.