Question:
Do you agree with this idea; States consider drug tests for welfare recipients?
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Do you agree with this idea; States consider drug tests for welfare recipients?
24 answers:
Steven C
2009-03-26 12:36:02 UTC
You could have saved yourself 5 points if you had of looked this question was asked earlier today.

It needs to be done like yesterday. When they do this a lot of people are going to realize it should have been from the beginning. I knew a [person] in NC. that was in city housing and paid no rent got a check and food stamps every month. They were to pay utility's and buy food with this but instead they bought crack and beer. Then when they got a turn off notice for utility's they would run to the assistance office and get money to pay the bills.

Also the states need to tell the ACLU to piss off with trying to stop it from happening.

Source(s):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_o...
2009-03-26 12:46:25 UTC
Can state testing tell when someone is on prescription meds--like I am--from a drug abuser?



I don't think so.



So why should I be *punished* for my state's mistakes?



There's a fine line between testing recipients and going after drug abusers.



You can't just simply think that every welfare recipient--like me--is a drug pusher and an abuser.



I am *not*--but I don't appreciate the lip-service and blind accusations that I am--because there are some people out there whom aren't educated *enough* to know the frakkin' difference!
Gigi
2009-03-26 13:37:49 UTC
Yes. If have to go to work to pay taxes for these support programs and be tested to work and earn a pay check, then people asking for assistance should have to take a drug test as well.





Get a JOB. and just because times are hard now don't use this as an excuse. Lot's of people have been on welfare all of their lives.
Robert B
2009-03-26 12:33:39 UTC
It'll just create more counterproductive bureaucracy. Drug tests and be cheated and the people who need welfare often also happen to be those with substance abuse problems. The focus should be on harm reduction and helping these folks lay the foundation to build something of a life. They're not going to start becoming productive, law-abiding citizens just because they're not getting their welfare checks anymore -- if anything, they'll be more likely to resort to crime, in most cases.



A big part of what leads a people to drug abuse is that they're trying to cope with a miserable life and have no clear prospects for improving their lot. While the welfare system is not perfect, implementing this policy would be counterproductive to the whole point of welfare -- it's the equivalent of kicking a person while he's down.



I know people hate the idea that a tiny fraction of their income taxes go directly into the pockets of drug addicts, criminals and layabouts, but social programs like welfare are in place not just to give charity to those who need it most, but also to promote a generally healthy society which everyone can benefit from. I'd rather live next to an unemployed drug addict who's able to get his fix and has food, shelter and access to basic medical care than one who lacks those things -- not just because I care about his welfare, but because I care about my own (enlightened self-interest). In the former case, the addict is not a huge liability to my safety or economic well-being, while in the latter case, he is.



You're going to have to pay for it one way or another, whether it comes in the form of paying for social programs, welfare, rehabilitation, or whether you pay the price in urban decay, being the victim of crime, or paying for more law enforcement, prisons, etc. In the long run, a strong social safety net saves us money.
2009-03-26 13:10:59 UTC
To answer this question, is as much political wildfire as addressing gay or abortion issues. To be foolish enough to answer this question, without some thought, could doom the career of nearly any political candidate, in an instant.



So here goes! I do believe big brother, is getting his hands into our homes, just a little too much. On one hand, it is safe to say, if you aren't working, at some thing to better yourself, you just won't. If you are trying to get a job in the open market, just go drug free, until you get a job.



I do not want to seem hard or callus, for I have walked the road of prior addiction. Even cigarette smoking is an addiction nearly equal to the effects of heroine withdrawal, but when asking the tax payer, to flip the bill, isn't it simply time to put down the pipe, at least until you get on your feet?



Should we tree hug, out to the ninth degree, and say they have a right to use our money to provide for the habit, that lowers performance levels below what is employable?



I believe in certain medical uses for marijuana, but if they are impaired beyond their ability to perform, then they should seek a job, that doesn't require urgency.



Should the public pay for habits with no merit or benefit? Of course not. Should we pay for a crack addict, to drive a tractor trailer truck? of course not. Should we give the position of race car driver, to a person who takes metha amphetimines? I do not think it wise.



I do believe in the persons right to ask for the help needed to stabilize themselves. That right should be given freely to the person who needs the help, once. If for some reason, that person fails to learn to participate in a beneficial manner, They should loose there benefits. If on the second time they come to ask for the help. They should be allowed the help. But this time, they will be endebted the first and second costs of the two treatments. They must be under the eye of the big brother paying their way this time. They must repay the system before their freedom is granted. They should be given a clear chance to work for minimum wage, if they are unskilled. If they learn or have a skill, they should have the ability to work in their field.



If at this time, they are released and the problems persist, they should work under big brother. They should be in a structured environment until they just learn the necessary skill to make money, work ethic.



This should not be imposed on the family paying the bill. These people may be taking drugs, but they are free and have work ethics, and produce more in society than they take. Big brother's only right there, should only be to insure protection to these people. and not the people taking a free lunch.



Services are for the people who get sick. services are for young parents, who do not yet have the skills to provide a good home. Services should be to teach, not to preach. But if the current services system continues to be abused, and to allow the abuse that we all see, to continue, this entire system is going to fall.



This is the poors fault as much as it is the fault of the filthy rich. Both are exploiters. Both are takers. The only people who pay, are the workers.
Thurston
2009-03-26 13:47:46 UTC
I'd much rather see the "Lawmakers" subjected to routine random drug testing, with results publicized.
JustPeachy !!!
2009-03-26 12:25:06 UTC
I totally agree with random drug testing of all welfare recipients.

If a recipient refuses, they immediately lose benefits.
doktrgroove
2009-03-26 15:18:49 UTC
Part of me hates the idea because i think it's an invasion of privacy and my libertarian leanings make me want to have the government stay out of people's lives.



On the other hand, it may not be a bad idea as the reason they state is a very valid point.
kerfitz
2009-03-26 12:24:33 UTC
Any goverment job requires random drug tests. I think it's an excellent idea.



Robert.... The wlefare system needs to be overhauled. It is way to easy to get on the system and way too hard to get off of it. Saying that they are not capable of anything else and would only resort to crime is a copout and you are enabling them.



Sky... Yes they can distinguish prescription drugs, and will even ask what prescriptions you are taking so they can identify false positives.
emaleariel
2009-03-27 08:05:24 UTC
Hey~new avatar! (To be honest, I wasn't crazy about the little gnome guy, & I would still like to see you as Dr. Evil at your earliest convenience.) Wait a minute... what happened to MY avatar?



Anyway, as you know, I was laid off some time ago & applied for assistance which I was unceremoniously DEE-niiiiiiied! because I have not produced a litter of children that the rest of society will ultimately have to pay for one way or another. So I was all ready to say YES! TEST those bastards! However, after reading Robert B.'s comments, I have been dragged back down (kicking & screaming) into the real world I used to inhabit before I became a bitter, child-hating, old crone.



He made some excellent points, & is of course, correct in his evaluation of the situation. Having said that, I would like to say that I would RATHER see a spay/neuter type of program implemented. That, or a law passed that would prohibit anyone who became pregnant (mother & father) while on public assistance from receiving it. Period. If someone can't afford to take care of themselves, they have no business having children they can't take care of. That way, maybe in 10 years or so, if the economy takes another nose dive & some aging childless woman is in need of assistance, she won't be denied basic medical care while she watches a room full of non-English speaking families herd their 9-plus family members into the tiny cubicles where they will each be assigned free medical care, food, & financial assistance to live on. Oh yeah... and of course pre-natal care for the pregnant mother.



P.S. Didn't I used to be a tree-hugging, bleeding-heart liberal not too long ago?
2009-03-26 12:21:42 UTC
YES, and elected officials should be tested as well.
2009-03-26 12:21:14 UTC
Why not there are to many people scamming the system...



If there is no cost to the recipient what's the problem



It will defiantly get these crack heads that have been living off the government for YEARS off of it



I don't see it going anywhere though
MikeGolf
2009-03-26 12:22:17 UTC
I agree totally.



The taxpayer has a right to know that their money is not being wasted providing public assistance to somebody who can somehow afford drugs but not food.
2009-03-26 12:21:01 UTC
i totally agree! i have been suggesting this for years!!!!!
momto5rugrats
2009-03-26 12:45:39 UTC
Yes,I do! And if they are found to be using cut them off. I also think there should be a limit to the time they are on. I would never suck on the government tit for anything. I'd rather chance getting caught poaching deer.
Pfo
2009-03-26 12:25:35 UTC
Yes, I agree they should do this. Taxpayers should not be paying drug users for their habit.



Although it's going to be expensive.
2009-03-26 12:24:29 UTC
i think that is a very good idea.

why should they give people money when they don't have money because they waste it on drugs.
2009-03-27 00:14:05 UTC
The government cannot dictate what a recipient spends there money on,Remember prohibition,it didnt work,no government can legislate on moral and social ideology,you become a dictatorship then
2009-03-26 12:36:07 UTC
I think it's a good idea. why should the tax payer have to pay if they person we're giving money to is using the money they have for drugs.
Forget War Buy More
2009-03-26 12:20:42 UTC
I wonder how they will pay for the drug tests and the people who will monitor these tests.
?
2015-08-01 08:04:42 UTC
kk
2009-03-26 12:34:34 UTC
yup they should be tested if they are getting tax payers money...
Hmmmmm?
2009-03-26 12:22:45 UTC
You can pass any drug test (hair, blood, saliva, urine) for fifty bucks with a bottle of Total Eclipse from GNC or with products you can buy online...a waste of time unless the tests are random.





http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu8Vc1stJN14Bxo1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=12pbt3hm5/EXP=1238181852/**http%3a//www.gnc.com/sm-acme-total-eclipse-berry-blast--pi-2134318.html
yp_will_chicago_369
2009-03-26 13:44:46 UTC
my answer is .


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...