Discussions
Should Welfare recipients pass a drug test?
Posted by beinki • 2/02/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: drug test, welfare recipients
What say you.
User Comments
-
No.-
why not?
-
-
What would be the purpose? Unless you are going to test everyone who uses public money, including students at public high schools, the county commissioner, who at least in my county is paid almost a quarter of a million dollars a year, anyone receiving grants from the government, including the elderly who get those gants for keeping their homes up to date, and the people who get grants for reviving historic homes, and so on it really isn't feasible.
Now should we follow through on these people life choices, their search for employment, or their quest for education...yes. But drug testing? -
We've already had this debate.
It was a long, long debate.-
Yes, we did--it was last summer, started by lotusb
And it was a loooooong debate.
-
-
what was the final score?
-
Do you know how expensive that would be? Not to mention what an invasion of privacy it would be?
-
-
it also once again labels all welfare people as druggies which is simply not the case it is another assumption you might be surprised at who would fail a drug test-
You got that right
-
How on earth does making passing a test a condition of getting a benefit "label all welfare recipients as druggies"? People who drive for a living or who operate certain kinds of machinery are subject to drug testings as a condition of employment...does that "label all truck drivers as druggies"? -
Tiffany, it's different because the employment requirements state that the person (say,a truck driver) must be of a clear mind and free of drugs or alcohol so that they can operate their equipment safely, and not endanger others.
Welfare receipt does not.
So, companies ask for drug tests to ensure the safety of their employees as a precaution - which does not imply that all X employees are druggies.
Asking a large swath of people who accept various forms of state aid (insurance, food stamps, welfare - many forms which do not even allow for the freedom of use of the monies received) for no apparent reason does imply that they are all drug users.
What other reason would there be to test them?
-
-
Your assumption would be that folks on welfare are drug addicts? Otherwise, why think about drug testing. A surprising number of welfare recipients were folks just like you and me who hit a major bump in the road. Yes, maybe some folks should be tested based on a known history of drug abuse, but a lot are women who are victims of abuse or kids who have been abandoned by the parents or just ordinary people who are out of work and out of money. Get used to it because you ain't seen nothing yet. -
Here is the link to that extensive drug test/welfare thread:
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/should-people-on-welfare-be-drug-tested#c... -
We all need a helping hand once in a while. In fact I have built several duplexes that I rent to folks that receive housing assistance. The ones that cause me grief and do drugs get kicked out by the housing authority and me. My other tenants are fine by that, in fact they encourage it as to maintain a nice neighborhood for their kids, which is why many of them seek out my units. So wouldn't testing be a good thing here?
-
It would not work in practice.
We would put more people in prison for frivolous bullshit (I'm personally against the use of drugs, but I don't have a problem with other people using them. Also, if marijuana is a drug, so is tobacco.); all for what? More taxpayer dollars being wasted on keeping prisoners fed and housed WHILE ALSO paying more money for the drug tests?-
Naturally there would be parameters. I don't feel pot is a big deal, alcohol is probably worse and it's legal.
-
-
HELL YEAH!
They are a bunch of free loaders that are collecting money to support their habbit. I think we should stop helping out the free loaders and looking at fixing the things that are screwed up in this nation. Why do you think the economy is the way it is? We helped out with all the free loaders that dont contribute to anything that now we have no social security or any other stuff by the time we die.-
Uh....no.
-
I agree. It is the poor and disabled that are to blame for the current state of the global economy. Honestly, if we didn't need the poor to work in old folks homes and care for our grandparents, to serve our fastfood, to make our cheap appliances etc etc....I'd be happy to ship them all back to Poorula or wherever they came from.
-
-
I think it depends on what they are on welfare for. The states put people who are released for prison awaiting a trial (in which a lot of them claim to have a drug problem so they can postpone their court date) and yes alot of them do have a drug problem. If you are a drug addict or recovering drug addict the state sets you up to live free for at least a year and usually a lot longer. Should these people get drug tested-yes. Should a mother who lost her job and is trying to support her kids get tested? Probably not-
Are you in any way able to document "a lot of them claim to have a drug problem so they can postpone their court date"?
-
-
I think they all need permanant birth control (I'm gonna get crucified for this comment!)-
Now why would you go and say something like that? That's really...unfortunate
-
Some folks have been on assistance for a long time and having more kids just digs their financial hole deeper, that's all...
-
Wow--Hitler had that same idea.
-
...don't have more kids because you can't afford it?
-
-
This is a crazy topic for me as about 85% of the people we transport are on welfare (it is county transportation not city transportation.) I have seen some cases where I am for them getting the assistance but most of these people also know how to milk the system. Trust me you should hear the conversations on my bus.
-
Don't be silly. Government benefit recipients already are subject to all kinds of invasive questions. Let's give them a break. It's no fun being poor. -
This question is an old one, simply clothed here in different words. In fact, it is not generally meant to be a question at all. Should Blacks be given drug tests? Should Jews be given drug tests?
Blacks, Jews, and Welfare recipients are bad, and are so by simple association with the question. Every age and every culture has it's own language, its own etymological heritage with which it quietly, systemically,...gently enforces the sometimes hard wired lines of class.
Both illogical and immoral, a question to an answer that never goes away.-
This is a ridiculous attempt at an analogy. I'm against drug testing for welfare recipients, but to pretend that suggesting that asking those receiving public benefits to demonstrate that they're drug free as a condition of receiving benefits (as they're asked to demonstrate that they fulfill all kinds of other qualifications) is akin to randomly making the same demand of a racial minority is disingenuous at best, insane at worst.
-
Funny.
Every member of a modern industrial society recieves benefits form that state. The state puts reasonable limits on the outflows of course, however in a Democracy, those limits must never be based solely on a certain class of individuals but rather on the over all health of the collective community, without prejudice.
At every level of society, "drugs" are present. Alway have been, always will be. To then judge common behaviour sinfull enough for some, but not others is indeed a kind of prejudice. And I can tell you, throughout history, the means by which societies have often "segregated" those it wishes to demonize is to attach behaviour to those few which all consider evil, but which all participate none the less.
Blacks and Women were to irresposible to vote - as if old white men were any more responsible. Jews destroyed the economy of Europe, despite the fact that everybody has a hand in economics. Why even ask these questions when the answer is so obvious, secretly, to all?
It's now and always has been simple code for prejudice, and nothin' more.
-
-
No way.
Although I am anti drug due to the death of my son, I feel that is really an intrusion into a persons life. Often people take drugs because they can't cope, because sexual abuse or things like emotional and physical abuse. The journey to recovery is a long one and requires a lot of thought and sensitivity. Things are becoming very Orwellian every day as it stands.
What's required is a lot of patience, understanding, compassion and support. -
Should we make them wear yellow stars with a view to ultimately making them live in special welfare camps too, on balance I would say yes and for me having a drug test would be an essential part of the selection process for entrance into the special welfare camps. -
No. It would be expensive and another huge waste of resources. Better to spend the money on treatment for those who need it.
-
That's a good point.
The point of welfare is to help people get a leg up. If that person is in a bad situation and in need of welfare because of a drug addiction, outright denying them would actually make their situation worse. -
@Anok--exactly. Testing everyone would be terribly expensive and does nothing to address the problem! (Not to mention civil liberties being trampled upon).
-
I agree. What would it prevent? Who would be protected by it?
Nothing, and no one. Although I would support a drug counseling program and/or treatment options. That could benefit anyone who can't afford private rehabilitation. -
Why do the unfortunate's of our society require testing for something everybody does? Why make the condition for our support something we oursleves all share equally? Why does the manager at Wal Mart get to go home smoke pot and the guy trying to work there can't? Why does a poor, disenfranchised family have to live drug free when nobody else has to?
There are some very good and sound arguements for conditional social support, but the spectre of "drugs" aint' one of them. It's code for something else. -
Scream - technically speaking everyone has to live "drug free" with regards to recreational drugs. Granted, that's because of laws.
However, Neither Mtyler or I have stated that welfare recipients should get drug testing. -
Ya I know Anok, just a pet peeve of mine.
Despite the rhetoric and bravado, drugs are as prevelant in our society as they have been in any other. To suggest that we screen some based soley on their social standing, and for no other reason, drives me nutz.
Excuse me a moment - gotta get a lighter that works.... -
I agree.
-
-
Yes they should.
In order to be eligible for a most jobs today, (even working at walmart as Scream mentioned) you have to be able to pass a drug test. With the market tigheting up, this will become even more commonplace as a sorting tool by employers.
While on drugs, they are severely limiting their ability to get a job. And the taxpayers shouldn't be paying longer than they have to. So until they are drug free, they shouldn't get welfare. Unemployment benefits or anything else save basic medical services. -
The politicians who make the drug laws and the judges who enforce them should be tested monthly and found clean to keep their jobs. I am sure very few would test positive, but their refusal to even be tested as a condition for employment by the American People is repulsive while they allow corporations to test the rest of us. Hypocritical two faced rat finks!
Sorry for holding back. Next time I'll try to tell you how I really feel.-
I agree, Maybe not everyone monthly, that would be too damn expensive. But definately random checks, and definately a check before you are allowed to take any position.
And the higher up you are, the more often those random checks should occur. -
Maybe start at the top and work down...just out of fairness. After all, it's gotta be more dangerous to have the guy running the thing full of Blow, than the little peon outside in the street begging for nickles to buy himself a spliff to forget his misery.
-
If life were fair we would have a lot fewer laws. The guys at the top would see to that.
-
-
I'm a welfare recipient. Worked as an early-childhood music & movement specialist and piano teacher. Had to end a 7-year marriage. Oops. No gay marriage in America means no gay divorce. My ex took advantage of that legal reality, now I'm disabled due to PTSD. Equality, anyone?
-
Maybe after we give the welfare recipient a drug test we can spend some extra money for rehab and drug treatment if they test positive. Finding out if someone is using is an expensive prospect. -
There's no easy answer. If you take away the welfare, the children will be hurt the most. The parents may resort to crime to get money for drugs. The best thing is to put these people to work, even if it's just digging holes and filling them back in again. Make them work for their welfare checks and eventually some of them will decide to learn skills to get a decent job.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
