Do you feel welfare recipients should be drug tested? If so, why?

1. 83

   3amartposted 11 years ago

   Do you feel welfare recipients should be drug tested? If so, why?
   
   
   Clearly from the image below, I'm personally against drug testing for welfare. In fact, I can't think of one good reason to support it.
   I'm not looking to debate anyone, I'm interested in hearing other opinions on this, especially if you feel welfare recipients should be tested, I'd love to know why you feel that way.
   
   Something compelling besides , ""if I have to get drug tested at my work so do they."
   If you have an opinion, I'd love to hear your side.
   
   

   replyreport
2. 80

   Alphadogg16posted 11 years ago

   Initially I was for it.....but after further thought....It really doesn't matter and they should probably stop testing. If someone wants to do drugs, they will find a way around the system to do them & collect money. Obviously they would clean their system out before applying for benefits. So it probably is a waste of tax payers money.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      3amartposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you Alphadogg, that's an interesting turn of opinion!

      replyreport
3. 85

   Lee Teaposted 11 years ago

   I don't think drug tests should be allowed for anything under the pretense that you are considered guilty until you prove yourself innocent.  Drug tests should be illegal, drugs should not.  What you want to do with your person is up to you - if you end up affecting someone else because you're inebriated THEN that issue should be dealt with accordingly.  Welfare is given to financially poor people.  Just because they're poor doesn't mean they should be forced to give up their constitutional rights including being subject to illegal search and seizure, and of one's bodily fluids none the less.  Being poor and using drugs are two separate issues, and aren't issues unless they're actively interfering with the well being of another person. 
   
   Imagine all the additional people who could actually get work if they didn't have to pass a drug screen.  Then maybe they wouldn't need welfare.  While you may be thinking of druggie scum, I'm thinking of addicts who can't even begin to get themselves a better future because they're blocked out of the workforce this way.
   
   Critics who believe welfare is a privilege one should have to give up their civil liberties to obtain need to take that up with their government officials who decide to fund welfare, not the poor exercising the option presented to them by the government to receive help with their food bill.  If it were up to me, everyone would get food stamps.  One out of three people in the US get food stamps - let's just go all the way and give everyone free food.  Don't worry, there's more than enough in the military budget to better take care of us ALL here at home.
   
   The libertarian ethic ala Thomas Jefferson holds the idea that if I'm minding my own, then leave me alone.  Ahhh...freedom.  Wonder what that's like?
   
   Be well.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      3amartposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      .... or we could just tax religion and bring in another estimated 71 billion a year

      replyreport
4. 75

   loveofnightposted 11 years ago

   I honestly don't see what purpose it serves. If this testing is not done for the sake of helping people to better their lives than it just comes off as a tool being used to deny (those in need) what should be freely given.

   replyreport
5. 38

   Borsiaposted 11 years ago

   Only if there is some other indication that drugs are a problem.
   I would apply this to just about every place where public safety isn't at issue, including schools, workplaces and pretty much everything else.

   replyreport
6. 59

   taburkettposted 11 years ago

   when government provides the recipient with life sustainment, they believe that such sustainment should be properly administered by the recipient. utilizing drugs that endanger such sustainment is a violation of that belief.  therefore, the providing government wants to ensure that such endangerment is obviated.
   Like a parent to the child, the government demands moral sustainment.
   When rules are encountered, those that wish to participate in dangerous activities usually complain that it is unjust. However, the government like the parent always makes the case that "he who controls the gold, has the right to make the rules".
   This results in "welfare slavery" where the ignorant and disabled are victims of the system.  These enslaved individuals are totally vulnerable to the illegal drug scene for the same reason.
   If the individual desires to remove the constraints, then they should work to throw off the slavery that binds them to the constraints.  It is the individual that has the power, but while they remain under the slavery rolls, the government continues to encamp them.  This lifestyle has become too commonplace within the inner cities where evil hounds them and immoral activity breeds further slavery.
   The individual that rises above this slavery shakes off the chains of slavery that government and evil bind upon them.  But too often, the government and evil continue to entice them to stay within the slavery rolls so that the politicians and evil leaders can sustain their followers.
   Those who believe that welfare has assisted anyone without personal responsibility for advancement do not understand the slavery camps that have been created by the government program.  Many of these camps are led by the very politicians that receive government funds to support the slavery camps.
   The current leadership of the USA and many of the former politicians have made millions from this slavery effort.  The current ones continue to support the prior ones so that the slavery continues to expand under the guise of "fairness and equality".
   This is the lamest slogan, but is the easiest for the ignorant and disabled to accept as they wallow in the slavery regimes.  No relief is in motion for the slave as the government continues to grow its slave welfare programs to capture even more citizens in its evil net.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      3amartposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      good, good points. Thank you so much for your input.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      We tend to focus on the adults receiving checks instead of the innocent children who depend on the program. They didn't choose their parents! Should a Super Power nation turn it's back on children in order to punish their parents? It's a tough call.

      replyreport
7. 70

   dashingscorpioposted 11 years ago

   Our image of welfare in this country is generally someone who is irresponsible with their life and is abusing the system. The reality is the bulk of people dependent on welfare are CHILDREN.
   These children had (no say) on who would become their parents! Unless we can come up with a way to bypass their parents while providing a roof, food, and clothing for these children any punishment or reform handed down is likely to hurt the little innocent ones the most. In our present system it is impossible to cut welfare without negatively impacting children. The program is for them.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      3amartposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree completely. Even if a large percentage of recipients used drugs, what about the kids? For some of these children, the meals at school might be the only decent meals they get. If they are dropped from the benefit rolls, they will lose that mea

      replyreport
8. 67

   LandmarkWealthposted 11 years ago

   Welfare is supposed to be a means to help our fellow citizens get on their feet.  Not a resource to permanently sustain yourself.  So we can not expect one to go into the workforce where they will likely be drug tested as a new hire in many jobs if they can't pass the test.  Actively abusing narcotics relegates you back onto the gov't dole.   Additionally, drugs cost money.  Yet they are not an essential expense.  So why as a tax payer should I be expected to pay for you to abuse your body, when the purpose of welfare was to get you back on your feet.  If you have money for drugs, it should have been used for food, clothes or whatever else you require. 
   
   Personally, I am a believer that drugs should be legal.  Not because I thing they are a good thing.  But for economic reasons not pertaining to this question.  However, just because they are made legal doesn't mean an employer can't still restrict your employment for abusing them.  If you take a substance that impairs your ability to make decisions, you will likely still not get hired in most any job, regardless of the law.  Alcohol is perfectly legal.  But I will be damned if I was going to hire a drunk to work with my clients.   So the notion that passing a drug test is imposing on one's civil liberties is frankly ridiculous.  That would only be the case if you were a self sustaining individual sitting at home minding your own business.  But when you ask for a job from an employer, you are asking for their trust in you.  They have every right to question whether or not you ingest something that can impair your ability to make decisions that will ultimately affect their business.  And when you ask the taxpayer to contribute revenue derived from the fruits of their labor, they have every right to ask that you use that revenue productively. 
   
   The problem, is we have allowed elements in this country to convince us that drug abuse is a disease, when in fact it is a personal choice.  This view has subsidized and furthered the weakening of our society.  I would encourage anyone who thinks drugs are a disease to head down to the local oncology office and interview a patient with terminal pancreatic cancer.  See if they need a twelve step program to rid themselves of their disease if a cure was available.  This pervasive view has been an utter insult to people that have watched family members suffer with real diseases who never had a choice.

   replyreport