-16 votes

UPDATED : Should people receiving welfare be required to take manditory drug tests?

I am curious as to what your thoughts are on this issue.

Should people that receive welfare have to take random drug tests?

I see that some here have taken this to extreme and actually avoided the question. I actually disagree with most comments here thus far!

Let's forget there shouldn't be welfare, we all know this but we have it so stick to the question at hand.

My personal opinion is this; If you are receiving taxpayer money to survive you are no longer free from restriction, we the tax payers are your employer although you do no work for your money. If you are using our money for anything other than survival that money should be taken away period. If you work and earn your own money and you want to blow it on drugs, booze, gambling, whatever feel free to do so, but, not with my tax dollars.

Private employers require drug testing to keep you employed I see this as no difference.

If you are taking taxpayer money you should have restrictions.

I have seen some people saying private employers should not drug test and guilty until proven innocent; really; that is your case?

I also believe that since we have this system their should be restrictions on the number of dependents we pay for; ie; 2 kids max! Meaning that if you got in with 2 kids we will not increase your benefits for more children. No we are not going to deny you having kids we are just simply not going to pay for them.

The fact is welfare allows people to not be responsible for their actions and actually causes people to act irresponsible.

# 1 : Private business has the right to do whatever they wish to protect their business which include drug testing, forget about the legal, illegal aspect, drugs alter the mind and anyone who thinks different is flat out wrong! If drugs were legal most business owners would still enforce a drug test policy, Now, you have the right to not work at this place of employment if you choose but it is required and the right of the business owner to enforce drug policy or just about any other policy.

# 2 : When you receive welfare that means you don't work and you use my tax money to survive; therefore, you are under my employ and everyone else who pays taxes employ.

# 3 : Don't compare SS with welfare that is apples to oranges, people actually paid into SS through the fruits of their labor and are only attempting to get back the money they put in WELFARE requires no payback period!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

RESTATED: Should people posting comments...

..be required to take mandatory spelling tests?

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

No

but those that post OPs should have to take spelling tests.

Start with the politicains.

Start with the politicains. Once we get them cleaned up then move to employees, and any other direct indivdual beneficary of govt funds.

Liberty = Responsibility

No because the welfare that

No because the welfare that the poor people in the ghetto get is miniscule compared to the welfare that the Military Industrial Complex, the Banks, and all the other major corporations get.

deacon's picture

A question for a question

Do people lose their rights under the const if taking welfare?
If they do work for us,as you have stated,then where are your questions
about drugs/welfare.working for us/as it concerns the ones who are sitting in office?,and ALL forms of gov created by the ones sitting in office?
d

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

No

So what are you going to do if they are found to be using ? Starve their kids ? put them in Jail. It will be way more expensive when you add the costs of the tests, taking care of their family/kids, and putting th user in Jail.

Neverquit you are misguided.

Welfare doesn't help the poor it puts them there. Don't think for 1 second that they are eating off of your tax money. Welfare just as Ebt is 10times better then the military industrial complex. 10times better then giving money to the banks at negative interest rate. Of course welfare doesn't work for the poor, I can argue it helps the rich. And if you have been listening to Dr Paul you should know this. If not I suggest you do a little of reading.

of course this should be required

Anything that adds ANOTHER LAYER OF COST/EXPENSE to bureaucracy is a good thing!~

Just, NEVER, talk about cutting costs, whatever you do.

Drug testing welfare

Drug testing welfare recipients is just a pure waste of money. Do pretty much anything else with those funds.

Here's the problem

It's not that tax eaters deserve to be free from conditions on their check. They don't.

The problem is that this will be another precedent they will use against productive people. While of course that will happen anyway, accepting this expansion of intrusion by the government will speed up the process.

Another big problem is that this reinforces the idea that drug use is somehow the business of the government. Personally I don't care if they get high. I care that they aren't looking for work. Simply you should get a 5% (or maybe 10%?) reduction in your check per month. That would solve it. You should feel it every month that you are stealing from your fellow man. If we have to have it we shouldn't cut it off cold, but we shouldn't have it forever.

But I do not buy the 'it's not effective' argument about drug testing. It's not effective because it's designed to not be effective. If it had teeth it would be effective. If you had to pee every time you picked up your check, and if you failed you didn't get a check that month, it would certainly be effective.

Work Camp

by user ^^^

...

I think it depends on if the welfare is a requirement. If you're forced into a welfare system, you shouldn't bear additional restrictions. I know of someone in Germany who didn't want welfare, but he didn't want medical insurance either. If you don't pay medical insurance there, the government will help themselves to your bank account because it's required. So since he didn't want to buy the insurance he couldn't afford, he accepted the welfare so that he wouldn't be the one paying for the insurance he never wanted. But that put travel restrictions on him, because people on welfare are required to stay in the city they live in. It seems problematic that people can be forced into situations like that. If they can be forced into something with restrictions attached, then they can be forced into those restrictions. It only takes some situational adjustment for the corrupt to take advantage of the system.

So I suppose the real government employees

get drug testing too, right? All the way up to Mr. President himself. Because that would only be fair.

Welfare recipients will use their money unwisely. It's a given. They will make bad decisions. That is very often exactly why they are on welfare. Either quit giving them the money or forget about how they will use it. Their poverty is not our excuse to dictate to them.

You mentioned a limit on children. Children are not luxuries. Why would you penalize families with more than two unless your worldview was geared to population reduction? Make the restrictions tighter to weed out able bodies- not children. Or reduce the overall benefits for all children evenly.

Don't you think

there are enough laws already? What would be next? Strap them down for blood tests? Oh wait they're already doing that in some states for traffic violations! Why stop there? Anyways, NO!

There should be no State run welfare.

.

Absolutely not

The government doesn't give you a drug test to deem you fit for paying taxes.

no

no

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

But just what are you really trying to say?

I think I might be on the verge of understanding.
Could you be just a little more clear?

In a few of the states that

In a few of the states that do this, it's proved to be a giant waste of time and even more of a waste to taxpayer money. It's something like 1% of welfare recipients testing positive which means you're spending more money trying to "catch" people who aren't there.

Welfare Program Should Not Exist

The Welfare program is not a necessary program for 90% of the recipients IMO.

1. Most of the people who receive welfare programs are not receiving them due to physical or mental disabilities which would prevent them from functioning in a positive manner benefiting society. There are millions on welfare who can sit and play computer games every day but claim they can't do computer work.

2. The welfare system has been bloating every year since our colonies imported British Poor Laws. We all know families or people who are on programs.

3. Even during the great depression there was government work camps which offered labor in exchange for stamps for food to workers. Work involved forestry and farming work. This kept a lot of families from starving, and offered a rewarding opportunity to those who were willing to do something other than sit on their booty.

4. I personally believe that the cost of testing welfare recipients would be more expensive than the money you would save. A study in Florida was conducted which supports this belief. But the study fell short because they didn't test every welfare program as well as housing programs.

Re: #3

I almost think work camps might be worse than pure handouts. In a work camp the gov is competing with private industry. This would threaten a free market.

Work Camp

That is not what work camps were doing. Most were into forestry services planting trees, doing logging work on national forests. Back in those days the government didn't hire contractors to win no bid contracts for doing the work. Thats part of the problem, with a government that can't control their spending problems.

Private persons or companies

should have been allowed to harvest and maintain the forests as part of a lease. Maybe something like the Bundy ranch. More land under the stewardship of more people. This is the answer to poverty.

Can you imagine how much real estate would actually cost if the government didn't own so much? The Federal government alone owns over a quarter of the land in the USA. If more land was on the market, the price would go down and more people could afford their own homes and fields. These places could yield food, provide security, and be the basis for new businesses and better living conditions.

I just can't like the sound of a "work camp" run by the government.

No.

For all of the reasons you have excluded from the discussion.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Why?

So we know our taxpayer money is being spent...wisely?

Why did the gov't take your money in the first place. If they didn't, wouldn't there be more in the hands of private charities? To which you say, "Well, since they are going to take it anyway, might as well be used for..." Isn't this sort of like saying, "Well, the mob boss already stole the local businesses money, we should at least make sure he is investing in locally." The crime has already been committed, what's worse is to actually BENEFIT those doing the crime by allowing them to regulate it.

Case 1. Local grocery stores here in Indiana accept food stamps (which only allow for certain foods to be purchased). The food stamp is used to purchase said food, then the citizen promptly returns all the food they purchased at the returns counter (I guess we are creating a demand for 2 jobs!) and gets an in store debit card (which can be used for anything). Beer and cigarettes are then purchased. This happens every day.

Regulation just adds to the legislative nightmare that is our gov't. This is a simple case of great intentions, poor outcomes, all in all netting less to the consumer and growing the gov't. Whats worse is since that welfare money is now more strictly regulated (because there are costs of maintaining this structure), less of it goes to the welfare recipient, which in turn requires more taxpayer money to accomplish the same net effect.

Also, there is a question of legislating morality. What drugs are bad? All drugs? What about painkillers? What about if you get a doctor's note? Shouldn't we require them to go to church as well. Studies show... What about community service, financial planning courses? Where does it end? "To which you say, well, it wouldn't be perfect, but, it would be better." Better how? This is what happens when a gov't handles your money. I think welfare is great, but, it can't come from the gov't.

No.

Poor people have the right to privacy too, and studies have shown that it doesn't save any money.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Contract ?

When you accept taxpayer monies there should be some sort of contract in force to deal with such questions.

Is there a contract in force when one goes on welfare ?
If so let us amend said contract.

Liberty and contracts what more do we really need ?

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

No welfare

No drug test

Just legalize the opium ,

Just legalize the opium , coca and cannibis plant allready , the drug war makes no sense

A 'perfectly normal' woman once told me

any woman who receives welfare and/or food stamps for her & her kids should have to submit to sterilization to receive benefits. I was shocked and appalled (this woman was a Democrat by the way).

So - drug testing? Why stop there (sarc)? What other restrictions could be put on people before they get welfare? Alcohol testing? Tobacco? Sugary cereals or treats? What if they run a stoplight or break the speed limit? Those activities are illegal. Can they cuss? Jaywalk?

Who gets to decide what rules of conduct a person has to abide by to get welfare? The woman who would require sterilization?

I think we can choose to help people or not, but it doesn't give us the right to control their life. Give them options for self-help, yes. Use of drugs does not mean they bought them. Also does not mean their ability to work is necessarily impaired. What about false-positives?

I do think there should be time limits according to what they are doing voluntarily to help themselves out of the situation. By that I mean participation in their choice of voluntary education, training, drug or other physical rehab, perhaps help with moving to an area that has more job possibilities... ?

I think time limits - and taking part in *their choice* from a variety of actually helpful programs that would help them become self-sufficient would be reasonable but not drug testing.