Mandatory Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients?

[goofyjim]

Illegal drug use ends up affecting everyone. Everyone should be open to testing, not just welfare recipients. Unless you think it is okay for the bus driver to be on drugs because he doesn’t get welfare.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

Illegal drug use ends up affecting everyone. Everyone should be open to testing, not just welfare recipients. Unless you think it is okay for the bus driver to be on drugs because he doesn’t get welfare.

no but the company or city or whoever is giving the driver money has the right to test him. if you are supporting someone you can expect them to stay clean. so as a taxpayer i dont think that is too much to ask.

 

[goofyjim]

no but the company or city or whoever is giving the driver money has the right to test him. if you are supporting someone you can expect them to stay clean. so as a taxpayer i dont think that is too much to ask.

What about the common driver ont he street? I am not supporting him but I certainly can expect him to stay clean, so he should be tested to guarantee a higher level o safety for me, regardless of whether he is on welfare or not.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

What about the common driver ont he street? I am not supporting him but I certainly can expect him to stay clean, so he should be tested to guarantee a higher level o safety for me, regardless of whether he is on welfare or not.

thats apples to oranges. now if you had to get tested to get or renew your liscense. that would be fine. it is a conditon of the process then. just like a drug test could be a condition on welfare. driving and welfare are privliges not rights, there is nothing wrong with regulating privliges. using illegal drugs is not a right or a privliege.

 

[bilop]

But why stop at welfare recipients. Everyone owes it to society to stay drug free. Everyone shoudl undergo mandatory drug testing. If you test positive you are required to go to a rehab or jail.

Your employer can drug test you. The welfare system is the de facto “employer” for the welfare recipient. I see no problem with testing. I also would favor mandatory work for able bodied recipients. Clean up parks, sweep the streets, etc.

God Bless

 

[That_one_guy]

Your employer can drug test you. The welfare system is the de facto “employer” for the welfare recipient. I see no problem with testing. I also would favor mandatory work for able bodied recipients. Clean up parks, sweep the streets, etc.

God Bless

The WPA,…work program of America. depression era welfare.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

The WPA,…work program of America. depression era welfare.

a job is better than a handout

 

[johnlal]

I’m assuming that the rationale would be, why are we giving a benefit to people who are doing drugs? That makes sense, but there are a lot of other people who should be tested as well – maybe for better reasons:

1. People applying for a or renewing drivers’ license: drug use can actually cause physical harm or death to innocent people if drivers are using. Why not subject drivers to random drug tests?
2. Parents: A lot of harm is inflicted on children by parents who use drugs. Additionally, pregnant mothers can cause severe problems to their children if using drugs. Why not subject parents to random drug tests in order to qualify them for keeping their children? And drug test people who are capable of reproducing. If they test positive, sterilize them.
3. Gun owners: It goes without saying that one should be sober when using a gun. You don’t want anybody to do a “Cheney”. Subject all gun owners to random drug tests. Do spot breathalyzer tests for hunters. If they fail the test, take their guns.

Seriously, though. Drug addicts are sometimes very unfortunate people who need assistance moreso than others. Furthermore, they sometimes have children who can’t provide for themselves. I personally think that children should be taken away from drug addicts if their parents’ habits pose a threat to their safety. Unfortunately, if we did that to every child with addicted parents, we would be paying MORE to support those children in a foster home or facility. Yes, we would require the drug-addict parents to pay for their children’s support, but guess what? They don’t always do what they’re told. Then what happens? The parents get sent to jail and the taxpayer supports them as well.

 

[johnlal]

But not everyone is being given money from the public treasury.

Test Wall Street Bankers? They’re getting more welfare than poor people are.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

1. Gun owners: It goes without saying that one should be sober when using a gun. You don’t want anybody to do a “Cheney”. Subject all gun owners to random drug tests. Do spot breathalyzer tests for hunters. If they fail the test, take their guns.

ok, first off gun ownership is a person’s constitional right, welfare is not.

however as an avid hunter i know for a fact that if a game warden suspects you have been drinking or drugging they have the authority to test you or take you for a blood test. and they will do it, i had to go through a random check point back in december, and the guys in front of me got busted for being drunk.

so that one really isnt an issue. most hunters would agree that you enjoy yourself after, and are more responsible than that. but since we are already subject to random tests when hunting i dont see this as helping your argument.

 

[bilop]

The WPA,…work program of America. depression era welfare.

It goes back further than that. 19th to early 20th century charity (government and private) always required work from the able bodied.

If someone showed up at a charity for a meal they would be asked to chop wood (men) or do some sewing or cleaning (women) to pay for their meal.

This is an excellent book on how modern “charity” has gone wrong by turning charity into a “right”.

amazon.com/Tragedy-American-Compassion-Marvin-Olasky/dp/0891078630

God Bless

 

[johnlal]

19th to early 20th century charity (government and private) always required work from the able bodied.

What if they don’t work? Or what if the drugs render them unemployable? Do their children go hungry?

 

[bilop]

What if they don’t work? Or what if the drugs render them unemployable? Do their children go hungry?

Put them to work. There is always a park that needs cleaning, or an elderly person who could use someone to shop for them.

God Bless

 

[johnlal]

however as an avid hunter i know for a fact that if a game warden suspects you have been drinking or drugging they have the authority to test you or take you for a blood test…so that one really isnt an issue.

Suspicion? The original post asks if we should do mandatory drug testing on ALL people who receive welfare, whether there’s any suspicion or not. Why would you test everybody in the case of welfare recipient, but only test suspects in the case of somebody wielding a deadly weapon? It seems the latter poses more of a threat than the former.

 

[johnlal]

Put them to work. There is always a park that needs cleaning, or an elderly person who could use someone to shop for them.

God Bless

Very Dickensian of you to require these children to go to work. Heartless.

 

[bilop]

Very Dickensian of you to require these children to go to work. Heartless.

Not the children, the parents!

 

[johnlal]

Not the children, the parents!

I was just kiddin’ around on that one.

But what if (as I posited in my earlier post), the parents don’t show up to clean the park? Then what? Criminals have a habit of not being where they’re told to go.

Bottom line-- What if they refuse to go, or are so drugged up that they would be useless at the end of a rake?

If you cut off their welfare their children go hungry.
If you send them to jail, you’re still supporting the whole family.

(BTW, I wouldn’t want drug addicts to go shopping with my elderly parents. Likewise, I’m not real happy about gangs of them in the public parks).

 

[aggiecatholic05]

Suspicion? The original post asks if we should do mandatory drug testing on ALL people who receive welfare, whether there’s any suspicion or not. Why would you test everybody in the case of welfare recipient, but only test suspects in the case of somebody wielding a deadly weapon? It seems the latter poses more of a threat than the former.

because like i said having a gun is a constitional right and welfare isnt. and the poster i was replying too suggested making hunters subject to random testing, so i was addressing my answer to that.

if however you wanted to make anyone actively engaged in the sport of hunting subject to a random on the spot test, id see no problem with that. it just becomes one of the conditions of that activity. in the same way that random testing while on welfare could be just a part of that system. either way if you dont like it then do something else.

 

[bilop]

I was just kiddin’ around on that one.

But what if (as I posited in my earlier post), the parents don’t show up to clean the park? Then what? Criminals have a habit of not being where they’re told to go.

Bottom line-- What if they refuse to go, or are so drugged up that they would be useless at the end of a rake?

If you cut off their welfare their children go hungry.
If you send them to jail, you’re still supporting the whole family.

(BTW, I wouldn’t want drug addicts to go shopping with my elderly parents. Likewise, I’m not real happy about gangs of them in the public parks).

If they are that irresponsible, you take their children away. An orphanage is better than a drug addict mom.

If someone is a hard core drug addict, you have them do supervised work.

Helping the elderly would be restricted to the non-troubled welfare recipients (think single mothers).

Most welfare recipients are not criminals or drug addicts. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be required to work.

As St. Paul said “If a man will not work, neither shall he eat.”

God Bless

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

I don’t see drug & alcohol testing as being a serious problem where welfare recipients are concerned. It could serve to make sure that the money is being used for what it is intended. I’m not sure that the ACLU would agree with me though, in fact I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t!

But one issue at hand is the who/what/when/where. This is a cumbersome project. I know this for a fact as I am one of those people who carries a CDL-A w/XT endorsements…and I am involved directly in the movement of hazardous materials on a daily basis. I am covered under the auspices of 49CFR and other rules. I am subject to testing at any time, for cause, for suspicion, and if there is an accident involving injuries or damages above a $ amount or if a vehicle is towed from the scene.

There are specific requirements as to where, when and how the testing is done. It involves solely certified personnel and requires a very sound and set chain of evidence. It is not an inexpensive operation…and it generally requires the “over-nighting” of the samples by air express to a limited number of laboratories that are certified.

A simple violation of the chain of evidence or a mixing of the samples can cause false positives or false negatives. It is far more cumbersome and expensive than one might imagine.

I think that if you were to invoke this type of testing…you would create both a financial and logistical nightmare. The time involved and the personnel requirements would be staggering, not to mention the court battles over “privacy” and so on. It is one thing to levy the requirements on people who understand that their livelihood and even careers depend on compliance, but you would be dealing with persons who are not likely to be amenable to the testing…and who even if clean as a whistle…would resent being forced to report to be tested and wait in a clinic…

I wouldn’t suggest it.

Hay read your subject over and see how much sense you don’t make not to mention the expense.Are you trying to prove how intellegent you arn’t?