Mandatory Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients?

[goofyjim]

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.

In the end you could justify testing everyone. Honestly, some posters here feel as long as you are not collecting welfare you have a right to do drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The danger drugs do to those who use them and those who befriend the users is too great. Yet at the same time noone just chooses to use drugs without soem underlying emotional cause which needs to be addressed. And if you have tough emotional issues it would be wrong to assume you can work and yank that welfare away.

 

[goofyjim]

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

St. Paul was not addressing those who have emotional issues that prevent them from working.

 

[bilop]

St. Paul was not addressing those who have emotional issues that prevent them from working.

I fail to see what emotional issue could prevent one from doing simple manual work.

The importance of the work is not that it adequately “earn” the welfare/charity benefit. The importance is to maintain the dignity of the recipient, and to build a work ethic rather than a dependency situation.

God Bless

 

[goofyjim]

I fail to see what emotional issue could prevent one from doing simple manual work.

The importance of the work is not that it adequately “earn” the welfare/charity benefit. The importance is to maintain the dignity of the recipient, and to build a work ethic rather than a dependency situation.

God Bless

Have you ever experienced schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? Before they are treated and even sometimes afterward, they make it impossible to work. They have no intention of being dependent on welfare but it should not be taken away and these conditions should be treated as physiological ailment which much like a physical injury prevents on from manual work.

 

[johnlal]

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

If that’s the case, then why should we waste taxpayers’ money on drug testing all welfare recipients, as the original post suggested?

 

[seremina]

I have a problem with the idea that drug testing is needed in order to get public assistance. The problem is this:

What if it dings you with a false-positive? Its happened before. Its happening similarly at the border. I’ll illustrate with some true examples.

1. A person ate a Poppy Seed muffin for breakfast, and coffee. The person goes to work and finds out there’s a urine test on that day. The test is done. The employer fires the employee because the test showed the person was an opium smoker *. Poppy Seed items tend to make your test positive this way, as do certain other foods and drinks.
2. A person is back in the USA and eager to get home. The person is pulled over for minor speeding. The policement notices the luggage and inspects it. The luggage has the usual traveling stuff, yet the policeman takes the natural soap that was with the toiletries. He gets it tested. The test shows it positive as drugs. This has happened to people with all-natural products, not just this one person.

Google about false-positives and shoddily-made tests. You’ll be surprised at how many get ripped off by testing. They are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but they get hurt by the testing. These people typically have no drugs and have not done any. Add to that, the cost of testing seems dumb when the money could go towards those that need it.
*

 

[LilyM]

Well, anyone who’s seen the news lately would know Michael Phelps has admitted to using cannabis.

He’d have to be one of THE most frequently and extensively drug-tested people on the planet, basically because just about everyone else would love to prove that he was on performance-enhancing drugs.

Of course elite athletes are also tested for the recreational kind just as stringently - we Aussies had an athlete years ago who was disqualified simply for testing positive for high levels of caffeine. And yet this cannabis was never picked up in a test, even though THC lingers in your system for weeks after use.

Then there’s Marion Jones - again extensively drug tested, and never failed a drug test in her life, only admitted to using after she’d retired from sport.

Moral of the story - there would appear to be huge holes in even very stringent drug-testing regimes. So they wouldn’t be nearly as useful for practical purposes as people seem to think they are.

 

[pol]

mmm I can’t believe the answers, ignorance and lack of charity here.
I work with people on welfare. It is NOT their choice. The current economic meltdown _caused by our stupendous greed - will see many more seeking government help.
If anyone chooses to have a drug and remember this as you choke on that cigarette or choke on the ice in your whiskey so be it. Maybe they need help from addiction.
Why don’t we test all auto workers - as the govt pours billions into that industry - or the oil worker or numerous other industries that benefit from some government assistance.

Enjoy your drug in moderation I just hope it’s charity and faith in our Lord.

unbelievable!

 

[kesa82]

I despise the welfare state, so let’s proceed to the more important issue.
Let’s have mandatory drug testing for those who can say with a strait face that drug testing isn’t blatantly, disgustingly, outrageously, obscenely, mockingly, contemptibly , degradingly, perversely, impertinently , insulting.

I would be less insulted if you asked to ***** my wife. At least that would be understandable, if not commendable.
How far we have sunk.

 

[vz71]

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

A test for intelligence would be better suited for that group.

 

[vz71]

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.

Hasn’t precedent already been set for removing the children from parents that neglect them?

 

[johnlal]

Hasn’t precedent already been set for removing the children from parents that neglect them?

Yes, but that system is very depenent on welfare funds. This proposal wouldn’t lower the public cost of welfare, it would increase it:

1. It would add a new layer of bureaucracy on an already burdened welfare system-- to provide mandatory, costly, and often unnecessary drug screening to individuals based only on their need for public assistance-- at the taxpayers’ expense.
2. If the program is successful in finding drug users, then it further burdens the legal system and the foster care and foster care facility systems, which are already overburdened.

If the goal is to lower taxpayers’ burden, this won’t do it.
Let the medical and correctional systems concentrate on the war on drugs. They have the best tools for doing that. Let the welfare system do it’s job of providing a minimal level of support to those in need.

 

[bilop]

If that’s the case, then why should we waste taxpayers’ money on drug testing all welfare recipients, as the original post suggested?

Because, for those people (let’s say 20%), giving them cash benefits is actively harming them. Presumably the purpose of any welfare system or charity is to actually improve peoples lives, not just assuage society’s feelings.

If you just give an addict free money, you only deepen their troubles. They need to be tested and compelled to seek treatment as a condition for receiving help.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

Have you ever experienced schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? Before they are treated and even sometimes afterward, they make it impossible to work. They have no intention of being dependent on welfare but it should not be taken away and these conditions should be treated as physiological ailment which much like a physical injury prevents on from manual work.

Are these people capable of taking care of themselves? If not, they need to be in some sort of residential treatment program, which should include a work component.

If they can shop, cook, clean and care for themselves, then they are capable of simple manual labor.

I’m not saying you cut off their benefits if they don’t show up one day. But, there needs to be expectations set that a recipient of charity will make a good faith effort to do everything in their power to help improve their situation.

That includes taking their prescribed medication and participating in some sort of work (if only to improve their self image).

Modern society grossly underestimates the value of the dignity earned through work.

God Bless

God Bless

 

[bilop]

If the goal is to lower taxpayers’ burden, this won’t do it.
Let the medical and correctional systems concentrate on the war on drugs. They have the best tools for doing that. Let the welfare system do it’s job of providing a minimal level of support to those in need.

My goal is not to lower costs, it is to craft a welfare system that actually improves peoples’ lives and gets them out of dependency.

God Bless

 

[vz71]

1. It would add a new layer of bureaucracy on an already burdened welfare system-- to provide mandatory, costly, and often unnecessary drug screening to individuals based only on their need for public assistance.

Not at all.
Mandatory training based upon the use of public assistance.
I imagine one would be more then welcome to opt out of welfare and the testing.

 

[vz71]

1. If the program is successful in finding drug users, then it further burdens the legal system and the foster care and foster care facility systems, which are already overburdened.

Let’s not jump the gun on the use of these test.
Simply using the test to determine if benefits are allowed is just fine.
Besides, if the legal system is truly overburdened finding these criminals then there should be another approach taken to the legal system .

 

[Spire]

Mandatory Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients?

1. Yes I am
2. Where does it say that those caught with illegal narcotics in their system are to be starved, beat and murdered? And for the children, the same.

It doesn’t.

A number of reasonable punishments can be administered. Or alternatively steps to help solve the problem.

 

[pol]

Ask where would Jesus be or where is he now? With the least of us.
I see one recipient marks drug takers as criminals.
Well maybe then we need to change the laws. Just as has been done in some mature societies. They label drug addiction more correctly as a health issue. Result is better clean up rates less prisons being built(so less tax payer money there) less drug related crimes the scorn of the drug kings and lower ratings for fox no doubt!

Get educated, in life, health, politics, justice and your religion. We are (supposed to be)the religion/s of love. Lets do what God wants - love - even the least of us!

We are all the same souls.

Maybe mention your prejudice next time in the confessional.
Just a thought.

May Gods mercy shine on you and soften our hearts!

 

[Spire]

If you are taking illegal narcotics or selling illegal narcotics, that is a crime. Which makes you a law breaker, a criminal.

Add in the fact tax payers are supporting them, this does not bode well.