Do you think people on welfare need to give a drug test?

Post Reply New Topic

Only if they've had a history of drug abuse would I agree that it would be necessary. Otherwise, it is pointless. If it is true that people on welfare are less likely to abuse drugs then testing actual drug abusers won't cost the taxpayers that much. By freely giving welfare money to people who have a strong chance of using the money to buy drugs, we will be helping the underground market for illegal substances.

The only reason welfare exists is because of the flawed capitalist market that creates pockets of disparity while championing that it brings prosperity to all. Without welfare, we'd be a lot worse off as a nation. Therefore, I don't want to make it harder for the general person to access welfare so no drug tests for them!

NO as its simply targeting one group in a population, its creating a soft target by discriminating against one group of drug addicts when you do that!

I think that resources of time and money can be put to better use in the field of substance dependence by providing more research into the subject and the provision of treatment for those who choice to tackle there addictions.

I don't see how a drug test would help someone with a history of drug abuse....considering addiction is actually an illness, why should someone with an illness like that be barred from services they need on account of their illness? I mean I am pretty sure putting someone who struggles with substance abuse under even more stress by withholding help unless they can prove they're totally clean(maybe a bit unlikely if they have a susbstance abuse problem) is likely to contribute to their relapse. But in order to explain all this totally accurately it would take a while.

You don't want to make life harder for the general person, but you want to make it harder for people with problems?

I'd also like to add that testing for drugs is against the fourth amendment's protection for unreasonable search. It is unreasonable to think a person trying to get on welfare has a high chance of using drugs. Even though many people think otherwise. Therefore, trying to get a drug test for all people is against the fourth amendment.

Many judges in the United States have used this to strike down past laws where welfare recipients were required to pass a drug test.

It is, however, reasonable to think a drug abuser with a history of drug abuse would need to be searched for drugs so it does not intrude on their fourth amendment rights.

I don't see welfare drug testing as fascism. The fundamental problem here is that welfare is funded from voting taxpayers.

Trafficking, possession and use of marijuana is illegal. Does the public wish to enable someone who is engaging in criminal activity? That would be a moot point if marijuana was legalized or if the use was for legal, therapeutic purposes. But this is difficult in that the majority are unwilling to push for its legalization.

Also, public opinion of marijuana use and marijuana users is generally negative. How much of that idea is rooted in reality or propaganda is a matter of debate, but this truth still holds. And as long as that is the predominant view, it is unfair to ask taxpayers to support what most people see as bad behavior.

And it's not just about marijuana use--apply it to any kind of illicit drug. We know that some drugs are highly addictive and contribute to self-destructive behavior. And there are also those who would choose to starve if it meant getting a fix (although welfare can include EBT/food stamps). Being denied a means to support bad, self-destructive behavior (one would think) would mean more people would choose behaviors that are beneficial over behaviors that are harmful. If one is charged with the task of supporting himself away from taxpayer funding, then no one cares quite as much as they would otherwise. He can do whatever he wants. We hear about prostitutes all the time who sell their bodies to support a habit. I'm not in favor of legalized prostitution, either, but at least it takes the burden off the taxpayers! In fact, a friend of mine at one point was being forced by her husband to work as a stripper so he wouldn't have to work, and for a while there had been some heavy drug use involved. Once she got a divorce, she was able to continue dancing AND receive limited benefits to support her 3 children. She's living with a boyfriend (who treats her well) but won't get married because she knows she'll lose the money if she does. Last I heard she's not even dancing anymore, but at least she's clean and is raising her daughters in a good environment.

I know another family in the same trailer park I live in who have three kids and the mother doesn't work and the father doesn't have steady work. They are constantly trying to bum money off us or con us into taking them out to eat. I've seen them run bar tabs in excess of $100, I've seen them go bar-hopping, and I see the mother constantly drinking hard liquor and chain smoking when she's NOT going out. I KNOW she's lied in order to receive benefits, and on top of all that they are constantly complaining about how they don't know where the rent money is coming from. Here's a hint: Quit freekin' drinkin' and smokin'! !! !

Bear in mind I'm not opposed to drinking in moderation and at appropriate times. But my wife and I together quit drinking back in September, and it was like we got pay-raises. My wife also recently lost her job due to a cutback at her office, so we understand what it is like to apply for unemployment and EBT. We know what it is like to talk about cutting off cable/internet at home, even scheduling the hours of a day when we run the AC. And we know what it is like to actually hit the ground looking for another job. I, for one, failed at teaching at three different schools--OBVIOUSLY I'm the common denominator here. I went into business for myself as a private piano tutor, get solo gigs, play in a band, and handle a variety of instrumentalist tasks at church. The money is pretty bad, but it's SOMETHING. The fact that there might be those who aren't interested in the least in trying to find employment but would rather spend the money they do get on illegal drugs is offensive to us.

If there's no work available, fine. But that doesn't mean you can't at least try every week to do SOMETHING. Handing out money from public funds to support bad habits just isn't the way to go. Show the public that you are honestly trying to contribute to society and not stealing from society, and society will be more willing to trust, respect, and help you.

The problem with giving money to a drug abuser is that they will use the money to buy more drugs. Therefore, by giving them money, we are only furthering the problem not helping it.

From everything I've learned about drug abusers, the money wouldn't be going into rent or possibly not even food in the most extreme cases. I wish I could just say, "I trust a drug abuser would use my taxpayer money to provide themselves with their basic needs." but the addiction is so strong I think we both know that they wouldn't.

I've had many family members who have had drug issues. Drug abusers will lie, cheat, and steal because of that habit. Giving them money, any money at all, is a bad idea.

It's unreasonable in light of the 4th amendment so far as the extent to which they could be prosecuted. If it's unreasonable search and seizure, then they can't use that to prosecute someone for possession. I'm not sure the 4th amendment would really apply to welfare benefits.

And that's what it seems to come down to......I mean its not as though its not mostly common knowledge that a lot of times drug abuse and poverty are not uncommon to see together. So yeah it would look like discrimination to me if they required drug tests.

So by barring them access to all government resources is an appropriate 'punishment' for an addict not being able to control their drug habit on their own? I'm not saying just hand drug addicts a check......I mean I say maybe they need help if its really tearing their life apart. Another thing though is not everyone on welfare who would show up positive is even an 'addict'. I really don't see what would be so wrong about someone on disability using some of that money for say marijuana if that helps their symptoms for instance....why should they be subject to a drug test and be stripped of all resources when they fail over a little pot for instance?

But yeah I feel like addicts need help........not hate and stigma, though it would seem the government tends to disagree. Also I would argue not all addicts even steal or cheat. I'm addicted to cigarettes and you don't see me out stealing stereos for my nicotine fix....stealing is one possible manifestation of drug addiction when they get to the point they are so addicted to their brain they 'have' to get money regardless of how or terrible things will happen(this is their perspective not nessisarly the reality) though there are some drugs were the withdrawl can kill you.

But another point how again would kicking people off welfare for not passing a drug test, reduce the rate of stealing among addicts.....the more desperate they are for money the more likely they'd be to steal. Uhh the whole system is just flawed but for now I will just be glad drug tests are not a requirement to get help at this time.

Yes I agree, its clearly a misconception to see a simple correlation between poverty and drug use. Drug users who experiences poverty already have enough with challenges in accessing resources eg., housing, employment and education. A well off drug abuser will have an easier time of things in accessing addiction treatment.

I would imagine that welfare drug tests would create another obstacle for the poor in accessing resources plus a distrust in the system for thoses drug users who wish to recover. The key issue here is the stigmatization of human begins who have an illness and face poverty.

No. I don't think drug tests should be done for anyone without good reason and even then it should be done discreetly.

Drug use is at all levels in society, and if we include nicotine and alcohol (which we should) then it is almost universal. Testing people for it would be pointless.

If they start doing this then perhaps we can demand that Bankers are tested for cocaine use before they are allowed to gamble our money away.

Also you know what I never was very good at living up to the expectations of the public or society as I prefer to say....and I got treated like crap for it by teachers and other kids and well its taken place since I've been an adult to. So why should I make it my life goal to prove to the public that I am trying to contribute to their welfare when I just get told I'm a parasite for not being able to function in their society but still needing to survive none the less.

So I suppose we disagree then....on most of that.

Yeah I would say it's only fair they be tested for cocaine use, if they start requiring drug tests for welfare.

They should also test for caffine........then I wonder if they will actually run into this excuse:

Politicians and company CEOs should be given psychological exams regularly.

If I can, I'll try to respond to the bolded part later, but fyi it's useful and easier to read and respond to if you break up quotes. What I do is just copy the quote tag and paste it in right before the quoted section and end it with a /quote (in brackets). Then all I have to do is just type in between the quotes. To make it easier on myself, sometimes I'll insert several blank lines so I can keep them all straight and just delete them right before posting.

Believe it or not, I do feel your pain here. You get one person who is jealous of you and suddenly you have social workers knocking at your door trying to take your kids away. Been there. Just when I've gotten used to the idea that people treat each other like human beings once they hit adulthood. I also know that there are varying levels of acceptance depending on where you are. I felt more at home in Northern New York than I ever have in my native Mississippi. I know what it's like as a kid to be pushed around by the more affluent kids and be the one the teachers punish instead of the ones pushing me around.

What I'm talking about has really little to do with fitting in with society or anyone's expectations, but rather more a matter of law and order along with maintaining a generally healthier society. I'm not in favor of wholesale elimination of welfare, but if we have a government that is strapped for cash, something has got to give. Let's suppose, for instance, that those who use money from benefits to continue bad behavior really are in a tiny minority. If they are engaging in self-destructive behavior, breaking the law, and possibly doing harm to others, it would do everyone a favor to get rid of anything that would enable those behaviors. Now if someone shows that they are capable of cleaning themselves up and at least making the effort at contributing positively to society, I'm all for helping them out.


It's not about trying to prove anything to anybody OTHER than that you legitimately need welfare. After all, you shouldn't really be doing anything other than providing the most basic needs (food, shelter), and I for one know from personal experience that it doesn't really take that much to do. Let's say I was single. I would need a basic one-bedroom loft--less than $300 rent. I would need electricity--we'll say about $200 on average. Running water--$50. My part-time church gig alone would cover that much. Add to that $100 for food, $200 for gasoline, and another $100 for odds and ends. My evening piano lesson schedule would ALMOST cover that, and I probably average about one weekend gig a month, which would cover all my basics. That doesn't count the students I have during the regular workday--which brings in somewhere around another $250 a month. So, just by myself, I do ok. Sure, I fight for every penny I get, but that's just the way life is.

Many people below the poverty line can go section 8 housing, i.e. the "projects," which is almost like living rent-free. You can also cash in on your tax returns if you had to buy a new vehicle or if you have a baby. The problem that most people have with welfare is this perception that that welfare people are lazy or do not want to work. If you consider that sometimes welfare benefits pay out more than an entry-level job, it's not all that surprising to find so many people willing to abuse the system. "Entitlement Programs" need to be renamed "Enablement Programs" for all the good they really do.

If you genuinely are unable to work for whatever reason, I have no issue at all with supporting you with my money. I really don't. If all you are doing with my money is tweaking while you figure out how to get your next high, I'm less inclined to be sympathetic. And I think people who pay into the system deserve to know what they're money is going to support.


I don't know about all that. I'm not speaking about people who either genuinely can't help themselves or who, like I have, find themselves in a rough patch from time to time. I learned the hard way that I'm unable to hold a "real job." I count myself fortunate that I have options. I don't blame people for trying and failing to live up to some social standard. Whether we like it or not, we ARE part of society and are confronted with the painful task of finding our own way in it, around it, or through it. But regardless of our own predispositions, we do owe it to the public to try our best to at least be decent human beings if we're living on public assistance. And I do believe that part of that means at the very least obeying the law and not giving in to self-destructive behavior.

A personal struggle I have is that as a musician, one of my greatest hopes in getting my work out in front of the public is through arts grants, which typically doesn't happen unless a grant is given to an arts group that supports the work of individuals. I'm completely clueless when it comes to writing grants. But if I'm already living on public assistance and have plenty of time on my hands, wouldn't it be to everyone's greater benefit if I use that time in some creative endeavor? It's a lot better than just feeling sorry for yourself. If you physically CANNOT do anything, then there's nothing to talk about here. But if you ARE physically able to do SOMETHING, why shouldn't you?