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

Post Reply New Topic

Drug testing in order to receive assistance, I can go along with.

Drug testing in order to get a job. I can not go along with.

Let everyone use the drugs of their choice as long as it doesn't interfere with taking care of their responsibilities.

Someone looking for a job is trying to take care of their responsibilities and requiring them to pee in a cup is an invasion of privacy.

So I would also not require a drug test for unemplyment benefits if there is proof that they are looking for a job.

Drugs are good and bad. We are a chemical processing biological machine.
We have evolved thru the processsing of chemicals.

We have "approved" drugs pushed in our face almost hourly during the day by the big Pharm.

And while, those are regulated, they have also been the most litigated and have caused the most deaths. One big Pharm drug has been causeing 10 deaths a month for the last 4 or 5 years.

Doctors are using us as test subjects most of the time and know very little in my opinion.

I imagine this thread was intended to pertain to "illegal" or non-legalized drugs but why stop there?

What would drug tests to receive assistance help exactly? I don't really feel up to debating if it would be right or wrong...but I am curious about what the opposing side thinks drug testing for assistance would help.

Would it cut down on crime, poverty and drug abuse? probably not.

No, it's ludicrous and deserves no discussion. People who want to drug test everyone just want to stomp on those they feel superior to.

doing that would break open the probably already substantial market for clean urine

That's it, distilled to its essential point.

I don't really feel superior to anyone. My family is well below the poverty line, but we're pretty well-off compared to the rest of the trailer-dwellers in our neighborhood. I know how tenuous being on low-income can be. My wife recently found out that if she hadn't been pregnant, her boss would have let her go months ago because he could no longer afford to pay her, and really hadn't been able to for quite some time (job interview today, btw, wish her luck...).

I just fail to see how anyone could really want to support criminal and possibly self-destructive behavior. If I know that someone is using MY MONEY to buy harmful, addictive drugs, I'm less inclined to willingly give it to them. I don't want that kind of enabling action on my conscience because it would mean that I'm tacitly contributing to their demise.

You can say that what someone does is their business. But it's my business if it's my money. I'd rather support people's behaviors if that behavior isn't criminal or self-destructive. I would think that drug-testing would help bolster public confidence in the welfare system if you can make a good-faith effort to show the public that the people's money isn't being wasted, especially wasted on destructive behaviors that the people do not wish to support.

Aside from strictly illegal behavior, saying that people who are able to work and do hold down jobs are somehow viewing themselves as superior and have no right to say what others can/can't do on public support really makes no sense. It's unfortunate that some people out there are unable to work and afford the same lifestyles as those who do. But those who are ABLE to do for themselves and happen to do exceedingly well CAN afford those kinds of lifestyles and probably more often deserve to be able to do what they want with what they earn. I am a struggling musician, yes. But being a musician doesn't entitle me to live a rock-star lifestyle with big houses, sports cars, and luxury jets and tour buses. I drive my own car to gigs, I load/unload my own gear, set it up myself, and pitch in setting up lighting and sound reinforcement and even help the guitar player move his amps because he's older and has a bad back. I don't even live in a 5-bedroom, 2-story with a garage on a half-acre lot in the good subdivision--I have a 3-bedroom double-wide on one acre out in the county, and I have three children who have to share this tiny space. Why don't I live in better conditions? Because I haven't freakin' EARNED it, and I'm not bringing in the kind of dough and running the kind of business that would make a big luxury palace even really necessary for what I do. I just play in a 5-piece classic rock cover band, teach a few piano lessons, and perform regular church piano duties. Someone who doesn't even work doesn't NEED big houses, bar tabs, or even movie tickets (frankly, neither do a lot of people who DO work). Someone who WORKS for it and EARNS it does DESERVE it and shouldn't be begrudged the fruits of their labor. Someone on public assistance has to accept that it means they won't have that kind of status. It doesn't mean that they are "lower" than someone with income, nor does it mean that they can't get a break every now and then. But someone on public assistance should not feel entitled to a rock-star lifestyle nor even a "normal" existence. My family has had to learn to live without a lot of things and we're not even ON any public assistance. What we've learned is that a lot of those frivolous kinds of things aren't even really all that necessary or remotely important. But we are a lot better off financially now that we stay home instead of going out to movies every single weekend and don't go out to eat every single night. I even fast once a week. If you don't need it and the public is helping you, do them a favor and do without it.

for the second and third paragraph: by that logic religious belief should fall under the same scrutiny as should (quite a few) actions, on a global scale that is, since a heapload of money are shifted back and forth for various reasons.

for the fourth, you do realize that the people who have serious drug issues it is a way of escape? or should we simply ignore that inconvenient truth?
furthermore do you realize the side effects of cutting off minimal support? higher crime rates which means higher txes which means more people that cant afford to live meaning more crime, its a neverending cycle of poverty and only oppertunity can change that, public support is that oppertunity for many people

Just so you know, I wasn't responding to you. I actually hadn't read any of the replies in this thread when I made that post.

Your point of view is reasonable and actually makes sense. The problem is that some people really do think drug addicts are the scum of the earth and deserve to die. I know that's not true of everyone. I don't have a problem with your point of view, although in real life, I'm not sure I'm seeing the logic. If you tell a drug addict that he has to stay clean to stay welfare, that is not sufficient motivation to not do drugs. Trust me, it is not. And you are not doing drug addicts any favors by denying them money. They will get their money way or another.

I understand. And thanks for at least being open-minded. No, I do not think that drug addicts are the scum of the earth. I think we're all equally scum.

The point is not to discourage drug use by denying them money. The point is that if people are GOING to do drugs, it should be without public enablement. Drug tests would only ensure that public funds are not going to supporting a drug habit.

Note that I'm not touching the ethics of any specific drug use. I'm only referring to a behavioral pattern that carries an inherent tendency towards self-destruction. Probably in order to be fair to addiction sufferers, showing proof that they are enrolled in addiction treatment might be a possible way of showing that drug addiction is not a long-term path they intend to follow. And, of course, regular testing would show that they are staying clean after a reasonable amount of time has past after treatment.

Do you think it is right to use money raised by taxation to continue a bad habit?

ruveyn

And why is drug use so bloody taboo anyways? honestly people drink coffee, take over the counter drugs, smoke cigarettes and drink themselves into idiots.......and that's all legal. pffft........the whole war on drugs is just idiotic requiring drug tests for welfare is just another aspect of that. It's all about control. Also you don't want 'your' money going to people on welfare who might use drugs...well is it better if it goes to fund more prisons? Besides its not even 'your' money unless it's in your possesion. Also why assume all tax payers are drug free? or have something against the poor also using drugs?

I've been a 'taxpayer' more than once....so have many others who use drugs, why should we have no say in what public money gets used for then?

Also isn't it interesting that they'd target those in poverty...when it is rather common knowledge that poverty contributes to drug abuse? kinda discriminatory.

I have an idea. No more tax funded handouts to dead beats. Then they can do whatever the damned well please to do.

ruveyn

well then the deadbeats will have to survive somehow..........if the system wont help them then, well there's only one option left.

I don't think it would help or cut down on anything. My whole premise is that drug use is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with your responsibilities.

Only when there is a question about a person's ability to get up, go look for and hold a job, or somehow provide for themself, and so they are asking for help, would I accept drug testing.

I admit I am compromising a little, since I don't agree with it in general. However if there is a circumstance when I could accept it, it would be in order to demonstrate that the drugs are not the reason for a person inability to take care of themself. Having raised 3 kids, you have to have some threshold to maintain.

Its kind of like grades and homework. If you're getting good grades, you won't ever be nagged to do homework.

Similarly, if you are taking care of your responsibilities, I don't care how high you want to get.

Its not always drug use that is interfering with responsibilities...I just really don't see what a required drug test would help, what is the point if it doesn't actually solve a problem?

Like giving money to bankers and stockbrokers with gambling addictions?