Should people be drug tested in order to get on welfare?

I was discussing this with my girlfriend yesterday, about a debate she had with her co-worker.

Should the poor be tested for illegal drugs in order to get on welfare?

The one side of the arguement came from the notion that most of the people on welfare spend their welfare money on drugs, alcohol and things other than food and housing which the money is supposed to provide.

I agreed with her that this would help weed out the truely needy and the ones that just want money to buy more drugs.

On the other hand of this arguement, it was said that if poor people needing welfare would be tested for drugs, that this would lead to more crime. This is due to the fact that if poor people needed welfare money, but didnt want to get tested due to them being on drugs, that this would make them resort to more criminal acts and even violence to get what they need.

There are valid points to each arguement, but I wondered what the community thinks about this, as it could be touchy each way.

What do YOU think?



[edit on 7-5-2007 by Don Wahn]

Originally posted by Don Wahn
…the fact that most of the people on welfare spend their welfare money on drugs, alcohol and things other than food and housing which the money is supposed to provide.

That would be supposition, not fact. And welfare doesn’t give that much money. Yes many do spend their checks on drugs but not all.

You are also forgetting the people that have done drugs with their friends, they would test positive for drugs and get kicked off the system.
Alcohol would be vary hard to test for, if not impossible.

My God People

How will the Red necks survive if we do such a thing. I think as long as Barry Bonds is allowed to play professional baseball we should hold off.




PS Mr Mxyztplk your avatar needs a "Kneel before Zarg", or in this case Mxyztplk. That is if you want to take it to the next level.


[edit on 7-5-2007 by Royal76]

a bit hypocritical of the government to condemn drugs-taking when the government agencies control the drugs market

rinf.com...

Originally posted by Royal76
PS Mr Mxyztplk your avatar needs a "Kneel before Zarg", or in this case Mxyztplk. That is if you want to take it to the next level.

What? Are you saying that the population of planet Huston is not kneeling before me?

PS is “Zod”

It's really Zod..I remember it sounding longer than that...

If you want them to kneel you have to "Tell them" to do so.

Originally posted by Don Wahn
The one side of the arguement came fron the fact that most of the people on welfare spend their welfare money on drugs, alcohol and things other than food and housing which the money is supposed to provide.

I'm no welfare expert, but I do know my drug dealer doesn't take food stamps.

BTW, is SNOPES hiring?

The right or privilege of welfare is not outlined in the Constitution, nor does it do anything to help the poor.

Originally posted by Johnmike
The right or privilege of welfare is not outlined in the Constitution, nor does it do anything to help the poor.

Right, that's the New Testament. Silly Jesus.

Originally posted by Johnmike
The right or privilege of welfare is not outlined in the Constitution, nor does it do anything to help the poor.

And because the constitution doesn’t say to help the poor we shouldn’t?
The constitution doesn’t say that we should have fire department either, should we get rid of them to?

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
And because the constitution doesn’t say to help the poor we shouldn’t?

We should. However it isn't the place of the federal government to do so. By raising taxes, you are actually taking jobs from the poor, forcing more to starve.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
The constitution doesn’t say that we should have fire department either, should we get rid of them to?

That's why a fire department is the responsibility of the state and/or municipality.

(Edit: Well, "responsibility." One can argue that a privatized fire fighting system would be more effective, which is an idea to consider. But either way, it's not the responsibility of the federal government.)

[edit on 7-5-2007 by Johnmike]

i don't think they should be tested...IMO, thats a cmall step that would eventually lead to further testing of other peoples trying to get on other programs....that said, i am only going to speak of grass. for one, i am a regular user and i was awarded assistance for 1 month...

my situation is different though, don't get me wrong, i like to catch a buzz. a fast background on me..i am 29 with degenerative disc disease. i had a fusion done in 2001. they went in through my belly, took out the bad disc and replaced it with a cadaever bone, a piece of bone from my hip, and a titanium cage...it failed.
i have been on a variety of legal medications, none of which i want to talk about here, but lets just say side effects are hard.
appetite is gone.
if i don't smoke, i don't eat..it's that simple...now, my doc has not so much told me to smoke but she has never said not to and i have never lied to her. from day one i have told her how much i smok and why, and she still treats me...the long of this is there are many reasons a person would say, smoke grass. in my situation, me smoking grass to allow me to eat cause my apetite is gone because of my treatment would caue me to fail their test and thus lose assistance..
why should that happen to me?


i just don't think we need to do that to our people..there are many other ways to lock down people taking advantage of assistance....drug testing IMO should be way down the line

If they are going to test welfare applicants; let's not stop there.........

TEST

People that are running for public office
Driver license applicants
Prospective Teacher applicants
Corporate Administrative types
Truck Drivers
Anyone that works around children
Mothers and Fathers that have children
Any person that is payed from public taxes

And let's not just single out drug users, get the drunks too.........

Originally posted by Johnmike
By raising taxes, you are actually taking jobs from the poor, forcing more to starve.

Who said anything about raising taxes? We don't have an income problem in this nation, we have a spending problem. And it's not on the poor. That's a boogey man. Like "Ronald Reagan "welfare queens" and G Dub "freedom haters."

I just don't wanna pay for no gay weddings. Know what I'm saying?

Originally posted by whaaa
If they are going to test welfare applicants; let's not stop there.........

TEST

People that are running for public office
Driver license applicants
Prospective Teacher applicants
Corporate Administrative types
Truck Drivers
Anyone that works around children
Mothers and Fathers that have children
Any person that is payed from public taxes

And let's not just single out drug users, get the drunks too.........

that is what i worry about...a small door gets opened..IMO, just cause a teacher smokes grass in their own home after work, that don't mean they're going to be a bad teacher and/or promote it to their students...just cause a trucker has grass in his system, don't mean he was high when he was driving....i just don't really approve of these types of things in general

Good point, WHAA.

I agree that some of the other jobs/titles that you mentioned should have to go through some sort of screening process, whether it be for mental competency or drugs.

But as Boondock stated above, once you open the door, then there is no stopping each and every person from being tested.

Once the flood gates are open it is really hard to close them. I still dont understand why corporate admins should be tested, was that a joke?

Originally posted by Johnmike
We should. However it isn't the place of the federal government to do so. By raising taxes, you are actually taking jobs from the poor, forcing more to starve.

But some states, municipalities/ counties are very poor as well, how can they provide a safety net when they have no money to give?
Do you really think it’s wrong for a rich state to give money to a poor state via the federal government?

That's why a fire department is the responsibility of the state and/or municipality.

And some are supported by the federal government grants, with out them there would be no fire protection in some parts of the country.
For those areas with out the means to provide fire protection them selves, should they be allowed to burn down?

www.usfa.dhs.gov...

edit to fix quotes.


[edit on 7-5-2007 by Mr Mxyztplk]

Originally posted by Don Wahn

Once the flood gates are open it is really hard to close them. I still dont understand why corporate admins should be tested, was that a joke?

Yeah, Don the whole post was "tongue in cheek"

Flood gates indeed!

My apologies whaaa. Sometimes the implied sarcasm does not translate so well through text.

Understood now I got it...

Given the current state of affairs today around the world, do youthink this type of control is destined to make its way to the forefront of society in the near or distant future?

It seems as though it could very well raise its ugly head given the Orwellian type society blossoming in the United Kingdom as well as the US. However it seems as though due to the size of the country, the UK has taken a sizeable lead in the race for a police state.

Is this plausible for the future, or just a pipe dream of people craving some sort of Draconian rule over the people desiring to be on welfare?