Should folks receiving "assitance money" provided from tax payer dollars have to pass a drug screen/test?

Question

I realize that not all jobs require drug testing. I would venture to say that a vast majority of jobs in the U.S. do require applicants or employees to pass a drug test to attain the job or to remain employed if random testing was done after employment.

In light of that, wouldn't it be fair for those folks receiving tax payer money from assistance programs to have to pass a drug screen to get it?

I know that there would be costs involved with testing and consequences to failing the test, etc. etc. etc. I'm not trying to write the legislation for it, I just wanted to garner the feelings of other people about it in an open forum.

I guess ultimately the idea in my mind's eye is that frequent testing would be a requirement. There would be costs involved, but I would like to see the number of people restricted from those programs as a result of failing a screening, and how it balances out. At some point I would like to think the amount of people getting restricted as a result of failing the test would save some tax payer money or at least be able to redistribute it helping those who want to be "clean" and make something out of themselves. Why support anything else?

Thanks for your honest anwers everyone.

So Waalee...discriminating against anyone for drug use while trying to obtain an honest job is ok, but not okay for those who benefit freely from their efforts?

Touche' Kevin M...good luck on your search in NJ. Hopefully some sicko doesn't shove a pencil through it and leave you stuck there for someone else to find.

Kevin M - please accept my apologies, sometimes I just can't help making a sharp reply to certain questions. So, I took your advice, called my mother, and she thought that it was a pretty good question. That made me feel pretty good, so for that...Thanks!

Answer 1

I want to say yes, however, it would in the long run cost tax payers more. First, the cost of the testing itself. Second, if they do not receive the needed assistance then what should you do with them... drug rehab...jail? Either one cost tax payers money. Or you can just deny them assistance in which case many may turn to crime...that also cost tax payers money. So although my gut says yes the answer is no. On the same topic should we require corporation that receive "assistance money" and they receive more tax payer money then all individuals combined to prove that they are acting in the best interest of U.S. jobs? Not off shoring etc.

Answer 2

Yes, and I also think that they should be drug tested every 6 months and if they fail They should be removed from welfare rolls I believe that if you are on drugs and cannot get a job then you do not deserve tax payer assistance This program is supposed to help you learn to help yourself It is not the governments fault that you made a choice that has messed up your life Also drug testing would be beneficial for the protection of children in the home I have seen too many cases where there have been innocent children around adults who were cooking meth or smoking marjuana or snorting cocaine What kind of environment is this for a child Children learn by what they see adults doing So here goes a second generation of drug users These people owe their children better than that

Answer 3

You have a very good point. But the libs will never allow it because if a person fails the test then the children suffer. Most people on assistance are there because of children. They only way to make your idea (which is good) work is to let people know that if they fail the test thenthey lose the children & the money.. The childrens safty is the first thing we are concerned with. If the parent or parents will not take the drug test. take the children until they do. If you are clean then no drug teast will hurt you.

Answer 4

Interesting observation, linking receipt of benefits to something that would disqualify people from a lot of jobs. The trouble is that employees generally get tested when they start work and only again if there is reason to suspect drug use. I suspect that, if the program were to work it would require regular testing and I think the costs would then outweigh the benefits.

Good idea in principle though.

Answer 5

Hell confident! If somebody is receiving help from the government ( in different words if i'm being taxed to redistribute my stressful earned money to bypass to somebody else ) then they might desire to be drug examined. in the event that they're on the government dole then they are in a position to't locate the money for drugs and that they have sufficient issues. And all government workers could be examined because of the fact they continuously paintings for us. particularly elected positions of employment and authority figures like police and judges. I strongly have faith that they might desire to be held to a extra suitable degree of habit and can be dealt with extra critically while chanced directly to be breaking the regulation.

Answer 6

No its not fair. Why should people on assisstance be discriminated against. Its their right to smoke or take drugs. And if they can't afford it we should raise their allowance so that they will not go out and steal. If people want to waste their lives away by working that is their business and their right.

Answer 7

YES YES YES,what a keen idea.If we can only get it through the ACLU(American terrorist group).I dont want to pay for a drug habit to someone who could probably work.I think same should go for immigrants also,we dont want to import drug addicts.
You have my vote!

Answer 8

yes. that will be a lot of drug tests for everyone in eygypt,israel and the countries in africa. would just the government officials be OK?

Answer 9

Yes, ive asked this question previously on yahoo, by all means I don't want my money financing their high

Answer 10

Call your mother and ask her, I'm sure she'd be glad to know you have such deep thought processes.LOL