Why don't the government make the people on welfare that could work pass a drug test to receive there check. I have to pass one to receive my check. Since i'm paying for welfare they should have to pass one too.
2007-01-22 05:42:58 · 4 answers · asked by William D 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
That is actually a good question and I am also in favor of the gov't doing "welfare" checks (randomly) to ensure that these people are "still" entitled to these benefits. I have seen so much abuse, and many (not all) women continue having babies for more money. I have seen many homeless people with welfare cards (Texas has "The Lone Star Card??), using these cards for candy chips, sodas, crap, instead of what it is suppose to be used for. I have actually seen winos with these cards and they will target people in stores, for example, a peson is about to walk in the store and the wino will ask if they are going to use cash for their groceries, and if this person says yes, then the wino will say, if I pay for your grocies with my welafre card, pay me in cash like 50-60% of the cost of the groceries, and many to save money or buy more items will go for it and the wino gets his smokes and alcohol on the gov't. There is so much abuse out there, and I know that that alone could be a major law enforcement task force devoted to this issue. I just don't know sometimes. And the abuse gets worst and worst. But I hear you and I am for anything to get these people off welfare and back to work, or back to their country.
2007-01-22 05:55:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I also don't think they should be allowed to consume alcohol or tobacco either. Since we already have laws restricting both due to health reasons, it would be simple extension to start kicking people off medicaid or any other government program if random drug testing indicates the consumption of either alcohol or tobacco.
They need to learn what government aid really means. Loss of freedom.
2007-01-22 13:54:53 · answer #2 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess it would cost too much and it would be too much of a hassle. But then again some people might refuse and that means no money for some people that are desperately in need of it.
2007-01-22 13:48:12 · answer #3 · answered by gregtkt120012002 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is a very good point...maybe you should write your congressional delegation with that suggestion!
2007-01-22 13:48:21 · answer #4 · answered by Harold S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋