Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check?

Question

Like a lot of folks in this country I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.


In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check since I have to pass one to earn itfor them??

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their @ss!

Could you imagine how much money the state/country would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

T D. You are 100% correct. I got this in an email and thought so highly of it, I posted it here. Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes.

Peace Warrior: I agree 100% on the Halliburton thing as well as “the alligator”.

Answer 1

YES - YES - and HELL YES!
They should also have to pick up litter along roads or do SOME type of community service work.

Answer 2

I'm no big fan of handing out money to those who don't (or won't) work, but simply cashing a welfare check just doesn't carry the risks of say, driving a train, operating a drill-press, working a forklift, or changing a twenty. Your basic thinking and reasoning abilities can be affected by drugs, and so can your motor skills. Your employer tested you to ensure your competence - as his or her employee - won't be impaired by controlled substances, so that you can fulfill your responsibilities reliably and provide value in return for your employer's investment in you.

Welfare recipients, by and large, don't have access to jet planes, chainsaws, company accounts, or dental drills that, if used under the influence of a drug, could have damaging or lethal consequences. If a drugged welfare recipient did engage in something illegal - vandalism, assualt, drunk driving - they'd be on their own. The ramifications are wholly different (and bigger) in the workplace. If you screw up while high on the job, you get fired, the company has to incur the losses, plus they're liable if sued for the consequences of your behavior.

A urine test would be a disincentive for drug use, but not necessarily a disincentive for remaining unemployed. It would mean a whole new administrative and legal component would have to be installed into the public assistance infrastructure, which would require time and money (drug-testing lab contracts, lawyers to figure out who has jurisdiction over what, how/where disputes will be resolved, etc.) Whatever potential savings to the state treasury will probably be spent fighting lawsuits from either the ACLU (on consitutional grounds) or individuals who were denied checks because of false positives. One succesful lawsuit would probably result in a ban on urine tests.

Much as I believe welfare should be doled out as little as necessary and to only those who should receive it (and only then for a limited amount of time), I believe whatever obstacles we put up in getting that check should be cheap, readily enforceble, and positively motivate people to re-enter the job force.

Answer 3

"Could you imagine how much money the state/country would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?"

Apparently, you have no idea how much it would COST to drug test every single person who applied for welfare. A spectacular waste of money.

What makes it a super-spectacular waste of money is the fact that any Tom, Dick or Harry with have a brain in his head can get around a urine test with relative ease. There are cleaners, fake pee, detox tablets...Tons of options for relatively cheap. So yeah, in the end, you'd only be busting the really dumb people.

Look, dude...I feel you about welfare. Few things bother me more than seeing people abuse the welfare system. But at the end of the day, that percentage is small and measures to do away with abusers will end up costing more than keeping them on.

Answer 4

Too bad I don't see your post about corporations stealing the tax dollars you pay.

It's a Republican mindset to look down your nose at the less fortunate, and do it righteously as you have, wanting that $ 1 in taxes you paid covered by a drug test...but seemingly fine with the other $ 99 in taxes paid being stolen by corporations

Should Halliburton have a urine test before they are allowed another no-bid contract ?

You worry about the fly in the room while ignoring the alligator that just bit your legs off

Even when conservatives mask their racism and classism with political correctness they are still horribly offensive

Answer 5

I do not know Jill, I was told that a person could only get assistance for five years! My daughter in law has been getting it for over 21 years. I think they should really keep the limit at five years, and then stop it. If they did do the testing what would happen to the children, would they get lost in the system somewhere? I know when my daughter in law was pregnant with her last child not my sons, she was dirty and they wanted to take her child. We found someone to adopt the child and some how she stopped the adoption and get the baby back. Went right back to using and never got tested again. She is still on free housing, still gets free medical, and we are paying her way and she says the boy friend that lives with her makes 2000.00 a week? True or not why is no one checking in on them?

Answer 6

Well, I'm sure I'm gonna get slammed for this but I'm gonna say no. To begin with, such testing costs alot of money.

Before we cut off welfare, I'd like to see all the American jobs that are now in India, Latin America, Asia and Europe come back to where they belong. I'm thinking alot of the people on welfare would be happy to work in a GM plant building American cars for the American people.

Most people on welfare don't have a drug habit. Most are poor single women trying to raise their kids right. The reason you never see them is because they're minding their kids.

Unfortunately, the insignificant minority of people who abuse welfare by sitting on their butts or taking drugs are the most visible because they got nothing better to do.

Answer 7

I know lots of people who wouldn't get that check if they had to take the test. I actually don't think this is a bad idea.

Public assistance is not a bad thing, it's a great thing, I've had to be on it before. (And yes, I could pass a urine test.) The bad thing is how many people get on it and then don't bother to get off of it. Why should they when they're living for free?

Answer 8

That is very interesting. I wonder why no one (policy makers) has thought of this before. I definetly agree with you, those receiving public assistance money should be required to pass random drug tests.

As most employers require you to participate in a drug test prior to being hired. Most employers also require their employees to participate in random drug testing during their employment.

It almost seems silly that this is not being done in order to receive public assistance. This could also be an incentive to stay off of drugs or refer people that are addicts to the proper outreach programs.

Good thinking.

Answer 9

Not only urine test but an english test and mental test too, how about those that get plan8? paying 100 bucks in places that cost over a 1000 dollars? and those who get the free pass on the bus? none of them speak a word in American most of the time...

Answer 10

I think that is an absolutely wonderful idea. If someone really needs welfare, I am all for giving it to them but I do not want the government giving people money if they are just going to spend it on drugs.

Answer 11

yes but people don't believe so because this would cut off money to drug users and there kids , what these people fail to realize is - if a person is on drugs and has kids the kids should be taken away , this happens everyday and forcing welfare recipents to take drug tests { and they wouldnt have to be random } would cut welfare in half if not more so .