Would you support a resolution requiring a drug test of all welfare recipients?

Question

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine who works a blue collar job, when he mentioned that he has to take a pre-employment urine test to screen for drugs. In a discussion on welfare he questioned why welfare applicants aren't screened for drugs. He laid out his logic in that if he has to pass a drug screen in order to earn a paycheck, why aren't others? Especially those who aren't earning there income per say, but could potentially be using tax payer fund to purchase drugs.


If a resolution were passed we could see a possible decline in two areas of concern. A required drug screening could lead to a decline in drug use, also denying those who fail a drug screening could lead to lower welfare costs.

The problem I forsee is funding for the drug screening, which could be very costly and may outweigh the benefits.

What are your thoughts?

Answer 1

With respect to ICU's position:

"Your friend who had to take a drug test was applying for a job that carried with it a fiduciary responsibility to do what is right; that is, it was a position of trust. His employer didn't want to hire someone who could become a potential embezzler so that he can fund his drug habit (if he had one). "

If someone is applying for welfare benefits, the theory is that we are giving him/her the benefits in the hope that they can return to being productive members of society, if possible. Therefore, wouldn't the welfare recipient also be in a fiduciary position to honor that agreement, and be willing to prove that he/she was drug free beofre receiving benefits?


Therefore, I am 100% in favor of this idea.

Answer 2

Sure, get them off welfare and let them rob, steal and murder so they can support their habit.
Especially the infants, I hear they are addicted to formula.
And most welfare recipients are infants and children.
And most welfare recipients are on it for around a year, and they are white.
Can we have a bit of reality here? They aren't going to give up drugs to get on or stay on welfare, addictions don't just go away, and people who are addicted, DO NOT MAKE LOGICAL CHOICES.
All we would do is find out how many more people can't pass a pee test. Especially if we don't offer them an alternative like rehab and counciling, and even with middle and upper class people that doesn't take.
There is already a procedure in place that gets druggies out of section eight housing, its only marginally effective.

Answer 3

I think it's a terrible idea. The costs of the drug tests aren't the only costs involved by any means. If you seriously propose putting anyone who fails a drug test on the street, you're going to end up incarcerating a lot of them, because people have to eat, and will steal or mug people if that's the only way to feed themselves and their kids. Incarceration costs the taxpayers many times what welfare and food stamps do. Some responses have mentioned taking these peoples' kids away....there are huge costs there as well; payments to foster families, residential homes, court costs, counselors, you name it.

For what it's worth, I don't think it's right for your friend to have to pass a drug test either. If he's not doing his job to their satisfaction, they should let him go. If he does his job well, they should butt out.

These people at the bottom of the ladder already have it hard enough. Instead of worrying about the possibility that they could be using their benefits illegally, perhaps we should examine the hundreds of billions of dollars being squandered unaccounted-for in the "war on terror" and in farm and energy subsidies. The dollars involved are orders of magnitude higher than what welfare fraud costs us.

Then again, it is much easier to scapegoat the poor than it is to address the abuses of the super-wealthy.

Answer 4

Heck no. It is unreasonable to invade the privacy of those who are not drug users at the expense of some who are. It is costly and not likely to be fairly or properly implemented. Also, it would likely result in a worse situation for society by creating other problems.

Your friend who had to take a drug test was applying for a job that carried with it a fiduciary responsibility to do what is right; that is, it was a position of trust. His employer didn't want to hire someone who could become a potential embezzler so that he can fund his drug habit (if he had one).

If employees can't run the operation or be trusted to do the job they were hired to do, the beneficiaries wouldn't get assistance. The beneficiaries are only entrusted to care for themselves, not for affecting funding that would impact the rest of the beneficiaries. Besides, what would you do if most of the population tested positive? He would work himself out of a job. Society would not be rid of drug users but there would be more people in need of assistance who might otherwise turn to alternatives (robbery, theft) for survival.

In short, it's possible you would only make the problem worse---not better.

Answer 5

Absolutely, it should be mandatory. If they fail, no welfare. That way those who really do need it will get it and the money won't go for drugs instead of food for their children. It would be protection for the children. That resolution would be a right step in the direction of welfare reform. I bet we would save a lot of money. And I disagree with most of these people, more money would be saved because the drug tests would be the cheaper ones at government costs and not industry is charged. Naturally they are going to charge top dollar to industries.

Answer 6

Screening all welfare applicants would be quite expensive. While your friends concern is somewhat valid, there are civil rights issues to deal with. In a particular job, drug use could be detrimental to the work, thus craeting a reasonable need for screening. While some welfare recipients may indeed also be drug users, it is not reasonable to test each applicant.

Answer 7

It will ultimately negatively impact the millions of children born to these drug-addicted welfare recipients. I see what you're saying. In theory, people shouldn't be getting government funding to support their drug habits, but what about alcohol and cigarettes? Surely, they don't need these, as well.

But, yea, the kids are the ones who loses out if that were to be implemented. If you refuse checks to people who don't pass drug tests, kids don't eat. You can be a pothead and still get to the grocery store and buy food for your kids. If your plan goes into effect, that won't be the case.

And don't forget the millions of people who abuse prescription medications.

Where would you draw the line?

Answer 8

To answer the question, no I would not support it, even though it would address a necessary problem. The cost to administer it would outweigh its benefits.

You are right about the funding. Drug screens are expensive and someone has to pay, namely the taxpayers.

One more reason for a government entity to suck more tax money from us.

Answer 9

There are plenty of people who get food stamps and work hard for the little money they earn. Do you get food stamps? Have you ever tried to get a drug dealer to take foodstps? Then how would you know? I work get food stamps and I have never sold my stamps for money or drugs! I also smoke marijuana but my kids and their food and bills come first. Just because someone smokes does not mean they are selling their stamps! Who are you to give a sh-- what I do with my welfare? I work hard but don't make above the poverty income. You don't know what you are talking about.

Answer 10

I think drug testing is not a necessary thing unless you work in certain industries or have fiduciary responsibilities.
Whose business is it what one puts in one's body?
I submit to drug tests as a volunteer railroad crew menber in operations, but never had to be tested in any of my other jobs.
I don't think its a good idea to drug test welfare recipients.
This says more about how Orwellian we are becoming.