So, I like most people have a job and pay taxes. In order for me to have a job I have to pass drug tests when asked. Would it be wrong to require welfare recepients to pass a drug test to get their check?
2007-11-11 05:35:09 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If the people are wasting ther money on drugs then obviously the money isn't going to help their kids so what difference would it make if it was taken away?
2007-11-11 05:48:47 · update #1
Absolutely. This has been brought up many times but the Government does not seem interested.
2007-11-11 05:40:38 · answer #1 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Let's be realistic. The government is not going to spend additional millions to set up drug tests for welfare recipients and then be accused of hurting the children who benefit from that money by taking it away because Mama smoked a joint.
Theoretically I agree with you in principle, but it just isn't practical for many reasons.
EDIT: That's a huge assumption you are making to say that if the parents are doing drugs none of the money is going to feed their children. I know someone who smokes pot and is on welfare - a second cousin of my husband's. She works part time and I know she spends that money on pot and her social life. None of us like it, and she's constantly criticized by his family (as she should be in my opinion), but her kids are fed and housed from the money she gets from the state. Not a good situation by any means, but her kids are warm and fed. If her welfare money were taken away what would happen to those children? They go into the system. Is that better for them? A complicated debate could ensue over choosing between these two evils.
2007-11-11 14:06:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That implies that you feel comfortable with testing? I think it's a violation of individual rights (unreasonable search and seizure) and should not be ritualistically practiced on any group of people, working or not. The war on drugs has not kept drugs out of society. It's only success is an outrageous attack on the Constitution and personal liberties. Even if you are smoking weed after work, nobody owns you. What you do on your time is on you. It's fascism at its ugliest and it's become so common that nobody even brings up that it's simply wrong anymore. That's just sad.
2007-11-11 14:21:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here's a better idea. Stop giving out checks and make these people use a trackable debit card. Have their caseworker review their spending on a random basis to make sure they aren't using it for non-essentials. Obviously, this isn't going to stop someone from selling what they buy with the card for drug money, but at least it would be less convienient - and you can't buy drugs with Visa.
2007-11-11 14:55:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wrong? No. Money-saving? No. First of all, welfare is for the children of the poor, based on the concept that they shouldn't starve because their parents are poor. This includes the children of the drug addicts. So, the money you save by taking away welfare from drug users is spent caring for their children, which presumably end up in state custody. And without measures to keep them from having more children, the cycle of crap continues.
Let's just face it, the current system of welfare is broken and we need to start over. The entitlement notion must change. Liberals want the rest of us to fund the poor and let the poor do their own thing. The problem with that is this places us working Americans in bondage to the IRS. Who is advocating for our freedom?
ADDED: You made an illogical conclusion in your details when you assume the money is going to drugs and not helping the children. Factually, I think you cannot prove that the children are starving. More likely, the parents are committing other crimes to feed their drug habits and since I do criminal defense, I lend my own experience to support my position. It is a crappy environment for the children, why not let's address this?
2007-11-11 13:43:51 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Sure, it's a good idea. The people who run the lab tests know how to tell the difference between illegal drugs and prescription drugs. Plus, when you take one (I did at work), you let them know what medications you're taking so they overlook those when testing.
2007-11-11 13:45:24 · answer #6 · answered by Little Red Hen 2.0 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
According to the ACLU, that would be imposing your beliefs on other people, as well as the fact that people on welfare have a right to do drugs.
2007-11-11 13:52:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes!!!
Here is what I would LOVE to see for those on public assistance:
1. Random Drug Tests.
2. Illegal to purchase or consume alcohol or tobacco.
3. Illegal to play the lottery or be in any gambling house anywhere in the country.
That would be a great start.
2007-11-11 13:43:38 · answer #8 · answered by Chicken Littles Angry Brother 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
These are people that are "down on their luck", and quite possibly suffer from a myriad of psychological illnesses. Some are depressed, others bipolar. So, if the test came back positive, and, what comes next? Remember, this is aid for families with children. Should children not get food stamps because their parent is an addict? And, being forced into a rehabilitation program won't help if they aren't ready to accept that they are addicts and ask for help.
2007-11-11 13:40:31 · answer #9 · answered by Amanda h 5 · 1⤊ 5⤋
I hate social security too. I could make more money in an IRA.
2007-11-11 13:42:18 · answer #10 · answered by Abu#2 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋