[cheebacheeba]

It really depends upon the situation.
No, I don't think it should be a mandatory means test in order to get onto some kind of welfare if a person appears functional and not under the influence.
Of course if they rocked up and were clearly incapable of operating, an obvious junkie or some such...while I don't think they should be *not* able to collect any kind of welfare, but I think in order to do so they should be given the opportunity to attend rehab/quit or whatever they need to do, so that it's not a case of "The govt is paying for their drug habit" rather that they're supporting recovery.
If that then failed, sure perhaps some kind of cut off.

Of course this would require ongoing monitoring of many individual situations, and I don't know about anywhere else, but here, I don't think the existing resources would be there to do it properly.

Should a person be forced to quit drugs in order to receive benefits?
I don't think so. I mean, I believe that everyone should be at least functional and not on a downward spiral, but quitting? To the point there was no traces in their system? That's a bit much.

I mean...I myself have been a welfare recipient.
I've smoked/vaped weed throughout the time - though I've always been actively seeking or involved in employment or studies. I haven't sat around my house doing nothing and/or engaging in a criminal lifestyle (I don't acknowledge laws that protect alcohol and demonise weed), I have always had a responsible and realistic budget and generally speaking I try to be a productive person.
I'm sure that the same could be said of a lot of people that are on welfare for one reason or another.
(That said, I think heroin ought to be completely shut down.)

There are other things that should be taken into account before testing is even introduced.
*Observation upon application
*How long have they been on welfare
*Mental health
*How long since they've "functioned" eg, held some kind of job or study routine.
(there's probably more)
At this point, it could be determined a bit more thoroughly whether or not being a recipient of welfare would simply be an enabling process to remain stagnant and be a "drug addict" or if it in fact was helping them - whether or not they use drugs in their personal lives - to move forward, handle other expenses with responsibility and lead a productive life.

So yes, while I think that some kind of drug testing could serve a purpose, I think that there's a few things to take into account.

However, as I said before resources are often pretty limited, and very often govt departments and employees are the "bare minimum" sort to begin with.
To implement and maintain this kind of system is simply unfeasible.
So then what you're left with is
A: Lumping in people who say, like to smoke a bit of weed as their preferred relaxant (similar to an occasional or even nightly drinker) with people who stick needles in their arms and rob people for their next fix because they've already injected/snorted everything the govt has supplied to them.
B: Don't do the drug testing until drug ABuse becomes a clear and prevalent factor.
C: Simply set other obligations to meet that ensure a person is maintaining a lifestyle of a certain amount of activity when it comes to jobs or study.

A sounds pretty shithouse.
B sounds fine to me, but again seems unrealistic.
C where I live this is what they're doing already.

I know I myself would be pretty offended if I'd been laid off full time employment (this has happened to me) had a bit of difficulty finding another job, ended up having to support myself through welfare for a while and was handed a cup to piss in the moment I arrived.