I know - Unfortunately there are always people who will take advantage. I'm not naive enough to think otherwise. - I don't necessarily think that upping food stamps is the answer, but I think it's another way to address the concern. I guess the bleeding heart liberal comes out in cases like this - I would rather make sure that everyone who legitimately needs welfare gets it while also accepting those who abuse it... Instead of making the hurdles so high that it prevents people who legitimately need welfare from claiming it.
To be honest, when it comes down to it, junkies will always find a way to score drugs, regardless of the system. Addiction is a disease. There's only so much that the government can do to serve the people who actually need this help while curtailing abuse. I guess that's a little off topic, but I don't pretend to offer up any END ALL BE ALL answer here.
Also, I think that people who are legitimately addicted should be dealt with separately from welfare recipients in general.
The
initial question posed is: Should all welfare recipients piss clean in order to receive benefits? No. For all of the aforementioned reasons.
The
new question that we're posing is: If a particular welfare recipient who is clearly a junkie mess wants to claim their welfare, I think that they should be treated separately - Either through a rehabilitation program or through calling the police, but presumably there will be a drug test involved, though I don't know if it would necessarily be administered by the welfare office (if they engage the police, for example), but I'm just splitting hairs here.
I think there's a disconnect here - That's not what I'm saying and is exactly why I'm against compulsory testing (be it for a job or to receive welfare in general) - I'm of the mindset where if someone is absolutely plowed/f'd up out of their mind and they walk in for welfare (or, really, in general, but we're taking the welfare case as the example), they should be dealt with either by calling the police or moving forward with rehabilitation case work... I don't consider the casual pot smoker to be part of this group. As I mentioned before, I think that people should be judged based on their performance (example: If I show up to work plowed or just suck at my job, I should probably be fired... to extend that example, if I show up for welfare plowed, I should probably be put into a rehabilitation program)
Maybe I'm not being clear:
- I don't think that drug testing should be enforced for every person who applies for/receives welfare - That's the main issue that I'm arguing against here - And I think that we actually agree on this.
- If someone shows up in the welfare office and they are clearly using, then they should be dealt with through the measures mentioned above. I don't exactly know the "how," but this case is different than just testing everyone who comes through the door asking for a welfare check - I think that we actually agree on this too.