Drug Testing for Welfare - Help Me See the Light

[Despare]

Apparently I'm wrong for thinking people who receive welfare should be required to take a drug test. I don't see why. It's not a political thing, race thing, or class thing... but if millions of people have to take a drug test to keep or earn their employment why is this wrong? Somebody explain to me what I'm missing...

[ManchestrMorgue]

Originally Posted by Despare

Somebody explain to me what I'm missing...

Quite clearly, you are missing the fact that the government has a responsibility to support people's drug habits. Also, the consumption of illicit drugs has been proven to improve one's parenting skills and readiness to become a productive member of society.

Money well spent if you ask me.

[TheWickerFan]

Alright, I'll give it a shot.

One of the major problems I have with drug testing is how inaccurate they have been. If someone had the poor judgment to eat a poppy seed bagel within the past few days, they could get a life-ruining false positive. Even assuming they could perfect the test, what exactly does it gain to find out someone smoked a joint within the past week? Was it affecting their work? Were they hurting anybody? You wouldn't need a drug test to figure out if an employee was becoming a liability. I think there are only a handful of professions that could benefit from drug testing (pilots , for example); others I think are completely unnecessary, degrading, and bordering on an invasion of privacy.

You'll have to explain why people on welfare should be tested for drugs, because I have the feeling this is an excuse to stop giving them money. The Republican's attitude has always been that welfare recipients are nothing but leeches anyway, so any excuse to cut them off would be just fine with them.

[Elvis_Christ]

I disagree with it because it's assuming people are automatically guilty of taking drugs. If someone is showing signs of drug use in the workplace then ok by all means have them undergo a compulsory test. Until then there really is no right to do so in my eyes.

I hate how people are in the mentality that if you're innocent (in this case using drugs) you've got nothing to worry about. It's slowly eroding people's civil liberties because they are blind to it because it "doesn't effect them".

In the case of people on welfare it is a "political, class and race thing" actually. Every time shit like this gets brought it up it's usually because a scapegoat is needed. Anyone who buys into shit like that makes me fucking sick.

Like your going to get taxed less or your taxes will go somewhere else you think they're needed more if you cut the big bad drug using boogeyman off welfare.... give me a fucking break. You'll be frothing at the mouth demanding the blood of the next group of demonised people when shit doesn't change.

You're just turning the world into one big jail cell with every act like this you condone.

[AmericanManiac]

I have to agree with this, drug test the hell out of them. I work first hand with lower income families on a daily basis. I have to go out into their homes and some of the stuff I see you would not believe.

There are many people who are on welfare for the reason it is there. I don't mind helping these individuals and their families out. It's when I walk into a house with 5 kids and the parents have drugs and drug paraphernalia right out in the open. They don't want to help themselves they just want the free ride. They were raised on it, and they use the system to their own benefit. They're LAZY. The only thing bad about this is what would happen to the kids?

Don't tell me about the economy and there are no jobs. If they would actually get out there they can find one even if its fast food.

[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.

[newb]

Originally Posted by 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.

I gotta say......Cheebs..I don't always agree with everything you say....but we've been forum posting together for what......8 years...and you most always have really thought out responses......kudos brother.


and I do happen to agree with you on this one:D

[Sistinas666]

I have to piss clean to have a job, the least they can do is piss clean not to have a job.

[The Villain]

If you're stupid enough to do drugs while also needing welfare and can afford and choose to spend your money on drugs while needing welfare then you don't deserve it.

[Ferox13]

Originally Posted by The Villain

If you're stupid enough to do drugs while also needing welfare and can afford and choose to spend your money on drugs while needing welfare then you don't deserve it.

Better to spend the money on legal drugs like booze.

Drug testing is expensive and not that accurate.

Also are people considering marijuana one of the drugs they should be testing for?