Drug testing for people on gov't assistance? Agree/Disagree...but more important WHY?

Question

I do think there should be mandatory drug testing on anybody receiving government assistance. I know it seems like a stereotype, but there's plenty of people on welfare that just sit around and do drugs all day. I have to take a drug test for my job because I work at a hospital. If I have to take a drug test to get my check then other people should have to take one to get their part of my check.

Do you agree or disagree with the above statements? If this were put into place do you think it would save a large enough amount of money to be worth it? What social ramifications do you think it would have? Any input needed. Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

Absolutely I think it should be a requirement. If you need government money then you sure as heck don't have extra money for drugs! If you can afford the drugs, well then ya don't need money do you!



As far as losing my job and having my "bodily fluids invaded" - well if I lost my job and I was looking for someone to support me then I guess I would have to take the bad with the good. There is nothing "sacred" about pee. My employer requires it, my doctor asks for it, and I give it willingly --- why? Because I have nothing to hide! I go to work, I support my family, and I am not standing in a line with my hand out asking for money in the morning so I can be stoned by lunch time!



There is no reason, except for disability, that a person cannot make there way in this world and if you fall on hard times and need a hand out then you best be ready to meet some provisions of that help - which is you cannot spend money on drugs. I also think home checks should be done - to make sure baby Daddy is not living in the house where a "single" mother is collecting benefits.

Answer 2

I think it's a good idea. Are they really going to do it? I get govenment assistance and I would be happy to go. I thank God for this help, & for taxpayer's like you. I'm also sorry for the burden. I'm the only one in the family that recieves it. My children work. I have 12 herniated discs {they started hurting much more as I got older...} that I have due to an abusive husband that did drug's all day when they fired him. And he never stopped. I have other thing's wrong too. If it werent for the medication I take, I couldnt lead a full life. I try to give back, though. I volunteer when I can at different place's along the year's.

Answer 3

I tend to agree with you. Initially it seems to be invasive, but then you made a good point about having to take one to get your own paycheck. And what is coming out of your paycheck is partially what is being given to them in assistance. I think it might make a small dent in stopping some drug abuse, but then again the tests would probably be set up on a certain date for each person, which they could easily get around by quitting for a few days. The only drug that sticks in the system longer than three to five days is marijuana. They won't do hair testing, it's too expensive. There would be a big outcry though, because that assistance is generally looked at as a basis for supporting the children of recipients, and the idea that the children would suffer from lack of assistance because their parent does drugs is going to be an issue. They would literally have to remove all those children from the household to provide for them through the foster system. Yes, right is right, and parents on drugs shouldn't have the privilege of raising their own children in my opinion, but reality tells us that our overworked foster care system can't take much more without collapsing. It's a much more complicated issue than it looks to be on the surface.

Answer 4

I do agree with the idea of drug testing people on welfare. I see each day in my job where typically women are collection welfare, and doing illegal activities.

I believe if someone is collection welfare and they test + for illegal substances, the state should offer them free of charge drug treatment. If they attend treatment, have - random UA's then they should be allowed to continue collecting welfare until they are able to kick the habit. Once they have completed treatment, then the parent should be required to seek and obtain employment. I believe by that time, they will be more then willing and happy to get a job as this would probably be the first time in a long time since they had been clean.

If they do not succesfuly attend/complete treatment then they should be stripped of not only their welfare but their children should be placed into foster care of with a family member who could look out for the childrens best interest. And they should not be allowed to receive assistance again in the future.

I see all to often parents who are illegal substance abusers, prostiting themselves for money AND collecting welfare.

Parents who are receiving assistance I assure you are NOT using the assistance properly.

They are using the cash for drugs, and food stamps for drugs.

I do not believe there would be to many people who would be against random drug testing... if they are maybe they have something to hide. I do not think they can scream freedom to privacy either... I go to work everyday... ultimatly my taxes are paying for their habit. Those on assistance who does not use, will have no problem UAing.

I believe this will save the govt (tax payers) a lot of money each year.

Are you asking yourself, what about her suggestion of paying for treament.... well my answer is this~ I would rather my taxes be spent seeking treatment for the parent/s not only will they become clean and want to get a job. They will also, be better parents to their children who will hopefully not end up in foster care where I would also be paying to support them in foster care.

Answer 5

I disagree. Hypothetically, say you lost your job, and need some government assistance. Do you think it's right that the government invade on your most private of all possessions, your bodily fluids? You didn't committ a crime but you want to treat people like they did because they are in need of some help? And not all people on government assistance sit around and use drugs all day. I used it in college to pay for groceries because I was poor and working my butt off in school. Now I work and am a very productive member of society and would be glad to let part of my paycheck go to those in need. Everybody needs a little help sometimes. If you went to college chances are you relied on someone for help paying your living expenses whether it was government loans, government assistance or your parents. What would you have done without it huh? That's totally unconstitutional also and hippa protects your medical records.

Answer 6

I agree, but then again I disagree. I really don't believe people should be tested at all. What some one does on their time is their own bussiness. But is some is living off state or federal assistance then they should have to prove that they using the money the right way.

Answer 7

I agree with you wholeheartedly, HOWEVER, somewhere out there is the political party of libtards, the aclu, jesse jackarse, and al notsosharpton, who will say minorities are being illegally targeted, and the "man", is again "trying to keep them down". I also have to drug test for my paycheck, (i am a "minority)", and it sticks in my craw to support some idiot who sits at home all day and does drugs at the taxpayers' expense. Then have the nerve to scream discrimination and opression.

Answer 8

i don't see that as being a problem, I think thats a great idea, but what happens when they fail a drug test? will the money just stop or will they have to attend rehab etc, great idea just needs a bit of refinement.

Answer 9

I agree! I believe if people are discovered to have drugs in their system are made to attend counseling to get off of them to qualify for assistance, it would greatly help those who are in a vicious circle of being addicted to drugs. It would bring help to those who are not actively seeking help for themselves and their families.

Answer 10

It's a good idea, but I think the cost would be prohibitive.