Do you think people on welfare need to give a drug test?

Post Reply New Topic

It seems to come down to people think if one has less material wealth they should also have less freedoms than people with more material wealth. I have to strongly oppose this notion.

That's not my reason at all. I don't see why the government has the right to tell people what they can or can't put in their bodies, but it is well within the governments power to not pay for drugs whose only purpose is getting high, or where the negatives strongly outweigh any positives (heroin is a good example. Great for stopping coughs, but INSANELY addictive and harmful). I don't see why my tax dollars should go towards an addict getting his or her fix.

Why don't they demand that people that want assistance receive rectal exams?

Seems like a pretty good deal, especially if you're a male over the age of 40.

Even better if Universal Healthcare gets off the rail - we could have not only drug testing and free proctological exams on state demand but also stool sampling and home inspection for junk food consumption, too much red meat, or anything that's too far off the dietary map they're given.

And how does a drug test prove if one is an addict vs. say an occasional user? I just think its an invasion of privacy.....not to mention drug tests can be inaccurate. Also there would still end up being money spent on resources for addiction so either way tax money will still be used for that sort of thing.

Also I just have to wonder if one is barred from every resource availbile to a struggling citizen due to using drugs.....how are they supposed to get back on the 'right' track. Usually more stress and frustration increases drug abuse, I can just see how such a policy would easily back fire.

Did I say they should be cut off from welfare? I only said I'm neutral about drug testing. I'm more of a mind to mandate that they get help.

Maybe not, I admit I kinda went off track from your post and just into my general opinion...but you're neutral on it so not much debate there I imagine.

No worries, I've done the same many times.

I'm not entirely sure that all people who test positive for drugs need help. Think of cases like an unemployed person who likes to smoke a joint on occasion, but doesn't pay a dime for weed because he keeps two or three cannabis plants in the basement. I think there are far more welfare recipients who fall into this category than crack or heroin addicts. Social workers should be able to spot the latter without reenacting Gattaca, imho.

I also don't know how I feel about forcing people to get help. There is nothing wrong with trying to help a bipolar person, for example, but keeping a bipolar person prisoner in a psychiatric ward because they refuse to take their medication is a human rights violation. The same goes for drug addicts. Offering help is a great idea, but forcing them to seek treatment by cutting their benefits, and thereby their livelihood, deprives them of their right to self-determination.

Besides, I believe that this could backfire in many if not most cases. People with a serious drug problem might resort to crime in order to earn money rather than go through withdrawal, or simply give up when they feel they've run out of options and join the legions of homeless people, or even commit suicide by overdose.

I don't think employers should be allowed to demand drug tests either, except for jobs like heart surgeon or truck driver with hazmat endorsement. I don't see how a regular office job justifies a blood test.

The same reasoning that prevents someone who occasionally smokes pot from being employed could be used to argue against the employment of women because they might get pregnant or suffer from sex-specific health problems at some point. Or against the employment of gay people based on statistics that suggest a higher STD rate. Not to forget people with genetical predispositions for diseases, and unmarried men who have a statistically lower life expectancy as well as a higher suicide rate. Employer invasion of job candidate privacy is a slippery slope.

Don't get me wrong, I think pot should be legal. My take though - as long as many jobs are drug testing, its not an issue of judging the person on unemployment so much as making sure that personal choice factors (such as failing a drug test) are removed from the equation of staying unemployed.

It's misguided policy for a number of reasons:

1) It costs more to administer than it saves in recovered welfare benefits.

2) The accuracy of testing is suspect. When a poppyseed bagel can trigger a false positive for opiates, we have to exercise caution.

3) It victimizes an already vulnerable population. What is a person who is denied welfare in these circumstances going to do? It is no coincidence that property crime rises in direct response to barriers to access to welfare. If the goal is law enforcement, then why are we creating circumstances in which people are more likely to turn to crime for survival?

I would want to know of the true cost vs benefit. does it save tax dollars by doing it.
how about those on welfare must have contraception. Both male and female sides.
It would seem the only welfare recipients who object to random drug testing would be those who are using illicit drugs...
It is common among those on welfare to get pregnant and have more kids to get more welfare money...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2 ... -cost.html

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state’s net loss? $45,780.

"That’s not counting attorneys and court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy," Newton said.

The law also didn’t impact the number of people who applied for benefits.

The findings don’t ruffle supporters of the law, who say that its primary purpose is to make sure taxpayer money doesn’t supplement drug use.


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2 ... rylink=cpy

I think it might come down to $, because prisons create jobs you know

In both situations you have to figure out how to safeguard the money going in. For people with disabilities - if they want to deal drugs and have that kind of side enterprise on top of their SSI - that's between them and the police, and the occupational hazards are self-evident. If its a person funding their drug habit with SSI to where they don't have basic staples - they need intervention. If they're meeting the rent with what they're given, eating healthy, and indulging once in a while though; nobody's business.

As far as people on short-term trying to reenter the market we're looking at a couple options really - a) drug test or, alternately, drug test if there is reason to have suspicion b) simply put drop them if they're failing drug tests when they apply for jobs. The only other option in trying marry the two would be a possible c) I they fail a work drug test THEN keep drug testing them till they get a job.

Regardless IMO I think its wise to have the option so long as its positioned for judicious application.