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

Post Reply New Topic

I thank the rich should always have to get their kids drug tested.

Receiving welfare is not a right and is done at the taxpayers' expense. Therefore, I'm all for testing to make sure as little money is wasted.

Depends. Are they using their assistance money to support a drug habit? If not, it's none of my business or anyone else's.

Otherwise, I don't see what's unethical about performing "audits" to ensure the system isn't being abused. But rather than do so through drug testing, I'd much rather see the recipient's finances get scrutinized. We already have state and federal departments to help with that.

It's not surprising that in every case where such laws have been passed or are under consideration, the sponsors are all hard-right Republicans. Given their record and their the party's platform - specifically their hostility to social services and wealth transfers on ideological grounds - it is safe to assume that one of the goals to requiring a drug test in order to receive welfare benefits is to shrink the eligibility pool & make access to such programs more daunting & difficult.

But the larger purpose here is to degrade and intimidate. Under the Florida law (currently stayed by the courts), positive test results are forwarded to law enforcement. It's just like New York state requiring fingerprinting to receive benefits - the practical benefits are so scant that they can't even justify the monetary cost, but the real motive is to make the recipient feel like a criminal. Drug testing is always an invasive and degrading process. With virtually every drug-testing regime, a refusal draws the same consequences as a positive test. There is no presumption of innocence, no protection from self-incrimination, no right of privacy.

In my view, this is just another example of the insidiousness of the "War on Drugs". While it has failed to make a serious dent in drug use, it has been hugely successful in diminishing our expectations of privacy and individual rights.

It's one thing for a private employer to require drug testing as a condition for a job, however objectionable many of us may feel that it is. But it's a serious transition for the state to require this in order to receive a service for which one is eligible; or to participate in a program into which one has paid. If governments (state or federal) can require a drug test to receive unemployment benefits or welfare benefits, there's nothing to prevent them from requiring the same in order to get a driver's license or a passport, or to be eligible for Social Security or Medicare or state retirement benefits. Indeed there's nothing to prevent college students from being required to waive their protection against warrantless search & seizure in order to get financial aid or live in university housing.

If we can be required to surrender our fundamental rights in order to receive a benefit or service, it is a grave threat to civil liberties of all of us.

Again, it's amazing how the "libertarians" are either silent about or supportive of this. I guess their regard for civil liberty is superseded by their contempt for anyone who might need to use a service of the government.

As always when liberty is abridged, it is the unpopular groups who are targeted first. In Arizona it's the Hispanics. In North Carolina it's the homosexuals. In Florida (& lots of other places too) it's the poor.

They've managed to cut the TANF rolls by 2/3rds in 15 years. The poverty level is the same or higher so more children are suffering and there is already a 60 month lifetime cap. I don't really care either way but if they are trying to sell this as deficit reduction....lol. This is a paltry amount of money compared to the deficit and debt. And may end up costing more money to implement as mentioned above.