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

Post Reply New Topic

Do you think that if someone is getting a welfare check that they should have to take a urine sample to make sure they are not using drugs?

I think they should. Now I haven't looked into this enough to have a set stance in this, was wondering what others opinions were on this. I think marijuana should be legal, so drug test wise I do not think that should matter. But sadly I have heard that marijuana can still show up positive weeks after you smoked it. A relative of mine has the strong opinion that "those people" should, and recently sent me an email on it.

They'd be taking the piss.

Why do you think they should?

Drugs are bad, but it boils down to freedom to choose - a person not on welfare can choose to use drugs, but you're saying a person on welfare shouldn't be allowed that freedom - it's not about drugs, it's about something bigger. Being on welfare turns a lot of people to drugs or a lot of people on welfare may in part be in that situation due to drug addiction, so I don't see any benefit in taking even more away from what more often than not are victims of social deprivation. Then there's the cost of regular urine testing - money could be better spent.

No but that's because I don't think drugs should be against the law in the first place. However, I think it's with in the governments power to put preconditions on their support and not an invasion of privacy. This is why you shouldn't want to be dependent on the government, your personal conduct becomes their business.

You might as well ask "should unemployed drug users starve to death because we can't find it in ourselves to help them"?

Edited to add: I think this comes very close to a eugenics program. "Consume a substance that we don't approve of and we deem you unworthy of financial assistance, and ultimately unworthy to live".

Yes they should be subjected to a drug test if the welfare they are receiving is in any form of cash.

Its tax payer money and it should not be given to those that break the law. Drugs is breaking the law (big time)


There is no 'privacy' right when you are receiving tax payer money to HELP you. If that tax payer money is being misused for criminal activity (drugs) then you should not be receiving that help any longer. Simple as that in my book.


Florida did a great experiment in this. Perhaps the ONLY decent thing the bozo we have as governor ever did.

I don't think they should, just because it is a massive invasion of privacy and their only "crime" is being poor and requiring assistance. Currently the only people who are required to be drug tested are people who have committed crimes and are on probation, and of course people who have to be tested because they hold some kind of public safety position [which is something they agree to as a condition of their job.]

To me it smacks of criminalizing poverty, which has been the overall trend these last several years and is a big reason why the country is in the mess it's in.

No I think it would kind of be a waste of resources....not to mention drug tests aren't always even accurate. Not to mention If they do they also might want to require tests making sure they aren't eating junk food or doing anything else potentially unhealthy either. Not to mention drug testing is an invasion of privacy as far as I am concerned.

I'd say yes but limited and two prong for different situations:

people on short term welfare and unemployment - they need to pass a drug test to get a job; it makes sense. If they land a job at Progressive - great, drug test them until they're on the team at Progressive and say 'Adios and happy 4:20!".

Long term disability in the real sense (SSI, Medicare, etc.) - only drug test them if the case worker sees things that are worrying and additionally have that case worker submit a request so that there is formal documentation of such requests both to prevent simple harassment if personalities don't mesh or, alternately, to cover the case worker and agency if serious problems do arise - in order to prove that adequate steps were taken to remedy the situation from their side. Obviously certain common sense metrics would be needed for inquiries, and if those metrics were met it would be a warning/steps-toward-firing response if someone along the approval process simply sits on the request for their own reasons.

I'm neutral. Then again, I also think welfare shouldn't be doled out as cash.