Drug Test Before Receiving Benefits

There is a proposal being circulating around on the talking head channels that the Washington D.C. gods want to attach drug testing to all who request for unemployment compensation, welfare or should we say any government benefit that is requested by an american citizen. Is this fair or is this another attempt by government to control your private life? I say if the person wants to use drugs and kill themslves then that is their right to do so. Legalize drugs and tax it to recoup the money. Just like legalize the sex industry and tax it. Politicians love taxes anyway.

 

Drug tests, too?

Not cool.

Why don't they just prohibit alcohol and tobacco while they're at it.

This is bullshit.

 

I think that is fucking awesome and I hope they do it. Maybe there will be less people on welfare who are just on it because they're too stoned to hold down a job and take care of themselves. If that's what they want to do, then like you said, they have every right to do so, but I don't think people who DO work should be paying for it. Maybe it will lead to less money taken out of workers' checks to pay for the cost of living for someone who just wants to sit at home all day sucking on a crack pipe. Legalize drugs? Yeah, that's a great idea, have everyone walking around under the influence of a narcotic because they're legal now. That's really smart. Have you ever been around someone with a drug problem? Do you know what drugs do to a person? Are you serious? WTF?

 

If my tax dollars are going to support you I would like to know I'm not being an enabler. If I were supporting my adult son I would want to know he was not using drugs, if he needs no support from me then I have not right to dictate what he does, but as long as I pay the bills then I do have that right and so does our government.

That's my opinion!!

 

wtf hell no not cool

 

I agree.

I have a friend that works for a company that does random drug testing because it keeps the cost of insurance down. He's been there since November and he's been "randomly" selected twice.

I think it's a great idea though....why be enablers?

 

Fly girl has point. I agree with the fact that people on drugs should not be given benefits but I don't want to hurt innocent people because of that. So I will say no until we can resolve it. Maybe having the drug test and putting the mother or person in a detox center.

 

If they don't want help, that's not going to do them a bit of good.

 

​

 

Nope, I think that if a mother has a drug problem she shouldn't even be able to keep the child in her custody until she's clean, let alone receive benefits that are "supposed" to be for her child. When someone has a drug problem, the drug comes first, period.
So, my opinion still stands that I think it's an awesome idea and if they do find a mother with a child trying to get benefits and she fails a drug test, then it's double awesome because they can throw the mom in rehab and find a healthier environment where that child has a better chance to thrive.

 

Growing up with a drug addicted brother, I know all too well the selfishness that is involved with being an addict. I'm in complete agreement. If the mother doesn't pass a drug test, the baby will most assuredly stand a better chance with someone else raising him/her.

 

I do think think every parent who is responsible for the wellfare of a child should pass a drug test for heavy drugs (I would not personally include marijuana in that test) if that person expect the government to pay it.

Ditto Britty - except for marijuana I would say you are absolutely right.

But with that said, I do think marijuana causes people to be rather laid back and many become lazy, those people should be required to be seeking employment if they want bennifets. I know many states already have this requirement.

 

i don't do drugs, so i dont see what the fuss is about

lol

everyone gets nervous about piss tests, im just like 'this will be fun'

not saying that i have anything against people that smoke pot or whatever..

..since the basis for making one thing illegal and the other legal (alcohol), is more flimsy than a boat made from termite-infested pine, in the middle of the grand rapids.

 

I don't have a problem with it. If you don't wanna get drug-tested, don't come to the taxpayers for help. It's as simple as that

 

If someone has a crippling drug addiction, it's unlikely they'd be capable of holding a job long enough to collect unemployment. Those who test positive will probably have nothing more than Mary Jane in their system anyway, so the counsel objects.

 

What about welfare though? Also, different people process weed differently, for some it's not a big deal, but for others it can be crippling too.

 

Welfare eligibility is 4-5 years (?) now since the passage of the reform bill in the 1990s', so even the hardest addict is living on borrowed time. I would have to research more on the correlation between welfare and drug dependency before making a firm decision on that.

Also, I've never known anyone to not hold down a job because they smoked weed. Some may not go anywhere in life, but they're well functioning members of society.

 

I agree with Fly, the kids will suffer if you cut off their money. In an ideal world parents who are addicts wouldn't be allowed to have custody of their kids, but this isn't an ideal world and the care system is overflowing with unwanted kids, so if you take children away from every addict, pot smoker and alcoholic there will be no where for the kids to go and the children will end up having even less stability than they had with their parents. I really hate the thought of a junkie having custody of a child, but there is only so much govt. can do with the resources they have.

I can understand reducing money for addicts with no dependant children, but again, that would just cause more homelessness and probably more crime, as they need the money for their habit and have to resort to desperate measures to get it. It's a hard one.

What about people who smoke though? I know people whose children live in dire conditions and they smoke all the time, when in my opinion they should use the money they spend on that for their kids, or what about people with a gambling problem? Where do you draw the line?

Ehhh... I have to disagree for the moment.

 

Most of the people I've known throughout my life on welfare were also drug addicts. Where I grew up, lovingly known as a "low income housing unit," almost every person in my neighborhood was on welfare and used drugs and alcohol as well. So in my own little experience I think it's very probable. Of course I'm not going to say everyone on welfare uses drugs. But, I do think the majority do just because of my own experiences and things I've witnessed.

Yeah, I know that's likely to happen too. I know people who smoke weed and even have gone far in life too. It's just that I've also seen the other extreme as well (weed as crippling). I still think it'd be a good idea though to test them before "enabling" them and using workers' money (example) to pay for their food (foodstamps) so they can use whatever other cash they might have from whatever other source and use it to support their drug habit. I don't think it will hurt anything to test people. I believe it would do more good than harm. I still don't object.

 

+1

I know some dudes right now, that been smoking spliffs since they were kids, that graduated from college, done some decent military time, and been very good at what they do currently...

and I know dudes that don't do anything, that just suck at whatever they do and/or can't hold a job worth their life.

shit obama and bush were testing positive for coke, during their college years, and look where they ended up

lol