DescentBB

Drug testing for welfare recipients and people who draw unemployment compensation. Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs so why not. You have to take a drug test when looking for employment now days anyway. Maybe it will reduce the numbers on the welfare rolls. This effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.

edit: Yes I know is should be affect not effect oooopppps

No, I think you got it right--\"effect\". IMO the system's already so screwed over it's not even worth my time debating about whether or not drug testing is a good idea. These folks shouldn't be dolling out my money anyway. That's not what they're there for.

I take the libertarian slant on this. Every man should be responsible for testing his own drugs.

I think yes, if you're going to benefeit from my tax dollars in such a fasion I'd expect you to not be spending that aid money on dope. If you can't afford food or shelter you shouldn't be affording to get high.

SilverFJ wrote:I think yes, if you're going to benefeit from my tax dollars in such a fasion I'd expect you to not be spending that aid money on dope. If you can't afford food or shelter you shouldn't be affording to get high.

AMEN!

Apparently we've been buying their drugs for them since the '70's!

This wouldn't be such a high issue if these people wouldn't have to be afraid of being thrown in prison if they admit they are on a drug and need help. Admittedly, yes, some would still use drugs, but it would fix a lot of problems.

I have surprised myself and am against this, not because I am pro drugs, but because I don't want government to have any more power then they already have.

I'm against this because of the extra personpower/administration that would be required to make it happen would soak up millions we already cannot spare (and the government has already spent it anyway).

VonVulcan wrote:I have surprised myself and am against this, not because I am pro drugs, but because I don't want government to have any more power then they already have.

For me it isn't an issue of government power, (I'm the biggest government reduction wanter since the French Revolution ) but at the same time it's protection for people like me and it would handle a lot of misallocation of resources. I say either test them (even for food stamps) or turn everything into vouchers and give them no access to cash money (and these vouchers, such as food stamps, are often traded for cash for a set value anyway, but at least it would be more of a pain in the ass for them to get dope.)

"Our food stamps came in today! SO I can just spend this cash on a fat sack!"

Get a job hippie.

VonVulcan wrote:I have surprised myself and am against this, not because I am pro drugs, but because I don't want government to have any more power then they already have.

For me it isn't an issue of government power, (I'm the biggest government reduction wanter since the French Revolution ) but at the same time it's protection for people like me and it would handle a lot of misallocation of resources. I say either test them (even for food stamps) or turn everything into vouchers and give them no access to cash money (and these vouchers, such as food stamps, are often traded for cash for a set value anyway, but at least it would be more of a pain in the ass for them to get dope.)

"Our food stamps came in today! SO I can just spend this cash on a fat sack!"

Get a job hippie.

I don't agree with the growing federal government argument. They already have the power in that they are passing out the money- we already expect them to be responsible about the way that they pass out the money. I'd say that drug testing only enhances their level of responsibility.

So, I'm in favor of further steps to make sure that people aren't misusing the welfare funds. I'm not sure about drug testing... I think that any conviction should make you ineligible for any sort of federal aid for some period of time. It really bothers me that state-assisted living areas (the projects) tend to be high-crime areas. If you ask me, you shouldn't be able to get a penny from the government for, say, 6mo to a yr if you break the law, in any fashion. Wouldn't that clean up the projects, if you got evicted for breaking the law? I tend to be alturistic, and cold-hearted, but honestly I have a hard time feeling bad for criminals ending up freezing on the street... if you want help, try not breaking the law. If you're in dire straights, go get on welfare and live & eat on the government's help. In my opinion, there's no reason to ever break the law in the U.S. (In other countries, some people may have a better case for having to steal to eat, for example.) Should they go looking for people to screw over by having drug tests? Maybe not. I think the root of the problem is criminal behavior, not drug use- I'd aim for dealing with crime more than I'd aim at dealing with drug use.

I'm not sure how I'd handle the family of the criminals on welfare... should a 5 year old starve because her mother decided to break the law? Not really. At the same time, it's part of life that one person's evil behavior screws others. That's where my philosophy gets sticky, and probably would end up with lots more kids in the foster system.

So, I think my answer to the direct question is no. I'd take a harder-line approach to crime instead.

it has nothing to to with growing Government and has everything to do with personal accountability. I'm paying for it show me you deserve it.

I'm going to say no since I firmly believe that the government should never pass out cash. There are plenty of ways to help the needy without giving them money. Many are in that state because they are poor stewards of money anyway, and just giving it to them won't help. I'd rather see welfare abolished in favor of people directly funding charities or other people. But, if the government must be involved, I'd rather see the money sent to local/state governments who can then run food/shelter services or fund charities.

I also definitely agree that anyone in violation of the law should be cut off from government assistance for some period of time. That might make more people think twice before doing something stupid.

No! Giving should be about Giving. Strings and conditions should never be attached, weather its unemployment or charity or soup kitchen.

if your going to \"GIVE\" then I agree with you, but Tax dollars are not given they are taken. and many of the people that are on this system are just along for the ride.

Give to charities. let them sort out who is deserving and who is not. Tax dollars should be regulated, and if your in violation of the law, drug use is one example, then you disqualify YOURSELF. the Government should not be a charity.

Cuda68 wrote:No! Giving should be about Giving. Strings and conditions should never be attached, weather its unemployment or charity or soup kitchen.

Is this in reponse to Plague? Because I'll side with that statement as well. The present system traps people. It doesn't enable them. Many don't WANT to be enabled of have responcibility. Welfare workers tell gals to have more kids so they can get more moeny. o_0 That's messed up.

Giving is good, but the wholesale shoveling of cash (that's an exaggeration ... almost) to nearly anyone who wants it and then reward them for staying withing the system is unreasonable. Here in Portland, there are a couple of programs run by soup kitchens that help folks get back on their feet. They help with job searching, counceliing, over coming drug addiction; all free. (btw, these are a Christian orgainzations) A local hospital is also looking into a life reclaiming program. For the cost of seeing the habitual drug using street person that racks up millions and millions of dollars in services that they will never pay; (Hospitals are obligated to give service to everyone) it's cheaper for them in the long run to spend something like 600K over a couple of years to help get these folks' live back on track. ... for those who want it.

p.s.: it's "whether" (i used to have trouble with that one)