Should welfare recipients be drug tested?

[IndyColtsFan]

I think they should be, but I wonder how much it would cost to test all of them.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

No, it wouldn't be cost effective and it intrudes on personal liberty.

I too wonder about the cost, but personal liberty is a non-issue. Most people working must pass a drug test, and this isn't really different. They are not required to accept government assistance and if they want it, in my opinion, they better not be doing drugs.

Unless your job is such that could endanger the physical safety of others, then it is none of your employer's business.

A truck driver/crane operator? Certainly. A secretary, clerk, or accountant? No.

Sorry, you don't get to make that decision. I'm an office worker (IT) and have had to submit to drug tests to get my job and nothing I do can endanger others. Personally, I do agree with you that only people in "dangerous" professions should be tested, but that isn't the way it is and if I have to take a drug test to take a job and pay taxes, people receiving my money should be required to as well. And if they fail, they get no money.

 

[Red Dawn]

I'm more concerned about people who make more than enough money to even be on welfare, and still get free healthcare/food stamps. I have crossed paths with quite a few people who were recipients of both, all with new cars, smartphones, high speed internet, cable tv, new clothes every week, out drinking every weekend, etc etc.

When you go to pick up your dope?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

lolwut? No, that is Mandatory. Fail.

Is having the government support you a requirement? Is that mandatory too?

 

[Red Dawn]

Is having the government support you a requirement? Is that mandatory too?

So you want to add the cost of testing them for drugs, nicotine and Alcohol along with the money we already give them? How is that cost effective? The administration of it would be enormous, not to mention the actual testing and lab work.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

So you want to add the cost of testing them for drugs, nicotine and Alcohol along with the money we already give them? How is that cost effective?

The administration of it would be enormous, not to mention the actual testing and lab work.

As I mentioned, I have concerns with the cost of that and would need to see estimates on how much it costs. As others pointed out, random testing may be effective and much cheaper.

 

[airdata]

I generally think people should be able to do what they want w\ their bodies... but, if a person doesn't have enough money to make it and needs government money... They shouldn't be able to afford illicit drugs, should they?

What do you do when the mother of 8 goes to get her food stamps and pops a hot piss test? Is CPS on hand to take the kids?

Are we going to legalize marijuana before we implement something like this?

 

[WelshBloke]

I generally think people should be able to do what they want w\ their bodies... but, if a person doesn't have enough money to make it and needs government money... They shouldn't be able to afford illicit drugs, should they?

What do you do when the mother of 8 goes to get her food stamps and pops a hot piss test? Is CPS on hand to take the kids?

Are we going to legalize marijuana before we implement something like this?

This is the big question, what are you going to do if people fail?

 

[boomhower]

This is the big question, what are you going to do if people fail?

Yes, they should. What do you think happens to kids that grow up in homes that mom and dad stay high all the time? They grow up the same way and the process repeats. Now we have 8 more that are going to abuse the system. Will it be a massive cost, yep. Will getting rid of everyone who cheats the system be a massive savings? Yep. Would I rather spend more money getting kids out of broken and abusive homes and into settings that support them being productive members of society, yep. Fixing a broken system costs money but in the end money will be saved. This country has a hard time coming with all the broken systems in place. It's going to be painful for everyone. The sooner we start the sooner it gets done.

 

[Siddhartha]

I would think about it if the government drug tested corporate and middle class welfare recipients too.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think they should be, but I wonder how much it would cost to test all of them.

You don't test everyone all at once. You concentrate on those with drug related histories, especially dealing, and random tests on others.

 

[WelshBloke]

Yes, they should. What do you think happens to kids that grow up in homes that mom and dad stay high all the time? They grow up the same way and the process repeats. Now we have 8 more that are going to abuse the system. Will it be a massive cost, yep. Will getting rid of everyone who cheats the system be a massive savings? Yep. Would I rather spend more money getting kids out of broken and abusive homes and into settings that support them being productive members of society, yep. Fixing a broken system costs money but in the end money will be saved. This country has a hard time coming with all the broken systems in place. It's going to be painful for everyone. The sooner we start the sooner it gets done.

So what are you going to do when a single mother with kids fails a test?

 

[Red Dawn]

I would think about it if the government drug tested corporate and middle class welfare recipients too.

So if a Farmer gets a subsidy he needs to be Drug tested? Hmmmm.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is the big question, what are you going to do if people fail?

I submit a mother of 8 who does drugs either needs to be off them or she is effectively abusing them. Someone with that many kids doesn't have the luxury of getting screwed up. Papa can take care of them until she's demonstrated she's clean.

 

[Red Dawn]

I submit a mother of 8 who does drugs either needs to be off them or she is effectively abusing them. Someone with that many kids doesn't have the luxury of getting screwed up. Papa can take care of them until she's demonstrated she's clean.

If Papa was responsible she wouldn't be on welfare and probably wouldn't have 8 kids..or it could be even more convoluted, there could be multiple Papa's involved with that many kids.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yes, they should, including nicotine, to make sure they aren't spending taxpayer money on cigarettes.

Throw them in a slave labor camp. They'll do everything you want, and nothing else. The true manifestation of your concept of helping them, where you may then dictate every little detail of their lives henceforth.

It's a wonder we abolished slavery only to re-institute it.

 

[WelshBloke]

I submit a mother of 8 who does drugs either needs to be off them or she is effectively abusing them. Someone with that many kids doesn't have the luxury of getting screwed up. Papa can take care of them until she's demonstrated she's clean.

Really?

 

[Anarchist420]

They should just abolish welfare.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If Papa was responsible she wouldn't be on welfare and probably wouldn't have 8 kids..or it could be even more convoluted, there could be multiple Papa's involved with that many kids.

Papa is the state.

 

[WelshBloke]

Papa is the state.

Thats going to cost a lot, and involve a whole lot of liability issues.

 

[sandorski]

No it's voluntary. Sort of like "you don't have to buy health insurance you can just pay a fee not to have it" Irony is delicious.

.

negative

 

[sandorski]

Is having the government support you a requirement? Is that mandatory too?

Sometimes it is, yes.

 

[her209]

I would think about it if the government drug tested corporate and middle class welfare recipients too.

Yup, why should a middle class (under 150,000/year) family with children get tax credits (Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Credit, Additional Child Tax Credit) on their children beyond the standard deductions?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thats going to cost a lot, and involve a whole lot of liability issues.

What's going to cost a lot is a stoner mom going from 8 kids to 9. Growing up in the inner city and having worked in it a very long time my opinion is that the current system is the worst government program this country has ever had. It replaces the wage earner, encourages multigeneral dependency and is a root cause of all sorts of evil. It was a program which was intended to help has done the opposite. Some system needs to be in place but not this. All it takes is to hear congratulations on a pregnancy because it means a bigger check a dozen or more times. So yes I'd pay more for a system that works. I've posted elsewhere what I think would work and this thread demonstrates why reform won't work. People want an unaccountable system.

 

[WelshBloke]

What's going to cost a lot is a stoner mom going from 8 kids to 9. Growing up in the inner city and having worked in it a very long time my opinion is that the current system is the worst government program this country has ever had. It replaces the wage earner, encourages multigeneral dependency and is a root cause of all sorts of evil. It was a program which was intended to help has done the opposite. Some system needs to be in place but not this. All it takes is to hear congratulations on a pregnancy because it means a bigger check a dozen or more times. So yes I'd pay more for a system that works. I've posted elsewhere what I think would work and this thread demonstrates why reform won't work. People want an unaccountable system.

Unless you're going to argue for compulsory sterilisation then taking away her existing kids is not going to stop her having any more. And it will cost the state a lot more (I wouldn't be surprised if it was an order of magnitude higher)to look after them than you would be paying if you hadn't taken them away.