Should welfare recipients be drug tested?

[xj0hnx]

Government doing medical tests to see what you do in your private life doesn't intrude on your personal liberty?

Not if you want free government money. It doesn't intrude on anything, just like getting drug tested for a job doesn't "intrude on personal liberty". I am 100% pro- 100% legalization (everything, yes, crack, and heroin included), and still think if you want to be on the government dole you need to be drug tested. If you can't afford to support yourself, and/or children, you should not have the luxury of having the taxpayers do it for you while you seem to be able to afford drugs.

 

[WelshBloke]

Not if you want free government money. It doesn't intrude on anything, just like getting drug tested for a job doesn't "intrude on personal liberty". I am 100% pro- 100% legalization (everything, yes, crack, and heroin included), and still think if you want to be on the government dole you need to be drug tested.

Yes it does.

Also you're pretty much arguing for compulsory drug testing for everyone.

Drug testing if you are working.
Drug testing if you're not.

I thought you guys were supposed to be strongly for privacy, I know you all shit bricks when there's reports of CCTV cameras in the UK filming people in public, but here you seem happy to let people snoop on you in private.

 

[xj0hnx]

Yes it does.

Also you're pretty much arguing for compulsory drug testing for everyone.

Drug testing if you are working.
Drug testing if you're not.

I thought you guys were supposed to be strongly for privacy, I know you all shit bricks when there's reports of CCTV cameras in the UK filming people in public, but here you seem happy to let people snoop on you in private.

No, it's not, and no, I am not. There are many places that do not drug test, and you do not have to get welfare. If you can not afford to fed yourself, or your children, but can afford drugs than too fucking bad for you, do what's right, or suffer ...fuck 'em. If you don't want to get drug tested, than opt to work somewhere that doesn't test. There's no intrusion of personal liberty anywhere in there.

You'd have to also understand that I completely support 100% legalization of drugs, period. All of them. I also think that we should have strong training of social workers on how to deal with drug addicts, and rehabilitation for those that want to clean up, and while not providing the drugs themselves, offering things like harm reduction, and needle exchanges for those that don't/can't. I see the current methods of dealing with the drug culture as a self perpetuating downward spiral mostly because of the social stigma attached to it, and how we deal with them. Throwing people in prison for doing drugs is a terrible waste of resources, and only sets people on a further anti social path.

 

[spidey07]

Kentucky is trying to pass a law for welfare/medicaid recipients to get drug tested. Fail drug test = no more money. It's gaining a lot of momentum and support. People are tired of being robbed of their hard earned money so folks can sit around and not work doing drugs. The cries of "but think of the children!" are being brought out and being met with stern resolve and personal responsibility from the majority of the commonwealth.

 

[alkemyst]

Yes and full financials disclosed of any purchases as well as the financials of anyone else if the welfare person is claiming someone else bought them the Lexus SUV in their drive way.

 

[Red Dawn]

Kentucky is trying to pass a law for welfare/medicaid recipients to get drug tested. Fail drug test = no more money. It's gaining a lot of momentum and support. People are tired of being robbed of their hard earned money so folks can sit around and not work doing drugs. The cries of "but think of the children!" are being brought out and being met with stern resolve and personal responsibility from the majority of the commonwealth.

Lol, they are going to test medicaid recipients to see if they are on drugs?? Oh it's Kentucky

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

Chances are she won't have kids if she has to support them. Sterilization is a hobgoblin. There are reliable, safe and long lasting contraceptives.

You don't know just how bad this is in the US. I believe in rights but not without accountability.

We're raising more welfare kids and I wonder if its not in large part a societal sweeping under the carpet. Easier that way.

 

[spidey07]

Lol, they are going to test medicaid recipients to see if they are on drugs?? Oh it's Kentucky

It's any form of state aid including food stamps. I see your sarcasm but people are pissed off and no longer accept the theft of their money to be given to people who won't help themselves or take responsibility for their decisions and subsequent consequences.

 

[WelshBloke]

No, it's not, and no, I am not. There are many places that do not drug test, and you do not have to get welfare. If you can not afford to fed yourself, or your children, but can afford drugs than too fucking bad for you, do what's right, or suffer ...fuck 'em. If you don't want to get drug tested, than opt to work somewhere that doesn't test. There's no intrusion of personal liberty anywhere in there.

Its not about drug taking, its about the presumption that you have done something wrong and have to prove you're innocence by taking a test.
The fact that someone can snoop into your private life at will seems wrong to me.

I've been employed as a nurse for over a decade, I don't take illegal drugs (I dont take any regular prescriptions either) but if they tried to drug test me for no reason I'd walk (after taking them to an employment tribunal).

Kentucky is trying to pass a law for welfare/medicaid recipients to get drug tested. Fail drug test = no more money. It's gaining a lot of momentum and support. People are tired of being robbed of their hard earned money so folks can sit around and not work doing drugs. The cries of "but think of the children!" are being brought out and being met with stern resolve and personal responsibility from the majority of the commonwealth.

Aww crap who let Kentucky into the Commonwealth? We have enough trouble with Pakistan as it is without your 3rd world states joining as well.

 

[WelshBloke]

Chances are she won't have kids if she has to support them. Sterilization is a hobgoblin. There are reliable, safe and long lasting contraceptives.

You don't know just how bad this is in the US. I believe in rights but not without accountability.

We're raising more welfare kids and I wonder if its not in large part a societal sweeping under the carpet. Easier that way.

I guarantee it wont stop people having kids. Are those contraceptives going to be voluntary? Because they are available now I don't see them being used (enough).


I agree that I probably don't know the full extent of the problem over there but I just dont think that cutting welfare to single mothers is going to help societies problems or save you any money. I think it will do harm in both those cases.

 

[nobodyknows]

YES

I work for the government and I get random tested. They should too.

Everybody should be tested twice a day, once in the morning and once before bedtime. Just think, we could eliminate unemployment!!

 

[xj0hnx]

Its not about drug taking, its about the presumption that you have done something wrong and have to prove you're innocence by taking a test.
The fact that someone can snoop into your private life at will seems wrong to me.

They aren't just "snooping into your private life at will". You, the welfare recipient, are asking for public assistance, if you don't ask for it, there's no drug test (snooping in your private life at will), see how that works? It's not a matter of presumption of innocence, The taxpayer shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of supporting someone that would rather pay for drugs than pay their bills. I do believe that if you are an addict, and need help, that in order to receive benefits you need to make an effort to get off, or at least acknowledge you have a problem and work towards a goal of either supporting yourself, or getting clean and continuing benefits. I don't believe in giving away drugs, or giving away money, but I do believe that if society legalized drugs the problems would equalize to a much more manageable level.

I've been employed as a nurse for over a decade, I don't take illegal drugs (I dont take any regular prescriptions either) but if they tried to drug test me for no reason I'd walk (after taking them to an employment tribunal).

Good for you, that's how it should be.

 

[werepossum]

Not if you want free government money. It doesn't intrude on anything, just like getting drug tested for a job doesn't "intrude on personal liberty". I am 100% pro- 100% legalization (everything, yes, crack, and heroin included), and still think if you want to be on the government dole you need to be drug tested. If you can't afford to support yourself, and/or children, you should not have the luxury of having the taxpayers do it for you while you seem to be able to afford drugs.

I agree completely. Anyone who is not disabled and is asking for public assistance should be drug tested. They are asking us to support them, we have a right to make sure they are holding up their end of the bargain. Neither job hunting, nor getting an education, nor child rearing is going to go well for a junkie.

 

[WelshBloke]

They aren't just "snooping into your private life at will". You, the welfare recipient, are asking for public assistance, if you don't ask for it, there's no drug test (snooping in your private life at will), see how that works? It's not a matter of presumption of innocence, The taxpayer shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of supporting someone that would rather pay for drugs than pay their bills. I do believe that if you are an addict, and need help, that in order to receive benefits you need to make an effort to get off, or at least acknowledge you have a problem and work towards a goal of either supporting yourself, or getting clean and continuing benefits. I don't believe in giving away drugs, or giving away money, but I do believe that if society legalized drugs the problems would equalize to a much more manageable level.

On the one hand you say its not a matter of the presumption of innocence and in the same sentence you assume the person is taking drugs and must prove they aren't.

I agree that addiction should be managed better, I'd go so far as to give addicts regular maintenance doses of drugs (given in a controlled area). The cost of opiates is negligible.

 

[xj0hnx]

Everybody should be tested twice a day, once in the morning and once before bedtime. Just think, we could eliminate unemployment!!

After Kosovo our battalion had a really bad problem with drugs, that isn't too far off of what happened. I think we had 5 AWOL's, something like 23 dishonorable discharges, and a few court martial's.

 

[xj0hnx]

On the one hand you say its not a matter of the presumption of innocence and in the same sentence you assume the person is taking drugs and must prove they aren't.

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter, they are asking for something, one of the requirements for that something is to be drug tested, just like proof that they don't make enough money is required, and proof of address, and other things needed.

I agree that addiction should be managed better, I'd go so far as to give addicts regular maintenance doses of drugs (given in a controlled area). The cost of opiates is negligible.

They do now, except that the user has to pay for it, and it's not cheap, or easy, it's all so "political" it's disgusting, and I can completely understand when people don't want to deal with it and just keep using dope. The cost would be even less if it were legal all the way around, not too mention safer by any standard.

 

[Darwin333]

Its not about drug taking, its about the presumption that you have done something wrong and have to prove you're innocence by taking a test.
The fact that someone can snoop into your private life at will seems wrong to me.

I've been employed as a nurse for over a decade, I don't take illegal drugs (I dont take any regular prescriptions either) but if they tried to drug test me for no reason I'd walk (after taking them to an employment tribunal).



Aww crap who let Kentucky into the Commonwealth? We have enough trouble with Pakistan as it is without your 3rd world states joining as well.

Do you think that requiring a person to give the government their tax returns, pay stubs, employment history and other personal financial data in order to receive .gov assistance is an invasion of privacy?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I guarantee it wont stop people having kids. Are those contraceptives going to be voluntary? Because they are available now I don't see them being used (enough).


I agree that I probably don't know the full extent of the problem over there but I just dont think that cutting welfare to single mothers is going to help societies problems or save you any money. I think it will do harm in both those cases.

Depo provera is an option. For me money is a secondary consideration in the short run. The main problem is institutionalized dependency and hopelessness. As I've said elsewhere I have ideas about what be done if you look.

 

[xj0hnx]

The main problem is institutionalized dependency and hopelessness.

Yes it is, and the system we have is self perpetuating.

 

[Patranus]

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.

A home drug test cost $20 at your local drug store.
A home alcohol test costs less than $4 also available at your local drug store.

So yet, it is very affordable and all the lab work could be done in private labs.

 

[WelshBloke]

Do you think that requiring a person to give the government their tax returns, pay stubs, employment history and other personal financial data in order to receive .gov assistance is an invasion of privacy?

Financial details are relevant to the need for financial aid.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Everybody should be tested twice a day, once in the morning and once before bedtime. Just think, we could eliminate unemployment!!

All the welfare people can just apply for the drug testing jobs.
Two birds one stone, should fix everything.

Edit. Ya I'm slow

 

[piasabird]

I think everyone working everywhere should require a drug test once a year. This would include those on welfare of any kind. When I was in the army I can remember commanders bringing through drug sniffing dogs and even checking cars. I think welfare recipients in housing paid for by the government should expect the same treatment. Inspect their living conditions on a monthly basis.

 

[xj0hnx]

Financial details are relevant to the need for financial aid.

And if you are spending all your money on crack or heroin instead of paying bills, that is also relevant to the need for financial aid.

 

[xj0hnx]

I think everyone working everywhere should require a drug test once a year.

No fucking way. If all employers want to test for drugs than good for them, but it should most definitely not be mandatory. There are many jobs where it just doesn't matter if so and so is smoking weed on the weekends.