Should welfare recipients be required to pass drug tests?

[Terseti]

Do you think welfare recipients should be required to pass drug tests in order to receive welfare? I think so because most taxpayers ( *cough* the ones who are paying for their welfare) have to pass drug tests in order to get their jobs. Why should they be free to do as they please with our money?

[Silent Majority]

Mandatory drug testing costs more money than it saves.


And it's not like being a drug user makes someone any less worthy of, well, being able to survive. If anything, it makes it that much harder to sort their life out.

[Geilinor]

Source that most people have to pass drug tests to get a job?

[MERIZoC]

No.

[Coccygia]

Yes. Why not? Why should tax dollars go to support someone's drug habit? If they fail, they should have an opportunity for rehab - best thing all around.

[Gauthier]

Florida Law on Drug Tests for Welfare Is Struck Down

Nevermind that blanket drug testing for welfare applications constitutes illegal and unwarranted search.

[Galloism]

Ever heard the phrase "don't cut off your nose to spite your face"?

That.

[Eleanor Ritas]

Do you think welfare recipients should be required to pass drug tests in order to receive welfare? I think so because most taxpayers ( *cough* the ones who are paying for their welfare) have to pass drug tests in order to get their jobs. Why should they be free to do as they please with our money?

Most taxpayers have to pass drug tests to get their jobs?

How about instead, if someone's substance abuse (which is a disease and a medical issue) makes them unable to manage public funds allotted to help them survive, they be given housing, food, and treatment for addiction in lieu of cash?

That way addicts won't be left on the streets to die (and do harmful things to others in the course of it), and public funds won't be paying for drugs, they'll be paying for housing, food, and medical care for people who need it to live.

[New Chalcedon]

Do you think welfare recipients should be required to pass drug tests in order to receive welfare? I think so because most taxpayers ( *cough* the ones who are paying for their welfare) have to pass drug tests in order to get their jobs. Why should they be free to do as they please with our money?

Studies - and experience with those places who have tried this idea - have established that welfare recipients use drugs at a significantly lower rate than the rest of the population.

Your "idea" will further stigmatize people on welfare (b/c, you know, that doesn't happen enough already), cost a lot of money, recover very little and - oh, yes - invade the privacy of every person you bully into taking part in it.

Do you think welfare recipients should be required to pass drug tests in order to receive welfare? I think so because most taxpayers ( *cough* the ones who are paying for their welfare) have to pass drug tests in order to get their jobs. Why should they be free to do as they please with our money?

Most taxpayers have to pass drug tests to get their jobs?

How about instead, if someone's substance abuse (which is a disease and a medical issue) makes them unable to manage public funds allotted to help them survive, they be given housing, food, and treatment for addiction in lieu of cash?

That way addicts won't be left on the streets to die (and do harmful things to others in the course of it), and public funds won't be paying for drugs, they'll be paying for housing, food, and medical care for people who need it to live.

I get the impression that OP's objection to that idea amounts to, "But that doesn't punish them enough! And I can't feel all superior and self-righteous about it!"

[Murkwood]

This issue is tricky. On one hand, it's the government intruding in people's lives, and it costs money. On the other, I don't want my money going to druggies.

[Benuty]

No!

Now stop bringing these absurd ideas that hurt the welfare system more than help it.

[Vicious Debaters]

Studies - and experience with those places who have tried this idea - have established that welfare recipients use drugs at a significantly lower rate than the rest of the population.

Your "idea" will further stigmatize people on welfare (b/c, you know, that doesn't happen enough already), cost a lot of money, recover very little and - oh, yes - invade the privacy of every person you bully into taking part in it.

...I get the impression that OP's objection to that idea amounts to, "But that doesn't punish them enough! And I can't feel all superior and self-righteous about it!"

I fucking love you. This, very much this.

[Ethel mermania]

no, you could have a single mom with 3 kids and the mom is a functional addict or more likely an occasional user. cut off the mom's benefits your cutting off the kids as well.

[Benuty]

This issue is tricky. On one hand, it's the government intruding in people's lives, and it costs money. On the other, I don't want my money going to druggies.

Not all "druggies" are loners, hell many of them have families that would starve or make even less of their ends meet without that money.

[Galloism]

Do you think welfare recipients should be required to pass drug tests in order to receive welfare? I think so because most taxpayers ( *cough* the ones who are paying for their welfare) have to pass drug tests in order to get their jobs. Why should they be free to do as they please with our money?

Studies - and experience with those places who have tried this idea - have established that welfare recipients use drugs at a significantly lower rate than the rest of the population.

Your "idea" will further stigmatize people on welfare (b/c, you know, that doesn't happen enough already), cost a lot of money, recover very little and - oh, yes - invade the privacy of every person you bully into taking part in it.

Most taxpayers have to pass drug tests to get their jobs?

How about instead, if someone's substance abuse (which is a disease and a medical issue) makes them unable to manage public funds allotted to help them survive, they be given housing, food, and treatment for addiction in lieu of cash?

That way addicts won't be left on the streets to die (and do harmful things to others in the course of it), and public funds won't be paying for drugs, they'll be paying for housing, food, and medical care for people who need it to live.

I get the impression that OP's objection to that idea amounts to, "But that doesn't punish them enough! And I can't feel all superior and self-righteous about it!"

Not only that: it's a trick.

I've seen how this works. Today, they require drug tests. Tomorrow, they use the presence of drug tests as "proof" that the poor are worthless drug users, and we can cut them off.

I wasn't born yesterday.

[Farnhamia]

Do you think welfare recipients should be required to pass drug tests in order to receive welfare? I think so because most taxpayers ( *cough* the ones who are paying for their welfare) have to pass drug tests in order to get their jobs. Why should they be free to do as they please with our money?

It stops being your money once the government gets it. According to the National Council of State Legislatures ...

States have proposed drug testing of applicants and recipients of public welfare benefits since federal welfare reform in 1996. The federal rules permit drug testing as part of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant. In recent years, many states have proposed some form of drug testing or screening for applicants. In 2009, over 20 states proposed legislation that would require drug testing as a condition of eligibility for public assistance programs. In 2010 at least 12 states had similar proposals. None of these proposals became law because most of the legislation was focused on “suspicionless” or “random” drug testing, which is at odds with a 2003 Michigan Court of Appeals case. Marchwinski v. Howard ruled that subjecting every welfare applicant in Michigan to a drug test without reason to believe that drugs were being used, was unconstitutional.

The proposals gained momentum beginning in in the 2011 session. Three states passed legislation in 2011, four states enacted laws in 2012, two states passed legislation in 2013, and two states has passed legislation in 2014, bringing the total number of states to eleven. In 2013, Kansas enacted legislation to require drug testing for applicants and recipients suspected of using controlled substances. In 2012, Utah passed legislation requiring applicants to complete a written questionnaire screening for drug use and Georgia passed legislation requiring drug tests for all applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Tennessee approved a bill to require the department to develop a plan for substance abuse testing for all applicants and Oklahoma passed a measure requiring all applicants for TANF to be screened for illegal drug use.

So it's an on-going thing and there are serious constitutional issues, it seems.

[Vicious Debaters]

I've seen how this works. Today, they require drug tests. Tomorrow, they use the presence of drug tests as "proof" that the poor are worthless drug users, and we can cut them off.

I wasn't born yesterday.

Not just that.

I think it's also the means of making it harder to get on welfare. Doing many small steps successively to add requirements can make it a hassle for people to start getting benefits, which also means potentially paying less people.

[Galloism]

I've seen how this works. Today, they require drug tests. Tomorrow, they use the presence of drug tests as "proof" that the poor are worthless drug users, and we can cut them off.

I wasn't born yesterday.

Not just that.

I think it's also the means of making it harder to get on welfare. Doing many small steps successively to add requirements can make it a hassle for people to start getting benefits, which also means potentially paying less people.

With luck, they will starve or die of exposure before completing the steps, and we save the money.

[Farnhamia]

Not just that.

I think it's also the means of making it harder to get on welfare. Doing many small steps successively to add requirements can make it a hassle for people to start getting benefits, which also means potentially paying less people.

With luck, they will starve or die of exposure before completing the steps, and we save the money.

What makes you think you're getting any of the money saved?

[Galloism]

With luck, they will starve or die of exposure before completing the steps, and we save the money.

What makes you think you're getting any of the money saved?

Nebulous "we".

[Marispatria]

As others have pointed out, it's counter-productive, pointless, and has nothing to do with protecting the public purse and everything to do with stigmatising welfare recipients.

Also, once you go down that route, where the hell does it stop? Are you going to micro-manage every other aspect of their lives as well? Diet? What time they go to bed? I thought we were dealing with capable adults here, not children.

[Luziyca]

No, because what others said.

[Reploid Productions]

I think so because most taxpayers ( *cough* the ones who are paying for their welfare) have to pass drug tests in order to get their jobs.

^{[citation needed]}

Also, hi, I'm an employed taxpayer, and I've never had to take a drug test. Personal anecdote aside, sounds like drug-testing for welfare applicants actually costs more of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, while not snaring tons and tons of those ebil welfare drug queens and kings, and not really affecting how many people apply anyway.

So basically, you're saying all taxpayers should have to pay even more of their money for welfare recipients.

[The Fascist American Empire]

I don't see why not. Just bring in a doctor's note if need be, say for prescription marijuana, which is legal in, I believe, 17 states.

[Saint Kitten]

No, it wouldn't be all that helpful. And costly