Skip Nav
Movie Trailers
2017's Romance Movies Are Sultry, Charming, and Everything in Between
Relationships
Stop Freaking Out If You're 30 and Single! You Shouldn't Marry Till You're Ready Anyway
Relationships
6 Things to Stop Doing Now If You Want Happy, Healthy Relationships

Drug Tests For Welfare Recipients?

Do you need food stamps, unemployment benefits, or welfare? Well you better be prepared to submit to random drug testing in at least eight states that are considering a new law. Perhaps looking for a way to cut welfare expenditures, these states are prepared to restrict the safety net to drug-free citizens.

A West Virginian state legislator reckons that "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Civil liberties and poverty advocates have an answer for him: requiring drug testing would make the poverty situation worse (even more tent cities?) by discouraging people from seeking assistance. But maybe that's the whole point.

Source

Join The Conversation
Symphonee Symphonee 8 years
And what does this have to do with someone selling their foodstamps to buy crack?
beavis667 beavis667 8 years
I agree with that Steph. That isn't the same as taxing the rich...but I agree with that. The current financial trouble howerver goes far beyond a few companies that we SHOULD hold accountable. There are individuals who took out loans they couldn't afford, or made bad decisions like using up all the equity on their homes in lines of credit. Should they not be held accountable? Many of the catalysts to the current economic problems occurred in the 90's with the increased investment in CRA loans by Fannie and Freddie. The practice of issuing mortgage based investments started in 1997. It was the federal goverment that regulated and allowed this to happen. Glass Steagle was repealed in 1999 allowing banks and insurance companies (AIG) to invest and do business with each other in unprecidented ways. 8 years of Bush failed to fix any of this. IMO, federal government on BOTH sides of the political spectrum are to blame for starting, and then not fixing the financial mess we are in. We can hold elected officials accountable for this. In my opinion, government is more at fault than business, although Countrywide bank and AIG should undergo the scrutiny you suggest. Government should be held accountable too. In the end, it's we the law abiding tax payers who are paying for all of this. It's crap. I think that if there is any avenue in our system where we can inject personal responsibility, we should do it no matter income or how old the problem is.
stephley stephley 8 years
"So lets tax all of the wealthy for the sins of a few? That's not personal responsibility. That's a punitive tax code. Drug testing specifically singles out offenders and rewards those being responsible." Investigating companies that were skirting laws, not doing due diligence on loans, or signing contracts with the full knowledge that the company was in dire financial trouble can also single out offenders so that the guilty can be punished and the responsible rewarded.
Stella-Stylist Stella-Stylist 8 years
All I have to say is BRILLIANT!! This is great!
beavis667 beavis667 8 years
"Beave, you're straying into personal attack territory, fyi." No I'm not. I said you made a dumb statement, and I explained why. I didn't say you were dumb. I suggested later that certain subjects cause you to abandon reason. This isn't any different than you suggesting that I see 2 worlds (as you did in paragraph 3). Those aren't personal attacks, merely our opinions based on what we read into each other's posts. "I have no problem with personal responsibility - I'd like to see several prominent people who admitted to committing crimes while serving in our nation's highest offices held to account for their behavior as well." I'm all for personal responsibility. The rule of law should apply to everyone, rich and poor. It's YOU who in the very next paragraph seem to dismiss holding a group to their own personal responsibility because it's "an old problem". "I know that you see the world as being divided strictly in two Beave, but the point of 'taxcuts and bailouts' is that people on both sides are supporting moves to bolster the wealthy while looking to possibly save a few bucks right now by holding the poor to accountability for a very old problem." "The wealthy had far more to do with creating the current economic crisis than the poor - if we're looking to save money, we should look to them first." So lets tax all of the wealthy for the sins of a few? That's not personal responsibility. That's a punitive tax code. Drug testing specifically singles out offenders and rewards those being responsible.
kurniakasih kurniakasih 8 years
My hub's work requires him to get a drug test, random too. He doesn't like welfare and such going to the people who are illegal drug addicts but, he does claim that it's an invasion of privacy to force people to do a drug test to receive welfare. As for myself, I actually agree that recipients of Welfare should be ok with having drug test. Well, the ones that are illegal kind (there are people who have to be on some sort of medication), so it should be case-by-case basis. Our taxed money goes to them, and we have to go through drug tests for our companies as well. And this is so totally going to help with those companies who administer this type of testing, so they get more business from the gov this way too :p
hartsfull hartsfull 8 years
:)
clarabelle98 clarabelle98 8 years
I was just going to add that same thing harts. When a drug addict is broke, the first thing they do is steal. Why would a business open themselves up to that? I test every employee in my company. Whether they work on the docks or in the office. I'm taking ZERO chances.
hartsfull hartsfull 8 years
Sorry about those spelling errors. :oops: don't want the comment grammer police to ticket me.
hartsfull hartsfull 8 years
I'm going to add to your list pinkprincess, that if you're a drug addict, your more than likely to steal money for your drugs. That is another reason emplorers don't want drug users working for them.
pinkprincess1101 pinkprincess1101 8 years
Genisis even working at a grocery store you can cause a workers' comp claim, repetitive lifting on drugs will make that harder, slip and fall and on drugs may make you clumsier, counting cans you may lose track on drugs.
genesisrocks genesisrocks 8 years
"The wealthy had far more to do with creating the current economic crisis than the poor - if we're looking to save money, we should look to them first." Entirely agree.
stephley stephley 8 years
Beave, you're straying into personal attack territory, fyi. I have no problem with personal responsibility - I'd like to see several prominent people who admitted to committing crimes while serving in our nation's highest offices held to account for their behavior as well. I know that you see the world as being divided strictly in two Beave, but the point of 'taxcuts and bailouts' is that people on both sides are supporting moves to bolster the wealthy while looking to possibly save a few bucks right now by holding the poor to accountability for a very old problem. The wealthy had far more to do with creating the current economic crisis than the poor - if we're looking to save money, we should look to them first.
beavis667 beavis667 8 years
"while arguing for either bailouts or tax cuts for the wealthy" Let's examine how dumb this statement is. With a few exceptions, mostly Republicans and conservatives would argue for tax cuts. The bailouts however mostly benefited Democrats and liberals. Banks, labor unions, and deeply in debt mostly blue states received the bulk of the bailout money. Bankers and union members with a few exception are generally Democrats, often liberal. Why lump these polar opposite groups together in trying to deflect the notion of personal responsibility? Is personal responsibility one of your hot button topics like G.W. Bush where you lose all sense of logic and reason; giving into emotion, Stephley?
genesisrocks genesisrocks 8 years
pink- sorry it took me so long to reply to your comment. To clarify: If it's a job where you have a high risk of being injured or injuring other people I'm for drug tests, but if you're just in a grocery store counting cans of cat food, I think it's just unnecessary.
clarabelle98 clarabelle98 8 years
I think it's a great idea. In many of our minds we "drug test" the homeless regularly. What I mean is, how many times have you seen a homeless person holding a sign that says "Will work for food" and said to yourself, "If i had a way of knowing for sure he'd use it for food and not alcohol or drugs, I'd give him a little money." I know I have. I think this would be a good policy. I'd feel a LOT better about the welfare system if I knew that my money wasn't going to a family with a bunch of kids, that instead of using the money on food was out buying drugs. But, there are SO many problems with the welfare system as it stands now, I don't know if this one change would help much.
beavis667 beavis667 8 years
"Of course someone would insist on Personal Responsibility for the poor right now, while arguing for either bailouts or tax cuts for the wealthy, who created the economic mess that drove up the demand for unemployment benefits, welfare and food stamps - and also use illegal substances." Why do liberals so hate holding the individual accountable for their actions?
Brendelwoman Brendelwoman 8 years
We don't need to be enablers to be compassionate.
notinthemood notinthemood 8 years
"It's discrimintory against poor people." LMFAO So then what group is pre-employment drug testing discriminating against? I had to have a drug test for my job... no big deal. My employer wants to make sure I'm not an addict. As far as bring unemployed goes, there's nothing wrong with asking for help, and there's nothing wrong with pre-requisites for that help... Sometimes the greatest thing you can do for someone is make them accountable for something. We should have had this system in place from the get-go. Nobody should EVER plan to live their entire life off of social welfare... that is ridiculous. And nobody who really needs it **and is trying to help him/herself** should mind taking the test. That's the cost of doing business.
fcseamstress fcseamstress 8 years
I think this is a good idea on one condition others have mentioned. That more money is put towards rehab programs. And yes, I do think alcohol should be included in the testing. Beer & liquor get pricey! And unemployment assistance should not be included in this testing (you can't get unemployment if you were fired, which is where I believe the majority of users would fall). For those arguing that rehab programs would cost the state more money, they are only partially correct. If we get people that already need assistance into rehab programs, not only can we reduce their dependence on substances, but they can end up being more productive members of society. So the long term benefits of the cost of rehab would probably end up negating the cost or creating a profit. And let's face it, most people who are dependent on substances usually have deep rooted psychological problems that need professional help to resolve. I've said for a long time that we put too much emphasis on drug policy enforcement/punishment and not enough on rehabilitation in this country. But to drug test and deny people benefits without giving them an avenue to better themselves is, on the part of the taxpayer, irresponsibly turning your back on people in need...
geebers geebers 8 years
I agree with this- I do think it makes sense. If someone is on welfare and using drugs their money is most likely going towards their habit. In any case- their drug use prevents them from becoming hard-working members of society and the welfare should be for those who truly need that money to eat and survive.
Recession-Proof Jobs
Are Fitness Trackers Accurate at Counting Calories?
Who Is Nabra Hassanen?
Undocumented Father Detained by ICE
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds