Should people be required to take a drug test to receive government benefits?

I think that it should be a requirement for people to have to pass a drug test to receive not only welfare but also unemployment and SSI. I know of people that have turned down higher paying opportunities because they would have to get drug tested I'm sure that would be the case for some of the current recipients. This would also prevent people from even registering in the first place, especially if criminal sanctions for welfare or unemployment fraud are attached to a failing test. How could we do that you ask? Make them answer a question if they have taken drugs within a certain time (ex. 2 weeks) before they filled out the application (in writing in the application). If they answer yes and then fail the test, that's it. Falsifying a government document, you're under arrest and out of the tax payers' pocket. Next, get off drugs and start contributing to society.

 

Yes to have a better working society.

 

yes simply because if they dont have the money to buy their own god (*)(*)(*)(*)ed food they shouldnt be buying (*)(*)(*)(*)ing drugs. its not the peoples tax dollars responsibility to make sure you have enough to buy food so you have enough money to go get high.

 

I agree to a point, but think your views are overly simplistic. Not all people on welfare who do drugs are capable of working. Does that make it OK to do drugs? No, but just saying. Lots of people who live with a permanent disability, who have lost the ability to be gainfully employed and along with it their sense of independence and accomplishment turn to drugs. Not a healthy or wise choice, but when you have lost so much, including your quality of life due to a disability... drugs can start looking good. To kick people with total and permanent disability off welfare and onto the streets for failing a drug test would be a death sentence for them.

I do agree that some... again I say some people work the system. Those people do need to be found out and dealt with. But in Idaho for example, due to severe cuts in funding, oversight and case management is at an all time low. When you have thousands on welfare at the State level, and a hand full of case workers... how do you make any meaningful progress in booting slackers off of the system? To do what is needed will cost bank... and in a down economy slim funding for administration costs is a serious problem.

 

Not only do they need to be drug tested, but they should prove to the authorities that they're legal American citizens. Also, I would refuse to give welfare bennies to anyone associated with that criminal organization called 'ACORN'--which is also draining our govt tax monies for their shady obama-supported lifestyles.

 

I used to think Yes. Why not?

Then I saw the waste of money in Florida when they actually tried it, and found only 4% of applicants failed the drug test.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh, ACORN doesn't exist anymore.

 

I think every elected official and judge should have to take random drug tests, as they are intrusted with the governing of our country!

 

No it's not cost efficient.

 

Sure, and that includes the wealthy. For example, if you're poor, you pay FICA tax on every dollar you earn, whereas the wealthy get to stop paying FICA at around $110K. That's a government benefit. The capital gains tax rate is used almost exclusively by the top 5% of earners; that's certainly a government benefit. How about the step-up basis, which allows the very wealthy to pass along their assets tax-free to their heirs (and costs US taxpayers $62 billion a year)? Or the use of tax havens like the Cayman Islands, which generally only the very wealthy can take advantage of? Aren't those government benefits?

If you're going to be consistent, then the Willard Romneys of the world should have to pee in a cup every time they file an income tax return.

 

Oh they exist alright. They may have changed their name here and there, but people who have been scamming the system all their lives (like the lowlifes from ACORN) always find a way to keep the ill gotten $$ rolling in.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh they exist alright. They may have changed their name here and there, but people who have been scamming the system all their lives (like the lowlifes from ACORN) always find a way to keep the ill gotten $$ rolling in.

 

there definitively needs to be more control on welfare. we currently have a discussion about this in sweden. There was one mother claiming benefits because she couldn't afford stuff, but then it turned out that she smoked v´for very much money or something. id est, tax payer funded smoking. nice eh? that have got to stop.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) skippy. Test them, if caught lying, jail them and sterilize them. Also, they should be barred from ever getting benefits ever again.

Got to have consequences for lying. Really I have no problem with people doing drugs, but if you can get cash to get high, you can probably afford you own (*)(*)(*)(*) rent and food.

 

Ayuh,.... Take this a step further, 'n our Government would be run Much Better,...

If yer gonna drug test, Anybody, it oughta be Everybody employed by the Government....

Top to bottom,... From the Federal government, All the way down...States, Counties, Towns, All of 'em...

 

70% of the countries government would be out of a job lol.

 

I grow faint, and my knees begin to buckle...I have swooned.

...and swooned once more.

 

Drugs shouldn't be illegal to begin with... good grief, you people are nothing if not indoctrinated control freaks!!!

Whatever happened to freedom?? Where do the Feds even have the authority to make drugs illegal?? They had to pass an amendment to outlaw alcohol, yet they can just pass a bill in Congress to outlaw anything else they want??

Leave people alone - what people do in their private lives is their business.

As for government "benefits", I'm opposed to most of it to begin with. It promotes dependency on government and does serious damage to families, which of course does serious damage to society. Yet everyone who has posted in this thread wants to ramp up ever more schemes and laws to control others??

Sadly, most of you see government as a positive that should be out there in society wielding power for what you deem good. Arbitrary and unconstrained, it is only a matter of time before government consumes all of your liberties, and that positive force will be used against you. It's as if none of you has ever cracked a history book.

 

I agree that some drugs should be legal. Obviously not the dangerous ones, though I'm not quite sure which are dangerous to begin with but that's my principle. We already have alcohol legal, and that's a rather dangerous one, so anything equal or under that must be allowed.

And this is about people not having a right to get high with tax money.

 

Can you prove they are?

Originally Posted by wist43 View Post

And it never ceases to amaze that when the people demand something from their government the government uses it as a way to take away rights and liberties from the people demanding change. I agree all drugs should be legal and properly regulated and marketed so they are not so dangerous. The taxes gathered and the money no longer dedicated to this political war on the citizens would pay off the debt in short order, if that were an actual priority.

 

I don't quite understand the question. if they have a right to it? can't really prove that, that's down to morality. My morals says that I shouldn't have to pay for drug addicts' drugs.

 

That's logistics of the question. Can you prove they are purchasing the drugs with government money? They could have generous friends, be working on commission with their drug dealer or mowing his lawn (bartering), or if they smoke pot, they could be growing their own, etc... etc...

Just because they have drugs in their system doesn't mean they are purchasing drugs with government money, according to a drug test. At least no drug test I have ever heard of tells the doctor who took it where the money to buy the drugs came from if money was even a part of the equation. In fact you can fail a drug test by eating the wrong kind of muffins, so who is to say with confidence that the person failed a drug test from the usage of drugs or having a meal at the soup kitchen?

 

Why don't you crack one and point out all the large successful societies that did away with their government that are at least somewhat modern.

 

Yes, people wanting to utilize social programs should all be required to submit to testing to evaluate as to whether they use narcotics or not. The same should be done with alcohol consumption, in my opinion. For too long there have been people who abuse the public dole to support their habits and it is time to put an end to it but with the Magic Nincompoop in office, he and his administration seem determined to permit abuses of the system to no end. There are those who have set-up couches, not hammocks on the public dole and they should all be denied any further access. Is this harsh? Yes it is but you cannot take a timid approach with people who have it established in their minds that they have a right to welfare or whatever it is called these days.

 

oh you meant that. yes ofc, if they get it themselves why not.

 

Still you are not addressing the problem or looking for a realistic legitimate solution. The problem isn't people who abuse the system which some do, but with the fact that most of the people on welfare have no other choice or option. Even if they get a job, which many have, they still cannot support themselves, and seek subsidies to accommodate their insufficient wages.

The problem is a lack of jobs, but more to the point jobs that pay well enough to make them productive members of society, rather than the burden they become.

Drug tests have already proven to fail, just look at Florida. Demanding drug tests that are proven not to reduce costs (if anything more money is wasted), is on the same mentality as going after legal gun owners to help control the mental health problem we have in this country.

 

Are you saying that as long as you are gainfully employed you should be exempt from drug testing?