Should people on public assistance be tested for addictive substances?

Well It can be taken even farther....I would say that since name brand products are in many cases no different than their generic counterparts, that welfare money and food stamps should not be allowed to be used for any namebrand products, and also should not be allowed to buy alcohol or tabacco.

 

It doesn't matter whether or not the activity is legal. if its an addiction (there are real video game addictions), and detracts from the welfare recipients ability to get off of welfare and become a full contributing member of society then it falls under the same category as drugs in my honest opinion. so if the policy is to test for drug addictions I think it should apply to all addictions.

 

Florida won't be testing anymore:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/24/MNO31LLM0G.DTL

Hot off the presses.

In addition, their drug testing of those on social assistance turned up that less than 2% tested positive. So just like the Republicans claims of voter fraud being used to disenfranchise millions of voters w/o evidence of anything that even remotely resembles a systemic problem, drug testing welfare recipients was expensive, turned up a very low percent of actual drug users and has been deemed unconstitutional.

For the record, I was previously ambivalent to the idea of testing welfare recipients for drug use. Thanks to the American right-wing, I am now against it.

 

Doesn't it make more practical sense to test people in positions of authority and responsibility?

 

Like congressmen? Yea, I'm for it.

 

I think you mean illegal drugs. Caffein and nicotine are also addictive. So are many prescription and over the counter drugs.

 

No, it's a waste of money. In FL, only 2% of those tested came up positive.

 

Actually the 2% you are referring to included 1600 people who refused to take the test out of 7,000 according to the article in Yesterday's WSJ.

Also the reason to what you are referencing is a only a temporary halt due to a pending lawsuit backed by the ACLU on the grounds that it may be unconstitutional. Nothing unusual for a large bill, and in my opinion its really groundless. Public assistance is not a right, its a privilege that you must qualify for and is paid for by other people. I don't think its unreasonable (which is what the constitution protects against) to request that recipients submit themselves to a no-cost (refunded) round of drug testing in order to be eligible.

If this is unconditional, then we would have to evaluate the fact that 80% of companies hiring employees required drug testing, as does everyone in the military.

That 2% is very misleading for the above reasons, but even with 2% it still turns a small savings. Only 1.87% of the applicants need to test positive for the program to break fiscally even.

 

Should people on some sort of social welfare be tested for drug use and kicked off assistance if the drug test proves positive? Yes!

This may surprise you, but I am a recovered addict, and I live off SSD due to a condition called CFS. It angers me to no end seeing drug addicts spend their monthly SSD and or State welfare checks on drugs and kegers. They act like it is a Government funded party and I get the feeling that they would not work even if they could. They are having too much fun smoking dope while watching loony toons over a pepsi and a bag of chips they bought off Food Stamps!

I am glad that the Government of The United States sees fit to give me SSD based on my disability... but I HATE being disabled and in pain all (*)(*)(*)(*) day long and suffering. I would give ANYTHING to be able to work or even to have one pain and fatigue free day a week! So it really angers me when I see people abusing the system. You all pay, and for that I am grateful, but I try to be a good steward with your money and spend it wisely and use public resources only when necessary.

 

Nope. What's the point? An excuse to deny them assistance? And what addictive substances are we talking about, here? Coffee? Sugar? MSG?

 

Sounds good! Should be faster, too.

 

Let's also not forget that lots of the people on welfare have to take drugs because of health problems.

This is just an attempt to add insult to injury.

 

The American people never consented to be governed. (American Declaration of Rights, 1774)

So why should they consent to be governed by all the dope laws?

If every head of household received say 1000 bucks a month as a dividend on America, most would not need "public assistance".
And, so called "substance abuse" would not be an issue.

Besides, the USA invaded China & bombed Peking to force China to accept US opium merchants. So why are we complaining?