Should people on public assistance be tested for addictive substances?

Should people on public assistance be tested for addictive substances? I have my own opinions, but i want to hear what others think first.

 

Public assistance as in welfare? Hmm...on one hand I am opposed to it because to me, its a violation of their rights. On the other hand, I am in favor of it, because I don't like the idea of giving someone a handout when they going to blow it all on booze, or drugs.

 

Many prescription medications are addictive substances.

 

In case you were unaware, Florida is now doing something similar.

I'm not sure about addictive substances, as a poster already mentioned prescription meds can be addictive, alcohol and tobacco are addictive but legal.

But I do fully support the requirement that welfare recipients be clean of illicit substances.

 

Yep, But not just one test cos anyone can fool a drug test that they know is coming but random tests the whole time they are on welfare. And they should have to prove that they are actively seeking a job each and every day they get welfare.

 

This is a no-brainer. I agree 100%.

 

This is not a fence-sitter issue.

Your thought processes must lead you to the inescapable correct conclusion.

 

No, for two reasons. It's a violation of the recipient's constitutional rights and the cost of testing everyone on public assistance would be enormous.

 

Did you catch all the opposition to Florida's new law? There were hissy fits abound, but that is mainly due to the fact that Liberals (and some Libertarians) turned it into a partisan issue. They tried to argue that Florida was violating constitutional rights by preforming unreasonable searches. The problem though is that Florida wasn't assuming that all welfare recipients used illicit substances, Florida was simply creating a new condition for receiving benefits. The law is reasonable as well. If they fail the test they can get benefits at a later date, and their children could still receive benefits through a third party. But oh no!... it was "evil Conservatives just hate poor people".

 

Bugger the violation, if you have nothing to hide then its no violation at all. Drug users should not get welfare.

 

It's definitely not a violation of rights when set as a condition for recieving benefits. Welfare is not an entitlement, it's voluntary... paying the taxes which fund welfare... not so much.

 

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

 

http://www.floridafga.org/2011/09/t...test-requirement-for-welfare-cash-assistance/

 

YES !. Test the IsNtReally parliament before you mail another check or send over another ship with military goodies !
Great Idea !

 

Just think of all the jobs it would create.

 

What jobs?

 

Not everyone would be tested. A small number would be tested at random.
And if a person tested positive they could be denied benefits.

It would be too expensive to test everyone.

They could also test someone that applied for benefits that they suspected of being under the influence of an illicit substance.

And a way of appeal should be provided.

 

I man and one woman to work in the Welfare office and do the testing. I had to be randomly tested for the DOT. Once you pee in the cup, the test is done in less than 2 minutes.

 

I have a few questions

1. How is being required to undergo drug testing unconstitutional if its a requirement to revise voluntary assistance?

2. Why would the government be required to pay for treatment?

3. Does it cost or save money? The ACLU says it will end up costing roughly $400,000 more, while the Floridian (real word?) project a savings of 300,000-900,000 by December 2012.

 

It is not always possible to look, or apply for, work every day. I was on New Start once and I could only apply for three or jobs a week, if I was lucky. Many weeks I couldn't find a single job at all to apply for. I wasn't going to waste time and money on an application for a job I wasn't qualified for, and neither would anyone else.

 

Mak I believe in Australia there shouldn't even be the dole or newstart. Yes that SOUNDS harsh but as you know from our private talks i have never had to claim the dole and have moved all over Australia working. There are a heap of jobs out there for those WILLING to work.
In the US right now its a bit different so i have up to now keep that to myself.

 

You are incorrect on both parts, public assistance is not a right it is a voluntary program people may choose not to participate. The government can place submission to random drug screens as a requirement to participate, people who can't pass can walk away no charges, no penalties, and no check. The cost of a drug screen is around 3$ if one in a hundred were eliminated from welfare rolls by such a requirement it would pay for itself. Worst case scenario we waste a billion a year needlessly drug screening model citizens who are down on their luck. Money well spent IMO.
Molchan

 

There may be jobs, but if someone has no money, they can't simply up and move to another state, can they? That's why I haven't moved to Queensland yet. I am still working my arse off and putting every spare penny I have aside for the trip.

 

When i moved my family from vic to nsw we had $500 in the bank and took only what would fit into a station wagon. When one is MOTIVATED to work one will work. Not having a go at you Mak i know your situation and you are working WHILE preparing for your move. That is to be commended.

 

I imagine you already had a job to go to, though? That is the difference between you and me. I don't have a job up there yet. I hope to get one, but just in case it takes awhile, I need enough money to get by while I am searching. And yes, I am working more hours than I ever have before. I am exhausted but it will all pay off eventually.