Should welfare require drug testing?


#1

I’m on facebook and i see a fanpage for this idea welfare should require drug testing…and as i flip through the whole thing is ignorant as fuck. a bunch of half truths and rumors…but how do u guys feel about the idea, do u agree with the concept?


#2

i think welfare should require people to get a job. if you can hold down a job and be on drugs then more power to you imo.


#3

it does require u to get a job. unless im crazy and its only for my state i thought bush changed it so u had to get a job within a certain amount of months or u get kicked off it.


#4

It either requires you to have a job or to be actively searching for a job, which is a good requirement. Forcing people to have a job to get welfare defeats the main purpose that welfare exists, which is to help people transition from unemployment back to employment. It also ends after a certain period of time and requires actions by the person on welfare to get work or something before being eligible to receive it again. I am not sure how I feel about the drug testing part about welfare, while on one hand it is bad for people on welfare to go back and spend the money on drugs, but on the other hand it seems like it would cost the government even more money to require the drug tests.

imo.


#5

Pretty sure there a deadline date of when you got laid off. I think it is 2005 for WA, but don’t quote me on it.

As for the testing. No I don’t think they should. What I think they should do is regulate that shit better. I know people on welfare and have seen their paper work. It was something like “did you at least make a attempt to search for a job within the past week.” And all you had to do was answer yes or no. They don’t even check up on that shit. I’m sure no one answers no.


#6

im curious what the thought process would be for someone who is a drug addict but actively is trying to use the rehab programs welfare supplies to kick the habit. are they gonna be like u got certain amount of months to be clean or get kicked off?


#7

Honestly, I think that the government should establish a program separate and apart from the welfare program to help addicts. Clearly drug addiction is serious and relapse is common if not the norm, so it doesn’t make sense to throw people that are unemployed because of unluckiness and people that are unemployed because of drug addiction in the same basket. You can treat the symptoms of unemployment by throwing money at it but you won’t cure addiction by doing that, in fact you will be making it worse. Any motivation the addict gets for quitting drugs (forced rehab, etc.) under the current welfare system is going to be done just to receive the money and not in earnest which completely defeats the purpose.

imo.


#8

welfare is for single mothers and extremely poor families suffering exigent circumstances, if you’re a drug addict that doesn’t fit into that category then sucks for you but you shouldn’t be receiving welfare.

you’re describing unemployment benefits, not welfare…at least not in the way the term is generally used. i vaguely recall them putting a 5 year limit on welfare, but i’m not completely sure. specific terms and requirements for welfare vary by state.


#9

I dunno some drugs last in your blood for a while and if you kick em while out of work then I don’t see the problem while dropping dirty to something you haven’t done in a while and getting kicked from welfare would suck. I was clean from weed when I was unemployed. At the same time they are illegal and you gotta accept the consequences of being caught with them no matter what way so it’s hard for me to say. Frankly they do a better job of making sure your working to get remplyed then worry about drugs really.


#10

Welfare is now given in a much more restrictive sense since Bush was in office. Basically there is a strict time limit of how long you can be receiving it and it is dependent on an “active job search”, basically it has become a different form of unemployment.

imo.


#11

i wanna say bush made it down to two year limit. but i cant remember if that got put into law.


#12

Hell no. What are you thinking? Welfare is for more than just people who can’t or don’t want to find work. It’s for their kids also, who hopefully aren’t on drugs.

Oh, and here’s a big seekreet: There’s a lot of drug addicts who actually have jobs. If they were to loose them… well, they’d need welfare.

Nice try attempting to be a super hero and “fix” the world, conservatives.


#13

who are u commenting to?


#14

Oh… the invisible bad guy poster… thing.

Whoever it was who thought up such an idea. I pretty much auto-believe that anything trying to attack welfare is racist until proven otherwise, but that’s just me.


#15

I pretty much auto-believe any political group started on Facebook is racist, even when proven otherwise.

imo.


#16

going by the comments in the fanpage its pretty evident their basis is racism without them saying it.


#17

eh i think there are a lot of valid arguments against welfare. but since i also think we’re pretty much at end-game capitalism right now i can’t help but be pro-welfare.


#18

Interesting topic but eventually I think Lothar is right because it would end up costing more for the government to drug test all of the people on welfare than to just give them money.

I know in Germany citizens who cannot find a job collect unemployment money but they still have to hold a minor “sub”-type job, like working in a metro train or helping stores or being something like a janitor. This encourages people to seek out more permanent jobs but also allows them to have something in the meantime to keep them busy.

:Edit: Actually though this isn’t a good comparison because these people are on unemployment NOT welfare, as you guys have been talking about already.


#19

Considering that I build commercial jumbo jets and I dont get drug tested, not that I do drugs but know a lot of people who do, is pretty amazing. However, my state is planning on legalizing marijuana which would make it impossible to validate drug test since weed stays in your system so long.


#20

that would only be true if minorities had to live on government handouts. is that what you’re saying?