I backtracked a few months and made sure that there was no recent post on this subject, and didn't find anything so I figured I'd ask. If I happened to not find one and there was one, I apologize in advance. There has been a lot of buzz on the internet lately about making it so that welfare or possibly even food stamps recipients must get a drug test either at random or at a timed interval. I personally think that it would be a good idea because half of the money that is given out is used for things that it shouldn't be, including illegal activities. Some things such as food stamps can only be used for certain things, but cash assistance/certain government cards/etc. are pretty much a free for all for whatever people want to spend it on in some circumstances. I'm not trying to judge anyone that gets any sort of government assistance because I know that a lot of people use it only for it's purpose, but I think it should be monitored more closely. A lot of people who support themselves with only a job have to get drug tested for their jobs, so why shouldn't these people have to get drug tested too?
So, what is your opinion. Should we drug test those who are on welfare?
Edited by: KaylaMayrie at January 05, 2013, 07:53pm
So just because a person has a drug addiction or occasionally likes to indulge they should be without any means to support themselves? They are somehow so below the rest of society they can just fuck off and starve?
Besides how can you prove they've used government funds for the drugs, just because they have drugs in their system?
If the person with a drug addiction loses their job they get welfare. That's a big difference right there isn't it? Not every job drug tests it's employees either.
kayla, you are absolutely correct. If i have to pass a drug test to keep my job, you should have to pass one to get the benefits of my tax money. wouldyou, drugs get expensive, if you have the money to support a habit you have enough to support yourself if you bought food instead.
Someone with a drug addiction is likely not able to keep steady employment welfare might be their only option. You don't need to be sober or reliable on welfare, there is no issue of workplace accidents or injuries and insurance, so there is no reason to drug test welfare recipients.
There is really no reason a person should be denied basic living expenses just because they have a drug addiction. A drug addiction is a very serious illness sometimes comorbid with other psychiatric illnesses further complicating the issue. Is it right to discriminate so heavily against someone with a disability?
To kayla and wouldyou, im just curious as to your professions/tax brackets. I believe this lends some credibility to the argument. The lower you tax rate the less you see from your check, when you get to the point that 35+% comes out of your take home pay it starts to become a more significant amount. I personally wouldnt mind the tax rate if the money was properly spent/allocated to make the best use of it.
It is your opinion that a drug addiction is a simple choice. That doesn't make it so.
It is an illness often coming right along with other illnesses, it's not a simple issue at all.
Again Kayla there are often reasons why a person shouldn't be on drugs at work. Where I work that would be quite dangerous. In some cases it may be discriminatory, that's for courts to decide on individual basis should the addict decide to sue, but generally I think it's more that you are not able to do your job, and are a risk to others. The company has to protect itself to and should be allowed to. That is not an issue for a person on welfare.
wouldyou, if your on welfare the goal is to get help, then return to work, NOT to make a career out of it. If your getting high, your not going to be effective in getting a job
Beerserker: Maybe, but why would you choose to do drugs? More over why would you get addicted to them? Not everyone gets addicted to drugs even if they do them frequently for some time, so I maintain its not simply a choice to be a drug addict. Just because at some point you made a choice for whatever reason to do drugs does not mean you chose to develop a debilitating illness.
Anyway, of course they are not going to be effective at getting a job. They'd probably have a job if they weren't a drug addict and or suffering from other mental illnesses.
Most people use welfare to get on their feet after a bad spot, but some people might need it longer for whatever reason. Other people just use it and are happy to. However being a drug addict doesn't automatically make you some dick that just chooses to be on welfare as a "career". Drug addiction is a serious problem, a debilitating life wrecking problem, it's not a simple choice.
"It's not about whether or not it's safe."
Actually a lot if it is.
"It may not be an "issue", but why should we give people money to buy drugs?!"
You can not prove they are using the money to buy drugs. You can't say they always will. What are you going to do with all these people then? They fuck up use drugs get busted on your test and then what? They're fucked forever? Have you even thought about the long term consequences of this? It's fine to you because you don't have to trip over these people, but it's not like they just disappear into thin air after you deprive them of any means to survive.
. "Not everyone who works is on drugs, but we all take the same test. Not everyone on welfare is on drugs, but they should all take the same test."
Why? Just because you have to? That's all this sounds like to me
"What do you not understand about this? Why should a person on welfare be allowed to use drugs and get away with it just because "it's not an issue" at that current place and time. It's an issue to their health. It's an issue to their families. It's an issue to their future. Don't say it's not an issue, just not the same type of issue you have."
It is an issue that's what I've been saying. It's a huge issue and a much more complicated one than you seem to grasp.
Well berserker I'm not as callous as you apparently are, so I'm not sure what to say that. I'm sure we all pay taxes that go to things we don't like an can't understand. But instead of just griping why not come up with a real alternative.
"I can't keep repeating the same argument just because you can't process it"
Your logic is flawed, and your idea is too shallow.
"If you get fired for using drugs, it could go on your record. No one wants to hire someone who was fired for that particular reason. So, they're in your terms "screwed forever" because they can't find another job. Hmm, sounds even to me. "
Not really. And if it helps I don't really agree with that either. Welfare is end of the line last resort for those that can't find work.
Why should the government act like an irate employer? The only reason you have provided is that jobs drugs test people ad fire people for having addictions.
As I have already explained being on drugs at work is not OK for many reasons, it makes perfect sense for some companies to drug test. Again I also do not agree that employers should be able to discriminate in all cases either, but let's face it there aren't many jobs out there where being high at work is going to be a good idea.
"Second, just because I have to? You're acting like everyone who is on welfare should be above the system and should be treated better and differently than those who work when that shouldn't be the case at all."
Nope not at all. A company drug tests it's employees to protect itself, s not at all on par with the government drug testing welfare recipients and then denying them welfare if they test positive. Incidentally it wouldn't be the same thing if we just randomly drug tested everyone even unemployed people because employers sometimes drug test. It's just not the same thing. I've explained why several times.
Again not all employers drug test. Neither of mine does under any circumstances.
"And if you think it is an issue then why are you arguing against it? This is a debate. If you've come for an argument, you've found one"
All you've said is that welfare recipients should be drug tested because some employers drug test. And that because an employer might fire you for being addict you should also be denied welfare. The only reasons you've supplied as to why this should be is equivalent to "BECAUSE".
You have not elaborated on what should become of all these welfare recipients, really the only thing you've suggested is deepening the level of poverty.
"wouldyou, where are you from? And what do you do for a living?"
Canada, customer service and processing, some sales, student.
Nice speech Kayla. But you haven't actually said anything of substance. Address my points.
I haven't defended a right to do drugs, I've acknowledged drug addiction is a serious and complicated matter and pointed out why it makes little sense to drug test welfare recipients.
You don't need a drug test to figure it out. Ive seen the welfare admissions office in one hospital and you can tell most have drug habits. Its a waste of city money. Just another way for the government to know more about you. And I'm the working poor -- why should they be given more for nothing? Throw them off welfare and let them......
Where welfare recipient drug testing was implemented last year. A paltry 2.6% of those on welfare tested positive for drugs -- a far cry from an "alarming drug crisis" that above posters are making it out to be.
The patterns that lead to drug abuse are genetic. Most addicts aren't abusing by choice they are sick to begin with and need help. Not to mention the cost of such a thing. Just look at all of the laws that are passed that are not policed. On a job it's easy to track someone down... on the streets, not so much.
Drug users should be forced to commit crimes against the citizenry because that's whats best for us all.
Or maybe an employees performance should be evaluated according to their performance and not by what they do in their own time.
If a drug user is willing to work to pay for their habit then it is in the interest of everyone that they be allowed to do that.
To argue that the unemployed should be tested because the employed are is to ignore the glaring reality that the employed are having their sovereignty over their own bodies and their own time violated.
The only way to justify testing the employed is to pay them for 168 hours per week.
The only way to justify testing the employed is to pay them for 168 hours per week.
To justify testing anyone And considering Job Seekers Allowance is a base rate of £71.. which is around 12 hours at minimum wage.
In the US, a minimum wage slave (non-tipped) who has to submit to testing would be worth $63,336 per year. In the UK £54,075.84 (so earning over twice the UK median wage).
I think I should add something else here, I've had to put up with the DWP/DHSS for a while and they couldn't organise an orgy in a whorehouse.
So "I'm not trying to judge anyone that gets any sort of government assistance because I know that a lot of people use it only for it's purpose, but I think it should be monitored more closely."
Basically you're saying that, despite expecting the vast majority of people to show negative on tests, the government will have to fund and "organise" random testing on top of consistently failing to give help and advice to those seeking employment.
I agree with The_Corpsie on his last two comments, it is unfair to generalize welfare users as scroungers when there are very few jobs, many different types of welfare any many different needs for it. It would also be expensive to run these drugs tests, they would need to hire staff, pay for testing and track results and all that jazz it would likely be more of a hassle than it's worth. I understand were the OP is coming from but I just don't think it's necessarily worth it.
"This whole discussion has been fruitless since it has accepted, without question, this unsupported claim:
"because half of the money that is given out is used for things that it shouldn't be, including illegal activities""
I don't accept this, I accept some people on welfare are on drugs, likely not more than the rest of the population, and I don't think they should lose benefits if they are. I don't think everyone else on welfare should have to be tested either, there is no reason to test them.
And as its been pointed out now the cost of testing all these people is just another cost that will be eaten by tax payer money. And for what? Unless you succeed in denying enough people welfare for this, which you won't, the cost of testing is going to exceed the cost of paying these people welfare. Maybe you don't agree but without evidence to the contrary this looks to bejust a useless expense.
I'm not fully sure how benefits work in other countries, but here in Ireland, there are two types of unemployment. One is based on your family's income and property (means tested) and one is based on your tax contributions.
I'm on the one based on my tax contributions. I paid that money into the system. I earned it. I am entitled to it. If anybody wants to attempt to tell me what I should spend it on, they can fuck right off, tbh.
I don't do illegal drugs, although I do drink. If I want to spend my money on alcohol, I will, because I earned it and as long as it's not impeding on my ability to find a job (it's not, I drink on a night out, after general close-of-business and I get up early in the mornings regardless of whether I've been drinking), I can do what I want with money I paid for.
Aside from that, the money it'd cost to implement a drug testing system is not worth the benefits.
kayla
