Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Should Welfare Recipients Get Drug Tested?
Should people who receive government welfare be drug tested? Do you think people who receive government aid should be spending money on necessities rather than drugs? or is it their choice what they spend their money on? but is it their money? Is it the taxpayer's money? Is it constitutional to drug test them? Do you think this is a big issue in today's government spending? Do you think the amount of people on welfare would decline if drug testing was implemented?
-Brett Scott (11:00)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Yes, I do feel that would be a good idea. The people who are using tax payers dollars for their addictions should not be able to receive money. The money they are receiving is to help them get back on their feet: for food, shelter, clothing, and medical. The people who use their money on drugs are taking advantage of the system. For the people that don’t use their welfare money on drugs they shouldn’t have an issue with taking and or passing a drug test.
Alex Kocher (11:00)
Yes. I think that people who receive government assitance (including welfare) should be drug tested. When individuals seek government assitance in any way they are placed in a binding agreement to use that assistance (funds) for the purpose that they were intended for. Whether people believe they are entitled to the money is irrelevant. It is taxpayer money that the government allocates to individuals in need. The choice should not be left up to the individual how the funds are dispersed. In this binding agreement the individual should have no issue in taking a drug test. Saying that I believe that the drug test is therefore constitutional. I also think that it is a really big issue in today's government and if drug testing is implemented than a major decline would result in the number of people seeking government aid.
Eldridge
Yes, I believe people who receive government assistance should be drug tested. This would eliminate those that are not using the funds as intended. Also if you are getting money from the government than there should be expectations and requirments for the use of funds. No one should be using welfare funds to purchase drugs.
Shannon Adams
Yes, I truly feel they should because we dont know what they are spending most of their money on. Are they buying illegal drugs to drown themselves in or are they trying to put effort for their families to get food on the table. what it might come down to is it constitutional for the government to drug test these people.
Rocky V.
Having known of people who trade their food stamps for drugs and the fact that if they are spending their money on drugs then the children who it is meant for are not getting food or adequate shelter that they deserve. So I think welfare recipients should be drug tested and the welfare of the children should be the foremost consideration. I do believe the amount of people on welfare would decline somewhat, however addicts do have ways of fixing drug test such as having their children or others who are clean, test for them.
Peg B. (1:00)
People on Welfare should most definitely get drugged tested. They should not have a choice to spend government money/tax payer money on drugs. I think it should be constitutional to drug test people on welfare if it is not constitutional. I believe the amount of people would either decrease getting welfare if they were drug tested or they would stop doing drugs.
Jared
The web site attached to your question includes this quote: "Just because you're seeking public benefits doesn't mean you don't have the same kind of protection from unreasonable searches as anybody else." I think that a drug test might qualify as an unreasonable search. I mean, what the implication would be is "you're broke and need financial help, so that means you're more likely to be a drug user." I'm just not sure how accurate that is. A lot of people on welfare are good, law-abiding, non-drug-using citizens; do we really want to group them in with drug abusers just because they're (maybe temporarily) broke?
The other consideration that comes to mind is whether families who really need help (be they drug users or not) might not come forward and request it because they don't want to be drug-tested. If we don't give them help, does that mean their innocent children go hungry? On the same track, if a single mother of five fails a drug test, would we withhold welfare from her? If so, what's going to happen to those hungry kids? Should they go hungry because their mother smokes crack?
By the way, I know of a couple of crackheads and meth-heads who also happen to be loving parents, though that sounds odd, so maybe funding a drug habit via welfare is not ALWAYS bad.
James Burke
This sounds like it could be a great way to save a few tax payer dollars. I think the cost of drug testing and treatment though would consume a huge portion of those savings. But it isn't fair to target only one portion of our society and invade their privacy because they are receiving government benefits. All Americans, from the richest to the poorest reap the benefits of our nation every day. So why target only the poor. What if the government decided that everyone who was receiving a tax refund would have to be drug tested to get their money? It would save the government millions. Some of the people who think it's ok to drug test the poor may feel differently if that were to happen. The real losers would be the children if we were to implement a nation wide drug testing program for families in need. Do you think an addict will simply quit using in order to maintain his benefits? Of course not. In order to feed his addiction an addict with no money or hope will probably turn to crime, and eventually become incarcerated. At that point it will cost more than $20,000 a year to feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care for that one person. Mandatory testing of the needy could also create a huge subculture of disenfranchised people. People with no hope that feel their government has turned their backs on them. I think this is a horrible idea that could prove to be disastrous for our nation.
Scott Swinford (11:00)
i feel that people who recive money from the government, should not be tested for drugs, it wouldnt accomplish anything because there are so many ways of getting around thing you would never know
dea shanay
Yes, I do feel like this would be a good idea. I agree with helping people who are struggling but I also believe that the people should have stricter restrictions on what they can and cannot buy with the money the government gives them. People need help getting back on their feet but I think that unless you are truly trying to make your life better than you do not deserve help. I think the person should be required to show they are trying and making an effort to help themselves and their family. The person needs to still take care of the family they have and should not be able to have the opportunity to use the money for drugs.
Morgan Russian
I feel like drug testing would be a good idea. I'm sure there is a large percentage of people that use my tax dollars for drugs instead of their welfare... Thus the name welfare money....
Allison P
Im not so sure on this one it to me can be a catch 22. Yes it would be a shame if a person is using government assisted funding to enable a drug habit, but what would be the consequence if they are caught? And if its taken what happens to the little children for whom the money is really issued, Maybe it could be done like the government do ssi checks of drug users, if they are tested and caught then some other responsible person could be over the funds and that way the children arent suffering from the negative behavior
R Hall
i don't think it is a terrible idea for welfare recipients to have to pass a drug test. too many people on welfare are only on it to take advantage and rape the system, which takes away from the people who really need it. all too often, a single mother of 3 who works 2, sometimes 3 jobs, gets turned down for food stamps, but a mother of 1 who doesn't work, spends her time on a street corner, putting anything and everything up her nose and not taking care of her child get the benefits over the working mother who really needs the help. i do think, however that the drug testing should be done on those who have a criminal background with drug related charges, as opposed to testing a mother who works her ass off and still can't feed her kids due to bills, school, daycare, etc., who doesn't have time to do drugs, nor has a criminal background for drugs. maybe the caseworker should make a home visit as well so they can really see how the family lives. you can really tell a lot about how much they really need the help by looking inside the home life.
mgd
Yes. I beleive that they should be drug tested. If they are getting these funds from the government then they should be following the laws and using these funds for their needs, not drugs. This money is given to a person because they are in extreme need, and if you are doing things that are wrong in the laws eyes then why would the law want to help you out. Saying that I believe that the governement has every right to drug test these people.
Josh Witt (11:00)
I believe that individuals that receive welfare should be drug tested. They receive money that comes from their community because they are in need of it and can not support them selves.They should not receive money if their only going to spend it on drugs. The taxpayers money does not always go to good use so I find it best if those individuals get drug tested.
Darci (11:00)
They should be drug tested because if they need money so bad that they can barely eat, they shouldn't be taking good people's tax dollars and spending it on drugs. They need to get there life on track and doing drugs is basically the complete opposite way of getting your life on track. I don't think they deserve money and i definitlly feel they should start making Id's for people so when they get there food stamps tehy can't trade for other materials like boose, drugs, and cigarretes. I think it's constitutional because they are getting free money for being a fuck up basically and if you are actually trying to get your life straightened out and have stumbled into some hard times if you are not doing drugs and pass the drug test then you deserve our tax dollars. I think we would save a lot of money on welfare because im sure more than half the people on welfare do drugs so less people would recieve the money. The only harm would be that people would actually have to stop doing drugs to get money they didn't earn.
-jake rone-
Yes/no, I do and don't think they should. Not everyone on welfare does drugs, I agree that there should be limitations on what they can spend their money on. Those who spend a crazy amount on things other than food, shelter, clothes should be tested, and the government should track them on what they spend it on. But I don't thinks its necessary to drug every single person on welfare. Its not their money, its ours and if your recieving money from others I'd think you'd spend it on what you really need.
~Lauren (11:00)
I think they should because the government is helping you back up. and as for the people that is taking advantage they shouldn't get that help, because they might be taking someone else's help that truely needs it.The government should know what the money is used for.
CGONZZ (11:00)
Welfare recipients should absolutely be drug tested. If they have enough money for drugs, there is no reason that they need welfare. Too many hard-working citizens provide their money to help these other people. People should not waste their money on things like drugs if they don't have money to survive.
Landon W 11:00
I think they should be drug-tested, and have to show the goverment what they spend it on, because the taxpayers don't have a say in it, and those who do get welfare, should have to prove their not doing something stupid. Welfare is for people who need help, not for those who just want drug money, etc. They should be willing to show what they spend it on, that way the taxpayers won't be so angry.
Daniel (1:00)
Post a Comment