ANSWERS: 17
  • It sounds good in principal, but the cost of the drug screenings might be more than what is being doled out. Plenty of people who abuse the system aren't even abusing any substances.
  • I don't what a U is...but i think it's ok to give them drug tests and if they test positive then ALL income/support should be stopped.
  • No, as it could add unecessary expenses to an already expensive welfare program.
  • how about we just screen EVERY worker and boss ... better still how about making EVERY person in the country do it as well... after all there are many many more people in jobs who take drugs... legal and illegal , I bet that wouldn't go down to well. Now a very very very big point .. just because you may have drugs in your system it DOES NOT mean your under the influence of said drugs and thats the biggest drawback with 99.99% of any so called drug tests
  • DEFINATELY ! There should be UNannounced Drug Testing at least every two weeks ..... Also; they should require that all adults over the age of 18 on Public Assistance look for WORK and have a stamped / signed Job Search Book by no less than FIVE perspective employers per week ...
  • Interesting thought. I've often thought that someone in public housing ought to pass a drug test. It troubles me that the most drug infested part of my city is a public housing project.
  • I think it's an awful idea to add more government spending on top of government spending to try and recoup a portion of relatively minor government spending. Drug screening is expensive and can be beat. If you are worried about wasted tax dollars, there are much bigger fish to fry than welfare. Why stop there? GM, Chrysler and Ford are each getting more money than every welfare recipient combined. Let's drug test their officers too. It amazes me how people are so willing to demean the poor but would not consider such a thing be done to the rich.
  • Yes, If I have to take a drug test to make the money, they should have to take one to get the money. Bottom line, a $35 drug test could save billions in wasted welfare money. It's not about when or how they got high, but the fact that they use money to buy drugs that they could be using to buy their own food and pay for housing.
  • this goes with my attitude toward society and government - i know these injustices exist yet since i don't see an immediate direct corelation to myself, i choose to ignore it.
  • one of those things that would work in theory but never in reality.
  • It may be different now, but when I needed public help, the money was called Aid To Dependent Children, and was for the support of the child. If I had the money taken away, it would be the child that suffered. Are you saying the children should be put in foster care? That would be even worse. What 'welfare' exactly are you talking about here?
  • Every week? Why not have YOU subjected to them every week? It sounds to me as if you are jealous of those who get assistance. And it sounds like you are stereotyping and applying a very biased view to it all. *I* get food stamps. *I* would LOVE to have a job, but right now, there are none. Attitudes like yours make me sick. Yes, I know a few people that play the system, but we don't ALL do it. In fact, most of us don't. We just barely survive on what we get. I get $170 in food stamps a month. That's it. No cash, no medicaid, no other help. And you want me to pay for either a bus or gas for my car to go get tested every week? How nice of you to want me to spend my nonexistent money on something so you can feel YOU are getting your money's worth by taking money *I* need to survive. Big of you. Now, I DO think there should be mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, but monthly, a week before they get their checks, would be enough. But then, I think all employees should get a monthly drug screen, as well.
  • Sounds too Fascistic. The system may be messed up, but adding even more mechanics will only screw it up further.
  • Sterilize them.
  • Weekly, no. But certainly before getting their monthly checks. Bus and taxi fare they WILL come up with to get those checks. Hand 'em a jar and send 'em to the bathroom where there are no doors and a person watching them. If there is a viable reason they cannot work, then fine. I don't have a problem with supporting them. This issue would be better adressed BEFORE the welfare line. Teach them multiple skills! Teach them how to write a business proposal and start a business! Is that so unheard of?? Even a physically challenged person can run a small company or sit at a PC, and the US NEEDS small businesses right now.
  • No but I do think that people who are on welfare of any kind should not be allowed to have any more children. No offense to them but if they can't take care of what they have then they shouldn't be having more on everybody else's dime. I also think that when someone uses food stamps or WIC on one purchase and then buys alcohol or cigarettes on a separate purchase the cashier should have the ability to report them. Very little would anger me more when working in a grocery store than when someone came through the line with a cart full of groceries and children and used food stamps and then on a separate purchase bought three cartons of cigarettes and a case of beer.
  • We are all angry when people behave badly at our expense. However, no gov't. is capable of changing immoral behavior. You know the old saying, "you can't legislate morality." As quick as you can think up remedies, someone will think up a more clever fraud. Perhaps, just perhaps, if the church would concentrate more on our mandate to preach the gospel, instead of searching for suburban nirvana in multi-million dollar "praise" temples with rockin' sound systems, then we could have an impact on our culture that no legislation can ever achieve.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy