ANSWERS: 69
  • Something that is wrong is not made right by the fact that other people do it.
  • Absolutely. I would like to know that my tax dollars are going to actually feed some kids & not someone's crack habit. Great question!!!+++++
  • I think it's a wonderful idea and would have a huge effect on how many people actually receive these benefits.
  • Absolutely. And if they are in the country illegal they should not be entitled to those benefits.
  • OTOH, maybe if our fabulously wealthy country quit wasting public funds on welfare schemes for the rich and politically connected (Blackwater & Halliburton no-bid contracts, anyone?), we wouldn't feel the need to 'wag our finger' at the poor and indigent before giving them some minimal help. http://www.amazon.com/Take-Rich-Welfare-Mark-Zepezauer/dp/0896087069/ Time of greatest American 'wealth' generation as measured by the Genuine Progress Indicator: Late-1950s http://www.rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/genuine_progress_indicator.htm Top marginal tax rate during the late-1950s: 91%
  • Is the purpose to save governement money by placing restrictions on recieving welfare? Then one must hire additional employees to administer tests and pay lab fees to conduct the investigations. Further, if you find a welfare mother of a one year old is using drugs, and the money is cut off, what happens to the baby? The child loses benefits through no fault of their own. My question to DJButter and everyone else, would you trade your life, what you have right now, for a life on welfare? If anyone is scamming the welfare system, their monthly $$$ isn't a drop in the bucket compared to one Alaska Bridge
  • I think that would be an awesome idea!!
  • Absolutely not!
  • no in fact I don't think they should drug test anyone unless they are driving or operating some sort of vehicle and they have a reason for testing you. It's gotten way out of hand already.
  • I don't think so. While there are people who cheat the system, the majority of welfare recipients do not. Most people receiving welfare are employed (often at more than one job), but work for very low wages and need welfare for the basic needs of their families. Furthermore, most people are not on welfare for more than a few years. So, are we really going to subject them to random urine tests, which would only take away from what little time they have with their families, or cause them to miss work that they desperately need? Is the public really willing to put more money into a program so many are taught to despise because of the myths perpetuated about it? Are they OK with having to fund the testing, the additional employees? Finally, what of the people who do not pass the drug test? They're denied welfare... and then what?
  • I think it's a great idea. I live near Mexico, and illegal immigrants are everywhere. Welfare is spent heavily down here on a large portion of the population. Drug tests would be a great way to cut down welfare spending where I live.
  • WOW! I love this idea!!!! Talk about welfare reform meets war on drugs!!!! Half of them would fail, thus not get the welfare and the other half will get off the needle. I love it!!!!!! WRITE YOUR SENATOR!!!!! Really good idea!
    • TBO
      some states do have it..I wish all would.
  • That's a really good idea. If the government is handing out money to people they should at least have to piss in a cup once in a while to show they aren't using the money for the wrong things!
  • sorry but this is just bullshit pure and simple ...why not extend this to tobacco or alcohol or how about just drug test all the bosses and pollies ...how about we ALL get tested once a week ...nah all the wowsers would be screaming there tits of why if its good enough for the poor why not eveyone else ...these people already have to jump through so many bloody hoops now to get a few lousy bucks to live on
  • this is an intense debate. haha. i still believe there should be more rigorous tests
  • sorry. sposed to be a comment
  • So what happens when the welfare recipient fails the urine test? Do we withhold their $$$ - they become homeless or in prison and then we end up paying for that too. No easy answers here.
  • so you can't then? i was just wondering how you can be so certain that illegals are such a drain on our welfare system.. have you ever had to use welfare?
  • Absolutely not. For one thing, the American "War on Drugs" is a travesty that clogs our prison systems with non-violent offenders, generates massive illicit profits in the drug trade which actually *Increase* violent drug-related crimes, and violates people's basic rights to do whatever they choose in the privacy of their own bodies as harms no one else, and tying welfare benefits, which are intended to support people and their families through financially rough periods to the passing of a drug test would be draconian and utterly unethical. What direct relevance does the fact of whether a person fails a drug test or not have to their ability to hold down a job? If a person is say... Fired from their job for being intoxicated on the job, then I might be behind the idea of restricting that person's access to welfare benefits, but if no direct correlation can be drawn between the person's drug use and their lack of gainful employment, then it's none of the government's business what they put into their bodies. And even if you are behind the "War on Drugs", what do you propose to do with the people who fail said drug test? Deny them the benefits needed to support their family? Throw them into one of our already desparately overcrowded jails? Even if the pre-existing drug laws *Were* morally or ethically justified enough to justify doing either of those things to people just because they use drugs (Which, in my humble opinion, they're not), enforcing them through the welfare system would be a logistical disaster of epic proportions.
  • Yes I do believe this, people who spend their cash on drugs and then receive food stamps don't deserve any government benefits, I don't care what you do, but as soon as I start paying via taxes to help your drug habbit we have a LARGE problem.
  • Excellent idea!
  • I think a better answer would be to screen welfare recipients better. If they truly can't work, give them benefits. But if they can work, make them work for their benefits - they could clean streets and parks, wash trash cans, take care of the parks, and many other odd jobs.
  • Having worked with MANY people on welfare and foodstamps, I can tell you that they aren't ALL crackheads and drunks. Swear. Meanwhile, what are we going to do? STARVE THEM TO DEATH?? Yes, that would be great. Then folks would complain about the stench, I'm sure.
  • ABSOFREAKINLUTELY!!!!
  • my state has excess money that goes unused by the pepole...If people who actually needed services would use them we would all be better off...there is excess money that the big government takes back and nobody benefits...I can tell you have never slept outside recently...happy easter...
  • Nope. You should want to help your fellow people and not create any more stress and drama in their lives. How about creating a program to where if you show a drug screening that is good, you can get a little extra each month. Once again, thinking only about yourself.
  • well, lets see how much does a drug test now days.. how much would the govt be out trying to drug test all people who get any form of assistance.. Then how many people would be complaining because that was a waste of money..The money that is being wasted on that could be used for welfare..and most people on welfare that are disabled use a lot of medication like pain pills, etc.. which will show up in a drug test as drugs.. Then you have the problem of this: the govt will have to know EVERY drug you have taken in the last what 30 days.. they will have to pay a chemist to go thru that and tell them "this drug has this chemical in it which would show up as cocaine or meth or whatever".. that's more money wasted.. This in itself would take months per person. If a person has been in the hospital and gotten any sort of morphine or demoral /pain injection, then that's more records they have to request and go thru...more money and time.. Then you have the issue of privacy.. Govts can't just go thru medical records ..there are legal issues involved. Either way you look at, it's going to cost you more for drug testing than the welfare does to begin with JUST to punish the few that are screwing the system. and those that are SCREWING the system will find a way to get around the drug testing/results anyway (paying them off, switching samples, etc).. If they are smart enough to screw the system, they are smart enough to get around a drug test.
  • well, lets see how much does a drug test now days.. how much would the govt be out trying to drug test all people who get any form of assistance.. Then how many people would be complaining because that was a waste of money..The money that is being wasted on that could be used for welfare..and most people on welfare that are disabled use a lot of medication like pain pills, etc.. which will show up in a drug test as drugs.. Then you have the problem of this: the govt will have to know EVERY drug you have taken in the last what 30 days.. they will have to pay a chemist to go thru that and tell them "this drug has this chemical in it which would show up as cocaine or meth or whatever".. that's more money wasted.. This in itself would take months per person. If a person has been in the hospital and gotten any sort of morphine or demoral /pain injection, then that's more records they have to request and go thru...more money and time.. Then you have the issue of privacy.. Govts can't just go thru medical records ..there are legal issues involved. Either way you look at, it's going to cost you more for drug testing than the welfare does to begin with JUST to punish the few that are screwing the system. and those that are SCREWING the system will find a way to get around the drug testing/results anyway (paying them off, switching samples, etc).. If they are smart enough to screw the system, they are smart enough to get around a drug test.
  • WOW - that IS a great idea! That way, children in abusive or neglected homes will get the attention they deserve, too. A lot less children will fall through the cracks! And we could really make a dent in rampant drug use, too. Awesome question!!!!
  • They should be tested for their job searching efforts as well.
  • I think people receiving welfare should be drug-tested if drug use is suspected. Some signs might be inadequate food, unusual bank account activity, evasive answers, and hoarding money. Keeping receipts would be a good idea to show that the benefits are being used correctly.
  • I'm torn.... kinda... I don't believe in the usage of the the "war on drugs" in any way whatsoever. The war on drugs is ONE of the main causes poverty and homeless and the need for a welfare in the first place. 2nd, Federal Welfare and foodstamps is one of the main reasons the economy is so poor and why the value of the dollar is worth only pennies. Abolish Federal Welfare, The "War on Drugs" and the DEA, AND abolish the Federal Reserve. Then We wouldn't HAVE to pay the needless taxes and everyone would be happy.
  • If you have ever collected food card benefits, you know that it is a hassle and you don't get much. Every year you have to go for a face-to-face interview to keep collecting them even if you are already on some kind of disability or unemployment. On principle I feel that the State has the right and obligation to protect people from harming themselves, and so the State needs to deal with drug abuse through rehabilitation. At the same time, using or distributing drugs in any way must be punishable. I think that people caught in the act should be put on probation and given a suspended jail (not prison) sentence that they will have to serve if they do not enter into rehab. If someone is in rehab and honestly doing his/her part to shape up, I do not feel they should be discriminated against in getting benefits or a job. There are more effective tests than the urine test, such as the hair follicle test which goes back six months or more. So, I don't think people should have to wee, but yes I know from witnessing it firsthand that a lot of people getting benefits are also getting drugs. If they can't get benefits or a job, however, what will many abusers do to eat and survive?...The answer is they will turn to crime or they will simply have to beg. Put another way, should churches that give out food and clothes do the same thing? No, drug abusers should not be cut off from help. They need to be helped. Yes, there should be a test. Also, the buying and selling of food benefits can be deterred by making it mandatory that they show identification when using the food card.
  • Yes, and you should not be able to buy alcohol or ciggs in the same transaction when using any government help. Only cause it pisses me off to watch it. If you can afford to smoke and drink, then maybe you can afford to buy your own F*#! food. /rant
  • No. Legalize drugs is the answer. Get rid of the fantastic "war on drugs". My 2 cents.
  • Hey, as long as people who work have to submit to urine test, I think the people reaping the benefits of our hard work should also. In fact, they should be required to do it before they get a check. If they don't pass, they don't get paid. I don't agree with testing people in the first place. Until a law is passed to ban it, we all just have deal with it.
  • Having moved to the US from England recently, I've been amazed by how many questions here on AB are to do with taking drug / urine tests for jobs, etc. Given that this is the situation here, then I agree that people receiving welfare should have to undergo them too. I'm not sure that I agree with the drug testing policy though. If taking drugs affect your ability to do your job - after all, companies pay you for your time, and during your time at work, you're theirs to do with as they will (within reason and the law, of course) - then they have a right to discipline or even fire you. However, they shouldn't need drug tests to spot this - it should be obvious. I suppose another perspective is that drugs are still illegal, unless there are those that are prescribed them for medical reasons. So, would these people not be allowed to get jobs or welfare? Murky waters!
  • Having been in a situation where my family and I were on welfare and food stamps for about a year, I can say the abuse of this system is sickening. It was almost impossible for us to qualify for it in the first place, which ticked us off. Valuable time was wasted on us trying to prove that we were starving and couldn't do anything due to an unexpected medical reason for a while. Then, we got to where we would shop at a certain store out of the way due the lower prices on most items to make our money stretch as far as it would go. I'll admit we went to a store on the less fortunate side of town. Almost everyone in that store was on welfare and food stamps, so we didn't feel so awkward using ours. It was nice, they helped us understand which items we can and can't buy, etc. Over a year of shopping there we got to where we saw all the regulars who would shop there. But it was unbelievable the amount of people who were completley taking advantage of the system, and were proud of it! They traded their stuff off for cash to buy cigarettes and liquour, and you could tell they were obviously high most of the time when you spoke with them. The poor children looked ragged, malnourished, and rarely did the groceries consist of proper foods. But the real kicker, was when they would go out to the parking lot and get in their brand new Cadillac or SUV! No limping. No oxygen tanks. No wheelchairs. (I'm sorry, but why are you receiving goverment aid again?) Do we need random drug testing? No, that would cost us too much money. Regular screenings of WHO is on the system and WHY would be more effective. I was never so sick at what we have become as a country as when I saw that. It was an eye-opening year of my life.
  • again I say this. you throw a fit because a person is getting $100 a month worth of assistance but you are willing to pay $500 a month for a drug test. then it takes 3-4 months to get them back and in the meantime who's taking care of the needs of the poor and kids. are they going to move in with you. It will end up costing taxpayers 3x what they pay in welfare benefits.
  • No, this would ignore the huge body of evidence suggesting that the majority of people who need welfare do so due to the structure of society, rather than laziness or drug addiction.
  • i agree i think that they should have to pass random screenings. i know i have to pass random screenings to keep my job and i'm a cashier. when a majority of the people who receive these foodstamps are using their cash they have on drugs and relying on me to provide them food i find that very wrong. especially when they get to buy top quality name brand products and i settle for store brands because its all i can afford. i think urine screens would weed out those who abuse the program
  • Yes, that's a great idea!
  • Many people have to pass these tests? Maybe in backwards freedom-hating countries like America but not in other countries where privacy and what you do during your non-working hours is actually respected. Instead of punishing everyone with this stupidity of urine testing why not eliminate it completely for all jobs? I personally wouldn't stand for a urine test. I don't believe urine testing has stood up against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I haven't heard of anyone having to do one for a job.
  • Didn't you get the memo? The war on drugs was a huge failure. Extending a failed war by creating , yet another expensive layer of bureaucratic bullshit jobs to monitor what amounts to petty cash is fiscally retarded. Yes, some welfare mothers are on drugs. Then again, so are some doctors, lawyers, judges and politicians. In fact, i can't think of a segment of mainstream society that does not have drug abusers. Rush Limbaugh is an addict. Should we randomly screen loudmouth radio hosts? The amount these people get for welfare is chump change compared to the many areas our government wastes money. They just happen to be an easier target. I think drug screening AIG, Sachs-Goldman, GM, Ford and Chrysler officers would make more sense if we are going to waste money making our government payroll larger
  • Damn straight I do. They're leaching off of my check to supposedly buy necessities for themselves and children. If they're spending that money on pot (which I don't object to in principle) or anything else illegal, YOU'RE OUT!
  • How about if the State just gave them first chance to serve Jury Duty & let the working people who are "lucky enough" to still have their jobs, during these hard times keep working?... That way those who use the system, could feel like they earned it.......Just my point of view tho...............M.C.S.
  • No but they should receive random surprise visits to their homes to be evaluated every now and then. I get so sick and tired of seeing people use food stamps on a whole cartload of groceries and then buy cigarettes, alcohol and a ton of video games on the next transaction. If any extravagant things are found in the house upon inspection...food stamps should be taken away.
  • Yes but in a way insulting to these people that already has lowered self esteems.
  • I agree, but then since they won't be entitled to those benefits, they will commit more crime and all of us will have to pay for their incarceration instead!
  • NO, never. this is a very condescending and elitist notion.
  • Wrong question. I don't think either random drug testing, or welfare should exist at all. Drug testing should be reserved for folks who have been detected to act eradically, and only after a serch warrent is obtained from the courts.
  • As do I believe it would be a GREAT idea, but can you say, "The proverbial snow ball's chance in hell?"
  • It's a very good idea! If they fail the test then no entitlement! And what's more they should be arrested on the spot for being drugged in public!
  • I do. And the people that fail, can pay for everyone elses tests.
  • I don't.I think drug tests at all by any company is an infringement on a persons private life.People are allowed to drink alcohol and take prescription drugs at home and even if it hurts there performance at work it is accepted.So if a person smokes a little weed they cannot even get a job.This sort of thinking is NUTS.If one is going to take drugs what is the difference if they are working earning $150,000 a year or on welfare?
  • If they're able-bodied, they should. +3
  • Yes that would be a good thing so that the children will receive what the money is actually intended for.
  • I think that a monthly drug screen would be great. I also think that all workplaces should have one monthly. After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
  • No, that's just not fair. They'll never be able to get drugs if they don't have foodstamps to trade.
  • i think they should be tested for any kind of "taxpayer aid", medical aid, housing aid,utility aid, food aid...now the kids should get medical and dental free,but not the parent....they drive cars better than mine, live in taxpayers aid housing better than mine, and eat better too ...i pay high coverage just for ins. i can't afford to use!!but all they do is plop down a taxpayer medicare card and get it all free.....i think their needs to be something done about all these people having kids to have their gravy train or free ride through life!!!!no wonder those of us who provide to this ilk have to tke DRUGS!!!!justme:)ps their kids get medical care we can't afford for our own kids!!!
  • no, but i think they should be required to perform some kind of work in their community. depending on their skills their job could be anything from just picking up trash around town or n the highway to professional or skilled work for their local municipality. i think this would purge some from the ranks and improve the self esteem of others. of course, another benefit would be that municipalities would save money and many things that have not been done due to budget restrictions or lack of manpower would get done. i think it would be a win win proposition.
  • Absolutely.
  • I certainly do, especially considering that drug screening is performed on most workers (with serious jobs) anyway. Why not do it on people who survive on our tax dollars? In fact, I would go one step further, and require that all Welfare recipients be enrolled in job and skills training.
  • It is really sad that most of the commits on here are directed at the inner city and hispanic communities because of the commom misconception that colored,and hispanics are the lions share of recips of foodstamp and or cash benefits. The majority of recips on gov. assistance or single caucasian females, and running a close second is caucasian married couples. Only and not ahead of them or colored and hispanic females. So if you only feel the need to test because you feel more minorities would be cut off the program, think again. For the ones who think the foodstamp/ cash program supports the habits of minority "crackheads", just know that the closet coke snorters,and meth heads or doing the same if not more damage then the crackhead. For one, crack is played out. The new drug of choice is Meth, EX, and the old time favorite who has made a comeback, Heroin. So if you choose to test recips, just know that it will only be a handful of minority recips who are cut off, but a hell of a lot of majority recips booted as well.
  • Yes. I don't want my tax dollars supporting their drug habits. If they can't work or go to school and support themselves, the last thing they should be doing is sitting around on their asses getting high.
  • Definitely..I live in a slum.Yesterday and today open air drug dealing occurs.With kids around..Debit cards are sold 1/2 price to get drugs or alcohol.
  • Addicts have a right to eat as well, it is a mental health disease. If you don't feed them.....it would increase crime as well. I don't think punishing people with mental health diseases by starving them is right....I think we should really understand the nature of the beast before we judge.
  • I think anybody who wants to discuss welfare should first be required to read "Men And Marriage" by George Gilder. It's only fifteen bux. Get it. www.amazon.com/Men-Marriage-George-Gilder/dp/0882899465/ref=sr_1_1
  • No I do not. Need has nothing to do with someone's urine. But I think the whole process should be tightened up. People who don't have to work for their support become lazy, lethargic, and lose incentive.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy