Should people be required to take a drug test to receive government benefits?

Legalize drugs then tell them they can get free government drugs if they get and retain a job and get off the government cash teat. I think you'd see a lot of physical ailments and mental problems magically vanish along with probably 80 to 90 percent of so-called 'drug' crimes. Yeah that does sound radical....or does it?

 

Here in America, people used to immigrate here to be free. Be it for religious freedom, economic freedom, freedom of speech, or whatever life pursuit made them happy. As long as they weren't harming someone else or their property, or presenting a danger in some way - have at it.

Over the decades, however, America has morphed into Amerika and we now have laws against everything. Amerika imprisons more people per capita than any country in the world, and the vast majority of those doing time are for drug related charges. Most of them are "victimless crimes".

Making drugs illegal has nothing to do with protecting anyone, it has everything to do with empowering government, and giving government the excuse to control, manipulate, and terrorize the citizenry. In communist countries, everything is illegal - if you are in compliance with law A, you are surely in violation of law B. The citizens live in fear of their government.

That is not freedom.

I don't smoke crack, but it is none of my business if you do. I don't do coke, but again... none of my business. There are consequences to doing drugs... be they health issues, or issues related to being responsible to your family or on your job. If you can do drugs recreationally and keep it all together - more power to ya. Just b/c I disapprove I shouldn't have the ability to use the power of government to punish you for something I think is bad, yet you've done nothing to harm another person or their property.

It's that simple - freedom - leave people alone.

If I don't show up for work b/c I'm hungover, I make a habit of it, I get fired... that's on me. That's a consequence. On and on... it's none of anyone else's business.

 

Ayuh,.... Truth is,... They Don't....

Pot was outlawed with a Tax act,.... otherwise, it wouldn't pass constitutional review ....

Just as Prohibition was the government creatin' a Crime wave, so has the laws against drugs/ pot...
'n, just as the crime wave was ended by the repeal of prohibition, legalizin' pot would do the same thing today...

 

That's exactly why they won't legalize it. Governments want to criminalize everything - they want arbitrary, unconstrained power to control the population.

I expect we might see a brief period of liberalization... at least I'm hoping so. I would hope it would be permanent and Amerikans could be free, but those who control government have worked for decades to build up the power of government - they're not going to give it up.

Amerika is being transformed into a soft tyranny... of course every tyranny has the ability to be irrational and brutal, in fact those are defining characteristics of tyrannies - irrational and brutal. Once the Constitution is torn up altogether, our freedoms will be redefined as granted by government - what government gives, government can take away.

 

Florida already tried drug testing for welfare.

[h=1]No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests[/h]

Why repeat a failed experiment? Let's try something else, maybe something that has a proven track record.

 

Like freedom??

Like restricting government by way of the Constitution??

Like neighbors and other citizens minding their own freaking business??

Amerika has become a terrible country b/c the citizens are terrible. They're completely ignorant of what proper governance looks like, and they've been indoctrinated into believing that government should act upon their every whim.

Amerika is a seriously sick and dying country. Indicative of that is the rise in size and scope of government, and corresponding loss of freedoms of the people.

 

Those, from whom these nutsy ideas originate , should be the ones to take drug tests.

 

Male bovine feces
Its the radical 1% who are the problem - the extremists, the CTs, the ignorant, the haters.
Maybe I am a Pollyanna, but, IMO, things are slowly improving.

 

I'd like to think you're right, and that wist43 is just being an alarmist.

But, then, I think back at things like asset forfeiture laws, indefinite detention without trial, and the Patriot Act and wonder just what the war on drugs and the war on terror are really doing to our freedom, and find it difficult to believe that this great free nation is really as free as it once was. Just how much liberty will the American public be willing to trade for the illusion of security?

 

Wars kill people, are a waste of natural resources and time (foreign adventures only).
These must stop....
Freedom ?
Those who are servicing and dying - yes
Me ?
no
There is a lot more to life than liberty and freedom.
Do you think we should have the freedom to use drugs ?
Do you think we should have the freedom to murder others ??

 

I doubt that it would be cost effective. I don't mind the idea of tying government benefits to drug testing (most employed people are drug tested these days), but some seat of the pants calculation I've done make me conclude it isn't cost effective.

 

We are dying the same way every other republic has died.

Unless the citizens are vigilant and keep close tabs on their government, and unsure that they do not succumb to emotional appeals to expand the definitions of law that allow for the expansion of government - then that republic will invariably descend into a democracy.

Once the society begins to dysfunction as a democracy, it is only a matter of time before the society collapses under the weight of its own corruption. This isn't a new story, it is history repeated over and over.

Once the democracy bankrupts itself in every way imaginable, as is happening to Amerika now, there is always a period of chaos and disorder out of which a tyranny of whatever label is able to gain control - and freedom is done until the citizens are able to throw off those chains. As was the case with Rome, it could take hundreds of years before the succession of tyrants is stopped.

"The essence of freedom is the limitation of government". This eternal truth was the foundation upon which American freedom was founded. Certainly no liberal/progressive/democrat would agree with that obvious truth; and the neocon faction of the Republican Party would spit on it as well.

We're $189 trillion in debt, the Patriot Act gutted the Bill of Rights, we imprison more citizens per capita than any country in the world, our government indoctrination centers (public schools) teach all manner of leftist nonsense, on and on... whether you believe the collapse is being deliberately engineered (as I do), or whether you think it all one big unhappy accident - the fact remains the writing is on the wall.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Tick-tock.

 

drug tests do not show if someone has a abuse problem or not, anymore then a alcohol test would show if someone is a alcoholic, now if they came in intoxicated on any drug, the police should be called as that is public intoxication, that is a crime

what do you want the government to do if a out of work person is caught drinking or smoking pot at night in their home to relax before bed?

.

 

For a so called conservative you sure do like advocating unconstitutional stuff.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

ACORN is a collection of individuals. Is it illegal? Not it is not. Thus, people have the right to join it freely.

Additionally, while it's not per se unconstitutional to restrict based on drug activity (although there is no power given to Congress to do so), it's completely ridiculous. Let people put whatever they want in their bodies, it's their life and they're not directly coercing anyone as a result. It's just your personal disapproval of drug use that you base this opinion on - government should not be formed in that way. Hell, that's just what the left wants to do.



This is my main problem with you: you're a Liberal who disagrees on how to help people. The left liberals think the way to prosperity and justice is through assistance and a strong sense of community, you think it comes through hard work, religiosity, and conservatism, and aren't afraid to force your views onto others. It's so overwhelmingly ironic that you're named 'libhater', since you pretty much agree with them in principle.

 

Absolutely!

 

I don't think you can legally do that. In many states you are required to have a deduction from your paycheck for unemployment and disability; so they have paid into the system and you cannot deny them their benefits based on a drug test unless the laws were changed. Plus there is the added expense of having the drug test conducted and then analyised. Who pays for that? The taxpayers??

Your wrong; if they are arrested they are definitely in the Tax payers pockets because they will have to pay to go through the court system and then the added expense of being incarcerated as well. It'l end up costing more then its worth.

 

lol, can you imagine seeing congress line up to pee in a cup before they could vote on a bill

.

 

This has been tried on the state level, less than 4% returned a positive test, wasting millions of tax payer dollars (the Gov. owned the testing company, republican of course) so why do it on a national level and (*)(*)(*)(*) away billions of tax dollars?
Why so much more big gov intrusion into peoples lives?

 

No wonder liberty is being lost. It is not valued.

Yes. The government does not have the right to dictate what we may or may not put into our bodies.
I would not exercise the right to use drugs, but it others do, that doesn't impinge on my rights.
The purpose of government is to protect our rights, not protect us from ourselves.
The war on drugs is one of the biggest failed government programs in our history, and should be ended.

No, because that does impinge on the rights of others.

 

If you were to include ALL of the people receiving government assistance who also do cocaine, the banking and brokerage industries would collapse by lunchtime today.

 

If they are using welfare money to buy drugs they already are living on the streets - or have back up income and don't need them.

 

You pay into these insurance systems with your own money and as of right now it is not currently illegal anywhere in the entire USA to do drugs.....just posses them so I don't see how you could deny them access on that basis. If you are pulling unemployment insurance currently and you fail a drug test give by a job they are required to report you and you will get kicked off because you are not ready to work. You are right people may avoid certain jobs because of this but people might avoid doing jobs because of their pride. Whatever the reason this isn't a communist society where you are given job assignment so if they don't want to apply they don't have to.

 

Would it be nice in a perfect society? yes. Is it economicly fessable? No.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0

 

It's not a government benefit to be able to afford to do something that someone else can't afford to do. I own two cars. Please don't tell me that my 34 year old Chevy, which currently needs repairs, is a "Government Benefit" because you only have one car.

A government benefit is when you pay less than the value of the services you receive. For Social Security, that applies to everyone, rich and poor alike -- very few people will put in more to Social Security than the benefits they receive.

For the Mitt Romney's, they receive more in "national security" protection each year than they pay to actually provide for the national defense. That's pretty much true of all the trust-fund and tax-dodger people out there -- we tax income, which is not what "national security" protects. If you have a giant trust fund, that's sheltering all or most of your wealth (what the Mitt Romney type of moochers do), your taxes paid are far below the cost per dollar protected than the middle or working class shlub out there.

And for the know-nothing Neo-Cons who think Ayn Rand is their hero with idiotic sayings like "Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers", that's why we have an income tax and not a wealth tax. Income taxes prevent middle and working class people from accumulating wealth so only the rich can sit on their fat and lazy trust-fund asses and NOT produce. Because Mitt Romney is NOT a "producer" and his income tax returns say so -- he has "carried" interest, not actively earned wages or capital gains.

 

Only if the elected officials who enact such a law are also required to get tested before the election.