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

If they do drugs, they don't get taxpayer dollars.

If they do drugs, and they're not capable of working, they don't get taxpayer dollars.

It's not complicated.

It's our money, their bodies. That means it's our choice, not theirs.

Sounds like they have a problem. If they want to do drugs, they can get off the dole because the taxpayers don't owe them a dime. The ONLY exception to that would be disabled veterans, since they earned the people's support.

NO! All that you need to do is post your address and you can pay for their habits with your own money.

That is what freedom of choice means.

Easy.

End the system and allow local charities to sort out who deserves aid and who the slackers, the criminals, and the drug addled are, using funds from VOLUNTARY DONATIONS.

Ain't nobody entitled to a living, not in the United States of America.

 

Deaths due to alcohol abuse kill more people than any of the other drugs. There's no "dangerous" drugs, only truly stupid people.

Make methamphetamine legal, the Mayor is tired of the games he has to go through to get pseudophedrine to clear up a stuffy nose. If stupid people want to put that poison in their bodies, let them. Heroin? Only the stupid people touch it.

What should be illegal is marketing or selling of these subtances to people under 21...punishable by death, without the stupid 30 years of appeals and whines that keep lawyers in money.

 

Good point - maybe ALL elected officials should be routinely drug tested.

 

Yes they should and the government must increase the check of drug users so they can support their habit .

The more money are redistributed from the government coffers to the market the better the economy will be .

 

I would be open to argument against the concept, however, THE CONCEPT MUST MANDATE AGAINST ANY CORPORATION REQUIRING MANDATORY DRUG TESTING AND THAT INCLUDES THE USA GOVERNMENT. Any argument that falls short of this requirement is meritless. Thus, any argument is actually meritless since truck drivers are regulated by the government and that requirement involves drug testing.

 

fun fact...the most used illegal drug is Marijuana by a wiiiide margin.

fun fact 2: the reason why kids who are introduced to marijuana have a higher chance to use other harder worse illegal drugs is because it is illegal...the same people who have marijuana, a relatively harmless plant (safer than tobacco) also have coke (also relatively harmless to anyone but a fiend) crack, heroin, extacy, etc connections.

Legalize marijuana and the demand for such an illegal drug shifts into a demand for a legal drug like cigs or alcohol. The criminals controlling it fade away, and while they'll still deal in other drugs, the larger percentage of people who simply want weed will walk to the corner store and pick up a blunt and a sixpack.

 

Hard not to agree.
But, I feel that the use of drugs must be decriminalized, taxed and controlled..
Indy........, I may be wrong, but, I think you have it in for drug users...

 

And the drug users will be known...by many, NOT all..
And, I hold strongly, NO guns for them..
But, at least they can walk into a state store buy the dope and be taxed.
Note, the conservatives wish not to do anything of value here, but close the state stores...
In our society, in many areas, the conservatives are the problem.

 

IMO there should be no government benefits, and people should be able to do any drug they want.....better keep a clear head, though, and be ready for work the next day.

 

Would you rather a high person with a gun or a drunk with a gun?

- - - Updated - - -

Would you rather a high person with a gun or a drunk with a gun?

 

HI,

Interesting question and in fact it MAY actually SAVE tax $$ if drug users are dropped from receiving gov't aid / benefits...Seems to make fiscal sense to do so....

Answering the question if it may cost more to administer the drug test in the first place than the potential savings in people being booted out of the system.....maybe charge the applicant for the drug test when they apply for aid ...I realize that this may be met w/ some resistance (the charge) BUT
most anybody can do SOME work to at least cover this basic charge.

Taking it to the next level tho.....

IF a person is found to have used drugs and is booted off whatever aid they would have otherwise received should they also be ARRESTED for using the illegal drugs in the first place??

Andrew

 

When it has been done the results were dismal failures, and wound up wasting more money than it saved. Florida for drug tests on welfare recipients cost hundreds of thousands more than it saves and in N or S Carolina (I think it was) tried it for unemployment the number of people caught were so small it only meant throwing more money at another stupid failed idea. There are too many ways of beating the test, and or getting around the system, which means a total waste of time and money.

 

This makes no sense...what is a "high person" ?
Do you mean "tall man" ?
If you mean one on drugs as opposed to one on alcohol , each with a gun......
Obviously its 6 of one.........
What we need is gun control, specifically 100% complete back ground checks....And this is what the libertarians, the conservatives, the NRA, and the criminals fear..

 

You hit the nail right on the head...We are hearing from the new "CONservative" movement here in America...They claim to be conservatives in favor of American freedoms but they suggest forcing half of the population to submit to having their bodily fluids tested on demand and jailing people for simply being in possession of certain substances....These mooks are a bunch of brainwashed morons with below room temp IQs...Cheers

 

high as in weed.

Would you rather be around someone high on weed with a gun, as humanly high as possible...vs someone drunk as hell with a gun...no other factors known other than what they're on.

 

already answered, and I agree: six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

What is feared is the misuse of such power, and the fact that the only people who will be effected (if it is indeed handled in a responsible manner, which is doubtful since ulterior motives are behind the call), is the harassment of law abiding, and a black market that will cater exclusively to the criminals.

If you gun grabbers want to show a little consistency, use the laws on the books that are at the present being ignored, and go after the criminals, not as an opportunity to create legislation that only goes after and harasses the law abiding. Unfortunately the entire purpose is totally disarming of the proper authority, the citizens.

 

I dont really care one way or the other.

The important thing to realize here is that drug testing will NOT save you money in ANY WAY.

Believe it or not, very few people on welfare DO drink and do drugs. Several states have tried this and found that only 4-5% of the people tested were possitive. The money saved was not NEARLY the amount it costs to continue drug testing everyone.


So, as long as you are willing to admit that you are doing this as a means to control someone elses life, because you feel you should have a say so because they are on the public ( your / mine ) dollar, then fine. But just be honest about it up front and say you want to control them, and that it has nothing to do with saving money.

 

They have to be ''surprised'' visits in giving a test. Let them start their benefit,,then test at a announced time at home. You cant catch fish with an exposed Hook....

Except Mackerel,,,BOY are they dumb!!!!....>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

If they worked I might agree, but the government is involved, and they always find a way to screw it up.

Just too many variables to contend with. There is even a list of foods, legal foods, that are not recommended before taking a government employee urinalysis because they can present a false positive in the test. They are a joke. Saw too many people passing drug tests in the military, and have a cousin who would smoke a J before he would go see his PO, and never failed one, and they did home visit spot checks as well. They work well enough that they give the appearance that they are working, but not to the point that they are completely accurate from the experiences I have seen first hand.

 

I assume you meant "unannounced". But that wouldn't work. All someone would have to do is not answer the door. After all, if you arrive unannounced, you can't expect that the person you are surprising will always be home.

 

So let's say that this unAmerican practice was being perpetrated. If you wanted to receive state benefits from, say, Colorado, couldn't you still smoke pot? After all, according to some states, pot is perfectly legal.

 

Yes to madatory drug-testing.


They should also be required to turn in cell phones, and all other luxury items.

 

No because

1) Social Services can handle that
2) Welfare is to keep poor children fed, punishing them from eating food is daft under any circumstances.

- - - Updated - - -

You ever consider leaving this country? Mother Russia is full of beautiful white people.

 

It's ALWAYS about skin-color with YOU PEOPLE, isn't it?