Should people on welfare should take drug tests

Question

Like a lot of folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ***, doing drugs, while I work. . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Answer 1

Sounds like an EXCELLENT idea to me.

Can you imagine how much money we'd save by denying folks & how far the crime rate would go down if people could actually spend some time at a job?

Answer 2

Well Kevin, you should have stated that you got this from an email as you are not the first to take a look at these words.... but yes I agree with that completely.  I don't think that anyone on assistance should be paid until they can p**s clean, if they are to move off of assistance it will be necesary, so if they are to be on assistance it should be necessary.  I think that it should also be required for unemployment.

Answer 3

sounds like a good idea to me, except...of course, who's going to pay for all these expensive drug tests

Answer 4

No one makes you keep a job where you get drug tested.

Maybe people should be drug tested for their social security too.

Besides, what's your correlation on doing drugs leads to being a deadbeat. to quote Bill Hicks:

"I think drugs have done alot of good for society, yea, take music for example, if you don't believe drugs have done any good, go home and burn all y our albums. All those musicians you love when they wrote and recorded that stuff...............reaaaalllllllly ******* high"  

Answer 5

YES!

Answer 6

I agree, one strike and you get a job but no welfare.

Answer 7

Michigan did it.

It is pretty expensive to do, I think, but it is a great idea.

Well, I don't think it should disqualify someone, because they have children, but I do think if one fails, they should have mandatory rehab.  If they refuse treatment, then the only help they should get is with diapers, baby food, etc, or just take the kids away.

Answer 8

That has been attempted many times before but liberals always cry 'the revision targets minorities', and it gets 'shot down' every time.

Answer 9

no. drugs should be legal.  but there shouldnt be welfare either. so it shouldnt be an issue that we have to worry about. can you imagine how much money we would save if we stopped trying to stop people from engaging in nonviolent behavior that has taken place since before recorded history?  or how much less money criminals would make if we took the profit out of them selling basically worthless plant material?  or how many lives would be saved from the fact that gang warfare would basically end once we took the profit out of their drugs?  or how many less overdose cases their would be since drugs wouldnt be cut with who knows what since they would be sold by legit companies instead of criminals?   or how many more people would actually work if we didnt pay people to not work? it would really be amazing.

Answer 10

Thats an idea, excpet many of those people are disabled, and the money we spend most on is corporate welfare bailouts, you know the big banks, and extravagant favors to those that gave much lobby m oney to politicians to get elected so they could get this special consideration and not have to worry becuz they will get the govt to help them.  Shameful,not in need but collect anyway