Abundance

Like a lot of folks, 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.

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 A--, 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?


PS... I didn't write this nor come up with it.... and this line of thinking has never crossed my mind.

What would this mean... dictatorship? Or would it be a consequence? Is it too much paperwork and busy work?

Anywho- just thought I'd share...

Taking5

great idea.

rozied

I thought about this not a month ago. If you have to pass a drug test to work & pay your taxes why shouldn't the people on Welfare that get our tax money have to pass a drug test also. I think the powers that be, have thought of it but they won't do it cuz they know many reciepents would fail. They worry if they stop their welfare they would go out & commit crimes to get money.

MyJoey

I agree with how the other countries that don't have a welfare system do it. Seems to work for them. Been years since I have been to the Bahamas but last time I was there they said they have a VERY low crime rate and no welfare system, our tour guide said we keep it simple here. You steal we cut off your hand. You don't work, you don't eat. Heck, at that time they still had public hangings.
Funny thing with our government is they would complain about the cost of the drug test........duh! Instead of looking at the savings of not paying out public drug money.

Hammerhead

Love this idea! Imagine food stamps actually used for food and for the children intended! It's pretty sad when a "family" has 4 or 5 food stamp cards and the kids still can't get food

imallright

Agree on some levels...but when happens when these people test positive? If this is a disease and not a choice, does the government then offer treatment for the addiction or simply say, "no soup for you". What kills me is the kids. Somehow, some way... the kids need to get the help they need. I believe it is way too easy for people to turn the assistance provided into drug and drink money and then the family does suffer. Off my soap box now. : )

winnie12

I heard about this program last week. i have mixed emotions. For the addict i think its a way for society to stop enabling them - but for the kids of the addict i worry. I never thought of the programs for if they do test positive - but wonder how much that is going to cost? we already dont have enough funding to help the ones from the legal system and they talk about cutting those programs all the time - it was a nightmare getting my son in a state/fed sponsored program. who knows maybe they could use the money saved from unemployment and food stamps and put it into drug rehab programs - could be a better way to go. I wonder if they test positive and have kids would they have to immediately report them to CPS? there's one more agency that is just overloaded.

Does seem a little big brother

Freedom1990

I'll be the devil's advocate here. If we're going to do that, then we need to start screening for other things, like gambling addictions, eating disorders, all sorts of addictions that are costing the taxpayers money in one way or another whether it's through the welfare checks, medical cards, etc. Addictions in general are costly. We can't discriminate if you're going to look at it that way.

longview

I like the idea. My state is considering it and I worked to support it. The anti's kick about cost.

As far as the children suffering if parent tests positive... even in my isolated state there are food programs/soup kitchens. Even the smallest towns have food programs. And if parent does not take advantage of them, then they would be guilty of neglect, IMO. Maybe it would be easier here because of the smaller numbers. I don't know how the ratio of taxpayer to recipient to actively using recipient works out.

Serenity Bound

My AD (she's in recovery & left her abusive H) applied for cash assistance a few weeks ago.....she had to take a urine test, which I completely agree with.

winnie12

I always worry about where programs like this will stop. What else will the gov say disqualifies you from programs? what about false positives, validly prescribed pills, or the person who just smoked some weed one month ago while they had a job but doesnt normally use (it stays in the system a long time), will they test for alcohol, what about CA and medical marijuana - CA residents can use but not TX residents - that's descrimination, what about you loosing food stamps because your AH tested positive or the recovering addict who needs help to get back on their feet. Just seems like a lot of questions that need to be answered before they put it in place.

zxcirce

its also almost certainly more expensive to get an addict off the streets and back into society after being denied all forms of public assistance and let fall all the way.

outtolunch

The only country that has had meaningful sucess reducing narcotics from their culture, is China. It was estimated that more than 82 million were addicted to opium/heroin in the early 1940's and it was the largest export.

After founding the People's Republic of China, in 1949, the new government determined that it did not have the financial resources to carry the social burden of narcotics and led the people in a momenteous struggle against drugs. It took a shoot to kill policy to make clear the consequences of growing, harvesting, trafficking, possesion, and use.

Today, drug control is the responsibility of the entire society, with an emphasis on education and social responsibility as well as a national security threat. And even then....trafficking along the Afganistan borders persists.

Other addictions do not pose the same social welfare threats as drugs do.

I have no answers. I do know that at some future unknown point in time, it will no longer be feasible to continue funding social services as it relates to addcition.

cece1960

I can't say I'm for it for much of the reasons already stated.
Addicts stumble, fall, relapse...and many of those have spent a good deal of time sober before.
Do we "punish" them or do we put solid programs in place that might help?

cece1960

Five years ago I may well have supported this
Four and a half years ago I learned my son was addicted to heroin

Understandably, my view on the matter has changed a bit.

I think to myself what a tragedy it would be for someone to get shot and killed when a miracle was waiting just around the bend.

wooforever

I think they should **** test everyone that is on welfare. If they can pass the test then they stay on it. As for CA and the weed thing, they carry a card, so if they get a **** test and they have the card they should be okay. The point is the kids, if their parents are using the money for drugs then what good is the system. Come on I need welfare and could not get it because I worked a 5.45 hour job, but the person on welfare was making 10.00 an hour for nothing.

Sorry but I think they need to start focusing on the people that really need the help. Affordable housing, health care. If I would lose my job today I would be homeless. I am not a drug addict and I have work my whole life, it just does not seem right that the drug addicts get special treatment.

Let them have Disablility if they can not get clean. But the funny thing everyone can change if they want to.

winnie12

I keep coming back to this thread because i think of my own son when i hear of it. He cannot live without insulin and he cannot take insulin without food. Saying that addicts cannot have access to government resources means yet another death sentence placed on him. If i look at these programs as addressing faceless people i can support them but if i was looking at my own son i just couldnt.

outtolunch

At one point in time, I was in favor of legalizing everything. Then I learned that my daughter was addicted to heroin. Like all addicts, she once believed she would not get addicted. Like all addicts, she believed she could control it. Like all addicts she rationalized it was not so bad, every notch she hit, on the way down.

While I am certainly not advocating a "shoot to kill" public policy, I am hard-pressed to argue the effectiveness as a deterrent.

lauren

Interesting about the Afganistan problem and opium..
I read some months ago that the farmers in total make
a profit of 18 million dollars. That is a drop in the bucket
compared to the harm and cost of rehabs..social assistance
child endangerment and on and on that we endure from the
smuggling of this product into our countries..I'm from Canada.

If they would pay them to produce something that would
be of benefit and guarantee them the same income as they
would receive from opium it would benefit the country and
reduce one more "huge" supplier..to me this would be a priority to
accomplish as a government body.

Just a pet peeve of mine regarding drugs as a whole...

lauren

outtolunch

There is a long history of the U.N and the U.S. paying sovereigns to produce alterative crops. It has failed because there remains a constant demand for the product. Consider what's going on in Mexico right now.

It's consumer behavior that has to change and to do so, there needs to be profound consequences that challenge the fantasy of a life without consequence.

More than half of convicted felons are back in prison within two years and a significant percentage of these are for crimes related to drugs. In the meantime, their families often become dependent on welfare and it's a vicious cycle, funded entirely by taxpayers. Consequences, as currently exist, are not adequate deterrents.