Drug Testing for Welfare.

[Itz Destiny]

Well recently I heard about this and I personally thought this is a good idea. Florida has now required that you take a drug test while receiving welfare checks. They do this to make sure that people aren't going to spend their welfare money on drugs. People say this is unconstitutional and not fair. How is it not fair seriously. Hard working people who EARN their money sometimes have to undergo drug tests at their work and they don't argue. So why the hell shouldn't they not have to take drug tests when they aren't doing shit. That's my opinion though tell me what you think. Here are some links on this.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/01/politics/main20068077.shtml

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/...ug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS

 

[Ivy Bridge]

I fail to see how this can be considered unconstitutional. Misuse of government funding is a serious issue. Tons and tons of lazy bastards use it as an income when all it was ever meant to be was a temporary solution to keep someone afloat in between periods of poverty. If you're poverty stricken, and require government assistance, there is absolutely no justifiable reason to need drugs. Even from a completely neutral standpoint regarding drug use, using government money to support your habit is unacceptable and if this helps weed out the leeches from the people who actually need welfare, then I personally see no harm. If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about.

 

[Itz Destiny]

I fail to see how this can be considered unconstitutional. Misuse of government funding is a serious issue. Tons and tons of lazy bastards use it as an income when all it was ever meant to be was a temporary solution to keep someone afloat in between periods of poverty. If you're poverty stricken, and require government assistance, there is absolutely no justifiable reason to need drugs. Even from a completely neutral standpoint regarding drug use, using government money to support your habit is unacceptable and if this helps weed out the leeches from the people who actually need welfare, then I personally see no harm. If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about.

My Point exactly were just feeding their drug habbit and it's bullshit

 

[aus aaz]

Moar control over the ppl.. What happened to freedom.

 

[~Explicit]

Honestly, I don't see how an individual case by case basis hasn't been taken into effect. Welfare isn't meant to give a free ride to lazy people, it's intended to be a supplement for those out of work and between jobs, who need the money to support themselves and their families.
And, I worry less about the druggies then I do about the guys that take unemployment but never seek a job. For example: a neighbor of mine was taking welfare checks with a wife at home making just under $1 million a year in a practical mansion. Guess what he used the money for? He played daily rounds of golf with included lessons and went for drinks afterwards. He did absolutely nothing and got paid to be a lazy bastard. People like that should be removed from welfare until they can prove they are actively searching for employment and not blowing OUR (yes, OUR) money.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

Moar control over the ppl.. What happened to freedom.

No, not really. No one is forcing them to take the welfare in the first place. Freedom. I don't want some crackhead wasting my tax dollars on drugs. I'd rather it go to someone who can demonstrate that they aren't abusing the system.

 

[aus aaz]

So limiting there choice on how they spend their money isnt reducing people's freedom somewhat?

Next there will be drug tests before your car starts, what will you say to this?

 

[Itz Destiny]

So limiting there choice on how they spend their money isnt reducing people's freedom somewhat?

Next there will be drug tests before your car starts, what will you say to this?

It's not really limiting. It's just making sure Government money isn't going to people who are going to buy drugs. Also before anyone says "Well what if they're trying to get clean and need that money for this and that", they can check into a rehab.

 

[Maccorax]

This is a very good idea, drugs(certain ones for you smart asses, you know which ones) are illegal anyway. Nuff said.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

So limiting there choice on how they spend their money isnt reducing people's freedom somewhat?

Next there will be drug tests before your car starts, what will you say to this?

They are taking government hand outs. A person on welfare should have the personal responsibility of abstaining from drugs using the money provided to them for doing absolutely nothing. Drug testing for welfare would be comparable to a cop pulling you over on suspicion of drunk driving, and requiring you to perform a sobriety/breathalyzer test. The example you give is ludicrous and nothing short of extremism.

Welfare money is not "their money". It is money provided to them for the essentials of living by the government; more specifically the tax payers. I have no sympathy for someone who takes my money and uses it on drugs. Do you?

 

[aus aaz]

It's not really limiting. It's just making sure Government money isn't going to people who are going to buy drugs. Also before anyone says "Well what if they're trying to get clean and need that money for this and that", they can check into a rehab.

Rehab is for quitters, what if they have decided they WANT to use drugs? Some of the worse drugs out there are prescription drugs, basically all drug tests usually catch is pot heads as it stays in your system for quite a while.. Where as meth heads an heroin junkies only have to wait 2 days or so before they come clean in tests.

So really the only people it will hinder are the pot heads who just play COD and eat McDonalds, not the shab head tweaker who is waiting for you to leave your house so they can rob you.

Also if you take money away from someone who has nothing to lose? Won't this cause crime to directly increase? As they are going to need a fix and junkies will do anything for cash at rock bottem.

 

[Itz Destiny]

I'm not putting this thread towards potheads, im more focused on the more harder drugs seeing as how marijuana is barely considered a drug in most states. Also A junkie can't last 2 days without a hit so you know they wont stay clean for a test.

 

[Jimmy]

So limiting there choice on how they spend their money isnt reducing people's freedom somewhat?

Next there will be drug tests before your car starts, what will you say to this?

Drug use is already illegal in the U.S.

Rehab is for quitters, what if they have decided they WANT to use drugs? Some of the worse drugs out there are prescription drugs, basically all drug tests usually catch is pot heads as it stays in your system for quite a while.. Where as meth heads an heroin junkies only have to wait 2 days or so before they come clean in tests.

So really the only people it will hinder are the pot heads who just play COD and eat McDonalds, not the shab head tweaker who is waiting for you to leave your house so they can rob you.

Also if you take money away from someone who has nothing to lose? Won't this cause crime to directly increase? As they are going to need a fix and junkies will do anything for cash at rock bottem.

That's their choice, but it doesn't change the fact that their actions are illegal. If they make this choice, it's not unreasonable to disallow them from getting free money from the hardworking taxpayers.

 

[adamh]

This seems like a good idea, but alot of people who actually need welfare also smoke pot, so I dunno if this would be that useful. But I also don't support giving money to crack heads and drug fiends, so maybe this should be in effect.

But then again, I think welfare should be removed, because I used to work with this lady who applied for welfare for living in Toronto, and she used to get like 2000$ a month, and she lived in New Brunswick, where it is extremely cheap to live, and she party'd everyday, and would just drive back to Toronto whenever she needed money.

 

[Blade]

Fucking idiocy.
Personally, I do believe that it would be a good law/rule aside from the fact that it interferes with our constitutional rights and freedoms.

What other time is the best to light up a $2 joint than when you just lost your job? It's a choice, and welfare isn't available forever.

While I'm split, because of my hard earned tax dollars going to some crackhead who's not even attempting to find a job bugs me, there's really nothing that I can say. It's just not fair. They can do what they wish with their own money, but then it's not their money...

I cannot make a conclusive decision at all.

I'm contradicting myself. I am impartial on this issue.

After conducting further research, I am for the law. It is not unconstitutional, for these people do not have a right to be doing drugs in the first place. While they are at a time of hardship, that does not give them the reasoning or justification to presumptuously assume that they can waste our taxation on their addictions and habits. Welfare is set for a reason, and while rarely accomplished, this is one step towards removing abuse of the system.

 

[malakadang]

The Law itself is fine. The only reason is because as Jimmy said, the use of such substances is already illegal. Think of it this way. The Government gives direct cash welfare to people, and is now differing from previous conventions and ensuring all people receiving welfare do not break the law. The Government doesn't want people to break the law, period, and them trying to make sure they don't contribute seems only reasonable.

If you are so determined to argue that this is unconstitutional, you would not start here, you would've start with the prohibition of ALL illegal substances and cite them as violating your rights, which, they are. You would also not start their either, welfare itself is funded entirely by tax payers who are forced to forgo their money to stay out of jail/trouble. Despite the tangent, those who are thinking this is suddenly violating your rights really need to question their stand point, the prohibition of all substances already violates your rights, what's so different about it now?

To summarize, while it may seem it interferes with freedom, in order to have a declarative stance, you must accept that all drug prohibition inhibits your freedom first. Most people will not accept this, and thus, I would really like to know what is so 'unconstitutional' about this? The world doesn't owe you a living, be thankful that the masses think it does.

 

[SmokeHut]

Great idea, I hate the fact most of my tax funds the nostrils and veins of my fellow man.

 

[Charlieb1212]

I usually don't post in SFA because I'm indifferent on a lot of the topics, and that makes for exhilarating posts you know.

However, one of my close aquantinces is a head of investigations of welfare fraud in our county so I've had some pretty in depth conversations regarding the topic.

I've heard both sides of the story (not that the anti drug testing side has much of an argument) but my viewpoint would lean strongly towards having to pass a drug test for ANY government assistance. Wether it be Welfare, food stamps, WIC (god I wish it wasn't needed for that) or any of the smaller organizations that aid in paying rent for apartments.

 

[danieldyer29]

I think it's a great idea, that money can obviously be put to better use than to feed the crack/meth etc addictions of the host, be logical, and test the applicants eligible for welfare to see if they're on drugs or not to see if the money is either really benefiting them or not, but that's just my opinion once again.

 

[Noam]

The reason people don't want to take tests is because they actually do buy drugs. Anybody with half a brain can work around this by selecting when to collect welfare checks, but then, anyone with half a brain would have a job.