Drug testing for Welfare payments

[inactive]

A casual user of marijuana, who does not pay for it from their own money (it is passed, if you recall from popular music), is not unfit to receive welfare or raise children. A test does not determine how one spends their money. It is not even circumstantial, and it is entirely irrelevant and a gross invasion of privacy.

 

[JB Books]

One thing that needs to be considered is the fact that those with drug problems... while yes, it's their problem... some, if not most of those kids wouldn't have anything if it weren't for welfare. You can't deny a child for its parent's problems.

Sad but true.

that's why I am against it. In theory, docjj is correct, but in practice, a lot of already miserable children would just be made more miserable

 

[inactive]

Then certainly you feel that welfare, itself, is out of the scope of government and therefore the point is moot.

Indeed, though the point is not moot, as welfare currently exists though I oppose it. As the drug testing is currently being debated, I will oppose it even though it may mean some junkie can get on the dole. I prefer that to letting the government get their hands into further prying into people's private lives. Lesser of two evils, IMHO.

 

[inactive]

i think its a brilliant idea. If these people have enough money to buy drugs then why would they need government assistance?

it makes me mad that some people think everything should be handed to them.

for years i was working minimum wage, got two kids and was going to college and i never had my hands out for welfare or food stamps etc..

all those lazy drug addicts can just starve for all i care.

Two points:

1) A positive drug test does not indicate one spent money on drugs.

2) As already mentioned, the person who failed the test would most certainly be the least likely person to starve. The minors who may depend on that person, on the other hand...

 

[rebelracer79]

Thats what DHS is for, if they are already that miserable the state can take better care of them

 

[MoBoost]

for years i was working minimum wage, got two kids and was going to college and i never had my hands out for welfare or food stamps etc..

Nothing personal - but when you put +2 on your taxes - you are part of the system. Should anyone with tax deductions pee in a cup too?

 

[JB Books]

Drug users shouldn't be raising children. Take the kids and the money away. Easy fix.

who pays for insitutionalizing the kids? besides, you know what happens to a lot of those kids in the system...

 

[doctorjj]

Indeed, though the point is not moot, as welfare currently exists though I oppose it. As the drug testing is currently being debated, I will oppose it even though it may mean some junkie can get on the dole. I prefer that to letting the government get their hands into further prying into people's private lives. Lesser of two evils, IMHO.

I agree with your sentiment although, again, this is a voluntary activity. To me it's much less intrusive and more productive than having to take your shoes off at the airport. Both are voluntary. Don't want to be tested? Don't sign up for welfare. Don't want to be stripped searched and get a full frontal pat down? Don't fly commercial.

 

[inactive]

Thats what DHS is for, if they are already that miserable the state can take better care of them

Yet another form of government control poorly executed. DHS is an ineffectual joke at best, and deathly ignorant of children's best interests at worst.

 

[inactive]

Nothing personal - but when you put +2 on your taxes - you are part of the system. Should anyone with tax deductions pee in a cup too?

WORD.