Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.
I like it. I don’t buy the idea that people get on welfare with the intention of staying on it — I think when push comes to shove, people have pride and would rather be working. However, people with drug problems often lose their jobs because of these problems. Why should we, as taxpayers, subsidize a lifestyle that is destructive?
I work at a place where you submit to a drug test upon being hired. Nobody complains because if you don’t want to take the test, then you don’t have to. Just find somewhere else to work. Don’t want to take the drug test for public assistance? Your choices are to keep on using drugs and not get any of OUR money while doing it, or kick the habit.
The only issue I would raise is what drugs are screened. Frankly, I know too many people who function while smoking copious amounts of weed to think that it should be one of the disqualifiers. Anything harder and drop them from the program.
What say you?
Well, this idea increases government spending, bureaucracy and red tape. It gives government more leverage over individuals’ lives, it increases the chances of government corruption and fraud. All things which I assume you are against.
<
p>No, I don’t want people using their welfare checks on blow and meth, but I don’t have any reason to believe that the money that is squandered via people on public assistance using that money for drugs exceeds what would be spent on drug testing. It’s a classic case principal vs. pragmatism.
<
p>And the big obstacle you’d have to face is when a parent tests positive for drugs, the kids will ultimately suffer. So again, you might have saved public funds by not disbursing the funds to a person who tested positive for drugs, but the governments long-term costs now increase because you now might have a homeless family or the kids might become wards of the state since mom can’t take care of them.
<
p>I’d also add that companies often only do drug screens at hiring and never again. And some companies that screen for drugs also offer drug and alcohol rehab as part of the medical benefits package. So if we’re going to use companies as the analogy here, are we going to use the whole analogy and offer people on public assistance the further publicly-funded assistance of going to rehab?
<
p>For me it’s a question of data. First question, how much would this drug testing program cost to implement? Keep in mind you’d probably have to set up some sort of appeals program and oversight to make sure that people are treated fairly and mistakes can be corrected. Second, how much money would this program allegedly save, if any? What are the long-term costs associated with throwing these people and their dependents off assistance?
<
p>I think the idea of discouraging people on public assistance from using is a fine idea, but any plan that isn’t thoughtfully implemented could end up causing more poverty and costing the government more money down the road
The policy consequences of denying assistance to the drug addicted certainly seem murky at best. Unless one is as fond of punishment, disincentives, and the school of hard knocks as conservatives are, one is not likely to want to jump on JoeTS’s idea.
<
p>One side of it I can see. Some kinds of addiction eventually seem to pull all the addict’s resources into feeding it — kind of like a crater left behind by a fire. Letting money continue flow into that crater is not likely to help anyone.
That said, I don’t disagree with your second paragraph; it’s a complex issue.
making AIG execs take them too is a no-brainer in my book.
Would you support monthly drug testing at your job? If you have to be clean to be hired, then shouldn’t you have to stay clean to stay hired?
<
p>Would you support annual drug testing to get a drivers license? I don’t like the idea of people on drugs driving a 2-ton weapon.
<
p>How about drug testing for people who get social security? Why should we discriminate based on age? If you make the argument that those seniors “paid in”, then how about we only start testing them once they are paid in excess of the amount they paid in — the “welfare” phase of Social Security?
<
p>Don’t like it? Then just get another job. Or don’t drive. Or kick the habit.
<
p>Meanwhile, what do you think will happen to the drug addicted people who now have no income at all to feed their habit? Will they just decide to stop using, or will crime go up?
<
p>I think a better idea is to stop treating drug users as untouchable criminals whose only path is to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That hasn’t worked to well, has it?
Another thought occurs. If somebody tests positive, are the police going to use that as evidence for a search of the tester’s home?
Reminds me of The Clash song “Know Your Rights”:
<
p>
<
p>http://www.last.fm/music/The+C…
I have to say I think it’s a terrible one.
<
p>Public assistance should not be tied to punishment. Presumably we provide public assistance to give people a leg up and to help them provide for their families in times of real economic crisis. Legislating morality through the withholding of a bowl of soup is wrong.
<
p>If a citizen, with a drug or alcohol addiction or a substance abuse problem or not, is in need of financial support as prescribed by law during a period of need, then I don’t think we should be withholding that assistance as a punishment. How many substance abusers with children would never bother to apply for assistance? How is this in the best interest of children? It isn’t. The idea is ridiculous.
I’m with KBusch.
Are you saying the people should only be allowed to blog if they’re doing drugs? I’m not sure we’d notice much difference….
I don’t believe I’ve advocated drug testing for bloggers.
I was interpreting your comment above, I hope correctly.
<
p>As for drug testing for bloggers, only if caffeine doesn’t count.
Those investment companies that are too important to our economy to fail, that have a substantial impact on our security. These guys write books on the amount of booze and cocaine they consume. This might explain some of what happened, and be a better use of our resources.
Living on welfare and foodstamps but drive some to substance abuse, but they won’t bring down the world financial system.
They’re drawing a public paycheck, aren’t they? They want drug testing, they can pee in the cup first…
I’m just so anti-drugs its not even funny. I hate everything about them.
But I can also see a reason for being pro-privacy – there has to be a balance.
… very anti-testing. First and foremost, if it’s a problem, it will show up in their work. Second, why test for drugs and not for addictions to alcohol, gambling, World of Warcraft, etc.? All can be equally life and career destroying…