use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, subreddit...
Do you think welfare applicants should have to pass a drug test? (self.AskReddit)
submitted 3 years ago by BrewRI
I've had this question thrown around by several people lately and was wondering what reddit thought about it.
[–]Robopuppy 417 points418 points419 points 3 years ago
Sure, on the condition that we also start randomly drug testing members of Congress. They're on the government dole too, y'know.
[–]aguyinmn 195 points196 points197 points 3 years ago*
You also have to test everyone who takes any sort of tax exemption, tax credit, tax rebate, medicare, medicaid, social security, government backed student loan, etc. That is all "my tax dollars" too, and and I guarantee some of it is going to buy drugs. Not to mention that it is being used to buy alcohol for underage college students, so they should all be forced to take alcohol tests often. Also, it goes to download pirated music & movies, so everyone should have their computers scanned to make sure nothing untoward is on them as well. Lets just assume that everyone in America is a criminal and have the government investigate every aspect of their life, since we all get some sort of tax break or benefit sometime.
[–]joemc91 70 points71 points72 points 3 years ago
Completely agree with you. On top of this, it's cheaper to let a small number of people on welfare spend our tax dollars on weed and booze than it is to employ some overpaid schmuck to go around every month and administer a piss test to every welfare recipient.
[–]Khoal 25 points26 points27 points 3 years ago
He'll be overpaid because he'll be getting extra income from outside sources to make sure people are "tested and reported properly".
[–]beefjerkier 20 points21 points22 points 3 years ago
He'll probably spend some of that money on drugs too. we'll need to hire somebody to test all of our overpaid schmucks.
[–]ChaosMotor 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago
And someone to follow ALL of them around and make sure they are testing properly. And some administration to make sure all of THEM are doing their jobs right too.
[–]Eubaba 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago
And set up a committee to ensure that they answer to the people of america (excepting, of course, any people that have a drug history).
[–]code_brown 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago
They will be answering to the people of America, since 90% of Americans will now have jobs drug testing other Americans. I think Reddit just took care of the unemployment problem.
[–]uppercrust 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
Then we'll have to piss-test the committee to ensure they aren't just hippies trying to skew the results.
[–]FuckingLoveCamelCase 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago
Wtf?! That is completely draconian and unrealistic! Let's talk about real solutions, like preemptively incarcerating the poor.
[–]therascalking13 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago
You ever thought about killin' 'em and turnin' 'em into food?
Solves a lot of problems at once, that's all I'm saying.
[–]FuckingLoveCamelCase 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago
Obligatory: "A MODEST PROPOSAL" by Dr. Jonathan Swift
[–]psychminor01 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
I never realized he was a doctor, so I looked it up. "Doctor of Divinity"... wtf.
[–]gsfgf 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago
That would get drugs legalized in a hurry
[–]Coolmarve 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago
Wow sounds good to me lol
[–]throwaway543210 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
I agree with you...
because I think they should simplify the tax structure.
[–]goodtimesforall 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago
This might actually motivate them to legalize drugs.
[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago
I don't know about Congress, but most all State and Federal jobs require a drug test. Many these days also require a background check.
[–]2ply 15 points16 points17 points 3 years ago
i have worked for both state and federal government, and never had to do a drug test. background checks, yes - but very few government jobs require drug testing.
[–]Tbonethedstroyer 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago
Police as well.......
[–]paranoid_schizo 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago
"but most all State and Federal jobs require a drug test."
huh? what are you basing this on? curious!
no state or federal job i have worked has required a drug test. background tests of course... shrug
[–]uppercrust 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Dude, the amount of welfare for corporations is astronomical. We should be testing CEOs for all the coke they do. Let's drug test those meth heads at Goldman Sachs, and BP too.
[–][deleted] 252 points253 points254 points 3 years ago*
Some laws are as much political theater as anything else. They don't exist to solve problems, but merely to gain free publicity and unwarranted support for the politician that writes them. Sometimes, they even pass laws they know aren't enforceable, just to say they voted a certain way. Our body of law shouldn't resemble a cheap social hacking experiment.
There is a subtext to this law, that creates the false dilemma that drugs are always the cause of welfare, it's an intentional ploy to link the two in people's minds, and thus join two different groups behind the same politicians. Libertarian? Hate welfare? Now you're voting anti-drug too. Liberal? Anti-drug? Now you're voting against welfare too. Vote against it? Now you're pro drug! Laws like this offend me on a much more fundamental level than any political affiliation could.
[–]YogiWanKenobi 36 points37 points38 points 3 years ago
There is a subtext to this law, that creates the false dilemma that drugs are always the cause of welfare, it's an intentional ploy to link the two in people's minds, and thus join two different groups behind the same politicians.
There is a subtext to this law, that creates the false dilemma that drugs are always the cause of welfare, it's an intentional ploy to link the two in people's minds, and thus join two different groups behind the same politicians.
Anyone who missed that, read it again slowly. Parent is the best comment by far.
[–][deleted] 3 years ago
[–]sevs 20 points21 points22 points 3 years ago
I believe this sets a precedent I don't agree with; requiring someone to pass a drug screening to receive gov't assistance.
drugs are not an inherent affliction of the lower class.
should we require a piss test for 911 just to make sure we don't assist a potential drug indulgent citizen?
was that a stretch? sure. but I just don't believe precedents such as these need to be set.
and by 'these' I mean events like the arizona immigration bill, texas education policy and obama authorizing assassination of a citizen without trial.
plus, a drug addict is likely to be a continual drain on society for as long as the addiction exists.
denying assistance to those in need won't help end their addiction.
[–]brulez 21 points22 points23 points 3 years ago*
The problem I see is that welfare becomes an enabler for some people.
We shouldn't deny someone government help because they fail a drug test, but we should ensure that they are being helped in the right way.
I would support required drug tests for welfare recipients, and if they fail, then they get government support for rehab. That way they are actually being helped rather than just enabled.
[–]jetpackRocktane 18 points19 points20 points 3 years ago
thread is tl;dr
I am required to get a drug test for my government job. Being gakked all the time would help my productivity, but rolling would not. Regardless of the pro-drug/anti-drug debate, drugs and welfare, or unemployment should be linked. Not to politicize the and join the notion of the lower class to substance abuse, but to place controls and modifiers on people receiving public aid. Regardless of that, I do not want to work my ass off to stay above the poverty line so I can pay taxes so you can do nothing at home, even worse if you're getting high.
Summary: Drug tests come with employment. Especially government jobs. If you are receiving benefits, you are technically employed by the government.
[–]GreatWallOfGina 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
I don't think it has to do with being anti-drug. I'm all for the legalization of all drugs, but I'd still support drug testing for welfare applicants. I've lent money to friends before only to have them spend it on pot or drinks, and I'd like some way to ensure the same thing doesn't happen to my tax dollars.
[–]thejames42 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago
An interesting point. I disagree with your premise in that I do believe drug use contributes to becoming a detriment to society. Not in all cases, obviously, but particularly in the lower classes where people become accustomed to living in squalor.
However, whether it is becoming a more common tactic, or I've just started noticing it more, the bullshit bills that serve no purpose but to demonize the opposition with a false dichotomy are particularly infuriating. This is no more evident than the surveys they send out with the ultra-loaded questions.
Have an upvote. :)
[–]meeonaise 18 points19 points20 points 3 years ago
Would you consider alcohol a drug? It's pretty potent, lethal at some doses, and does some crazy shit to your liver. Many people drink and yet life goes on. Some certainly fuck themselves over though.
The illegality of drugs has more to do with the detriment to society then the drug. Do some illegal drugs, get locked up with rapists and murders. What could possibly go wrong? Not to mention the felony record you'll carry branding you an undesirable. When your options are shit, sometimes being a criminal is in your best interest.
I've done a lot of drugs. Some hard drugs. Never been caught. Graduated with a good GPA and a peachy suburban life. I imagine my life would be a lot different with a felony and a prison sentence.
[–]seanmac2 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
I like your anecdote.
[–]spiker611 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
There isn't a way to test for alcohol use beyond at the time of intoxication, which separates testing for both.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago
Actually, you can test hair for fatty acid ethyl esters which are produced by alcohol reacting with fatty acids and stick for a long long time after drinking alcohol.
[–]Izazen 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
If they can buy drugs they can buy food. a drug habit is proof that they have the ability to obtain money.
Dealing with the drugs should be a separate issue.
[–]SkaMateria 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
I took it not as some attempt to link welfare with drugs, but more of a incentive not to use welfare FOR drugs. Of course, you're reasoning will probably be the one most people see from this type of law, and you're right. That will most likely happen. I mean, if you're on welfare, you really shouldn't have the money for drugs, and if you use the money from welfare for drugs, then you're not responsible enough to accept welfare. Maybe this is childish thinking, and it's much more complicated than I think it is.
[–]Vandimar 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
I believe everything you said, but in the end I don't want to pay for people to sit around and do drugs, including alcohol and cigarettes. Unless it's me, I'll pay for that guy.
[–]barrettj 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
that creates the false dilemma that drugs are always the cause of welfare
that creates the false dilemma that drugs are always the cause of welfare
I don't think it does this at all. I think it presents the issue as: you're having trouble making ends meet, we'll help you make ends meet, but we won't help you if you're well off enough to buy and use illegal substances.
[–]fresh_and_original 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
You fill me with hope.
[–]sixmill 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
I like the fact that I came into this thread expecting to deliver up a wholehearted "Yes" to the original question, but your explanation and subsequent discussion has changed my mind within 10 minutes.
[–]sydler 164 points165 points166 points 3 years ago
Social worker here. This issue makes me irate. No- no drug tests, absolutely not. There are many, many different aspects to this issue. First of all, "welfare" is an extremely vague, dated term. Benefits come in many different forms, most of which benefit the minor children. Second of all, are you saying people who struggle with addiction don't deserve help, that they don't deserve some quality of life... or rather, their children don't deserve help? Also, treatment for addicts is not a simple, quick fix. During someone's process of "getting clean," relapses are imminent and often are a constant struggle. During this time are you saying people shouldn't continue to get help? Because taking away someone's benefits only puts stress on them, their children, and the rest of their family... which also plays a part in relapses (see the cycle here?). Also, do you think the system is really capable of handling urine screens in order to determine benefits? Do you understand the cost that would go into that? In both the hiring of new staff to help maintain this, the drug tests themselves, and then taking into account that this would only delay the actual benefits to those who deserve it (in your opinion, that is). Lastly, what about the civil rights issue that this would encompass? Has anyone thought about that?
In closing, no, I don't believe it should be required. I've deleted friends off facebook who joined this asinine group. So you know I really mean business. Hmph.
[–]Marxshmarx 73 points74 points75 points 3 years ago
Former social worker here. The reason that they say this type of shit is because they have no idea what welfare is and they simply assume that the programs are the way they imagine them. It's like I'm trying to talk about something real and they just keep bringing up unicorns.
[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 3 years ago
I went on SSDI and still am on it for going blind. The social security folks in NY were very professional. They seemed more concerned about about getting it right with respect to the regulations than any other issues. It wasn't judgmental but it wasn't exactly a comfortable thing to do.
Since then I have become much more appreciative of the 'entitlements' that so many people rail at. I never really opposed the various social programs but paying my taxes as a relatively high earning single guy was ... err frustrating. The taxes were huge. But now that I am on SSDI, I am appreciative that it was there. Anyways, I plan on getting off SSDI by starting a law firm. It has been a long haul getting back on my feet.
So some hugs from me to the social workers out there. They really are doing society a service by dealing with the uglier aspects of our society that everyone wants to believe isn't there.
[–]sydler 31 points32 points33 points 3 years ago
I can't help but laugh at the amount of people who think "people lay around, getting rich from welfare." Really? It's not like people rack up a ton of money from benefits... I just find it disgusting people's lack of empathy and understanding. Meh. But anyways, fist bump and upvote to a fellow social worker!
[–]philonius 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
A large part of the blame can be placed on Reagan's lies.
[–]explosions1163 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
What?!?! we're giving poor people Unicorns now!
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago
I've deleted friends off facebook who joined this asinine group.
I've deleted friends off facebook who joined this asinine group.
OMG, the 'nuclear option'!!! You're a madman, A MADMAN!!!
[–]betty_effn_white 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago
can someone make a counter facebook page for this? Too many of my friends (many of them stoner friends! wtf?) joined this.
[–]uppercrust 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago
I stuck it out, and countered each and every point from the few of my facebook friends who joined this shit, and every one of them conceded. It was worth it, because some of these friendships meant a lot to me, and I was prepared to burn bridges over this B.S.
[–]Elbows 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago
My wife is a social worker here in New Mexico and it's amazing what they make people go through to get welfare. Many of her clients are working over 40 hours a week doing community service & other requirement activities in order to qualify for aid.
edit: it's practically slavery since they only get about 700 dollars a month.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
Thank you so much for providing another perspective!
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago*
How about this. Just as an opener to understanding the reality you have vs. the reality that I have.
Again, remember I am not looking to drug test anyone for a year. I only want to drug test to get them into treatment if needed after a WHOLE YEAR of not getting thier world worked out. At which point in time if they continue to fail they get garnished from the money they are getting to pay toward treatment. I fail to see why this is a bad idea.
[–]pagirl 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Thanks! I'm on UC. I would love to get a drug test, and post its clean results on that website, along with my graduate school grades and the rest of my resume. Then I want people to lecture me about what a leech I am to society.
[–]geoman69 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago*
The trouble I have with it is: Then what?
You've stopped giving them welfare. If they're heroin or crack junkies, now they're homeless heroin or crack junkies, I don't think a very large percentage will quit.
If they like weed, they probably quit smoking it, some smallish percentage of really addicted people will probably become homeless.
Piss-test-beating companies rejoice.
So some people quit smoking weed, and some other people are now homeless. If you could convince me that all of the tax money saved would be spent on helping junkies and homeless people, I might consider it a reasonable idea. Otherwise, you're just creating a bigger societal problem.
I suppose the libertarian in me says "They should pull their weight, earn a paycheck or go die in the street". However, the human being in me says "What the fuck is wrong with you?". The latter usually wins these discussions.
[–]boatstrumpgirls 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
The thing that I learned from this comment is that humans and libertarians are mutually exclusive
[–]mildmannered 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago
I think members of congress should have to pass a drug test every 15 days.
[–]dmuma 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
What an absolute waste. Besides, lawmakers might benefit from the use of drugs or alcohol.
[–]mildmannered 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
I agree, it is a waste. All drug tests are a waste.
[–]torchlit_Thompson 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago
The safety net you need is right, the safety net someone else needs is an injustice...
[–]Baziliy 43 points44 points45 points 3 years ago
Depends on the drug. Is it better that the guy on unemployment is blowing his check on alcohol instead of weed?
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago
The problem with alot of drug testing is that different drugs have different half-lives in the body. Something like meth, though considerably more likely to lead to a wastrel lifestyle, is quickly voided from the body on account of its water solubility. Things like cocaine, meth, heroin, all are undetectable in a days time. So basically the question here is whether or not somebody should be removed from welfare for smoking pot because that is all that you will ever be able to detect.
Simply put: unless you are high, the only drug that will ever be detected is weed. Drug tests are a scam.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago
No test I know of for shrooms. At my last job I had a coworker who proudly informed HR of that any chance he got.
[–]bz922x 52 points53 points54 points 3 years ago
Yes. Every interaction with the government should begin with a mandatory drug test, breathalyzer test, a complete strip search, a search of your vehicle, your house, your bank account, and your internet posting history. If anything is out of place, you are clearly not following the laws of the land and are not fit to continue to live with the decent people who do follow the law.
If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear. If you are hiding something, it is clearly because you are not following the law.
All searches are always appropriate. There is never a reason to think a search is out of line, too invasive, or ill advised.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago
and your internet posting history
and your internet posting history
I don't want trolls getting my tax dolars.
[–]Marxshmarx 15 points16 points17 points 3 years ago
I think that people who know nothing about welfare benefits should try to keep from forming opinions. I guarantee you that no one you've spoken to knows the monthly allotment of a TANF family of four, what the employment and training requirements are, or what the difference between Food Stamps and TANF is. If that's true, then they don't have an opinion because they might as well be a person who's never left South Florida describing snow.
If you want to force people to take a drug test that costs hundreds of dollars to administer (how often?) for a monthly benefit of 497 dollars for a single mother and three kids.... fine. It seems needlessly intrusive and a terrible value for money, but it seems like it's always the people who know the least about a situation who make the decisions so whatever.
[–]ghostchamber 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago*
Nope. Welfare could probably be revised and tightened, but I don't think drug testing should be involved.
My problem is this: where do you draw the line? Okay, you don't want welfare recipients smoking crack. My pot-head roommate has said as much, but I sincerely doubt she would say the same for weed, especially since she is applying for Section Eight housing, which is a form of government assistance.
But what about alcohol and cigarettes? Those are drugs, but because they fall under the umbrella of legality, it causes a huge grey area. It kind of kills the argument of "Well I don't want them spending money on drugs when the money should go towards children." Okay, that's fine, but they can just spend it on alcohol and cigarettes. They could buy all kinds of stupid shit that would have no benefit whatsoever to their children.
[–]sir_wooly_merkins 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago
Only if corporate welfare recipients do.
[–]therealcheney 190 points191 points192 points 3 years ago
No, kids shouldn't go hungry because their parents smoke weed.
[–]c0mputar 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago
Dicks responding to you have totally missed the point. Parents SHOULD be shot for smoking weed over feeding their kids, but should the kids starve because of their parent's shortcoming? Seesh.
[–]bechus 100 points101 points102 points 3 years ago*
Why are the parents spending money on weed instead of on their kids? Those parents should be given a choice: stop smoking weed and continue feeding your kids, or continue smoking your weed and give up custody so that someone who would choose the children over drugs will take care of them.
Edit: also, there's foodstamps for this.
[–][deleted] 56 points57 points58 points 3 years ago
I guess that begs the question though. Should we also make sure that welfare applicants can't spent their money on candy, alcohol, and nights out? Drugs arn't the only unnecessary expense in the world and it seems silly to regulate that, but let everything else go.
[–]chanbam 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago
Nobody buys that much candy.
[–]DeviantGaymer 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago
[–]KorgRue 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago
Is weed worse than alcohol?
Making a child a ward of the state is more expensive to the taxpayer than leaving the child in their home, and the prognosis for a good outcome is not much better.
Foodstamps do not clothe the children, and they do not put a roof over their head.
If you take away the welfare you end up with a much higher homeless population and a much higher crime rate as they beg, borrow and steal to support their habit.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Exactly. You end up losing money by enforcing what ought to be fair.
I've seen homelessness studies that indicate that providing basic needs to homeless people saves taxpayers money.
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 3 years ago
Who's going to take those kids? The state? They'd probably be better off going hungry.
[–]wildebeest 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago
But once the state takes them they can be set up with a nice foster family, and we all know that foster families provide a loving and permanent environment for kids to blossom.
Never been in state "care". Go meet some of those kids, and tell them you want to put more in there. Ever seen Lord of the Flies?
[–]sasquatchcrotch 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago
As someone who grew up as a biological son of foster parents, I can say that most foster families are great places, run by wonderful people.
There is exceptions, but there always is. If you could do better, than why don't you? There is always room for more people to care for children who did nothing wrong but have shitty parents.
[–]ExtraneousQuestion 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
There are exceptions.
[–]letigre87 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
Your username led to my disappointment. Your statement was neither extraneous nor a question. You are passing on great opportunities.
[–]dragon_toes 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
With all due respect to the decent foster parents out there, I've known several people who went through the foster system, and it was a living hell. There's more than just this anecdotal evidence out there
[–]kazba 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
I am hoping I detect sarcasm in your response. Some foster family's are good. However, many children removed from parental custody float from placement to placement sometimes accruing dozens of placements (including families, group homes, private child care agencies, etc) before they age out; it really sucks.
[–]paranoidinfidel 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
Foster families aren't supposed to be permanent. They are a loving environment to help the child thrive until the parents can get their shit together.
[–]therealcheney 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
I completely agree with you that the parents shouldn't do drugs but the kids are the ones that ultimately suffer. What is the kids crime? Being born to shitty irresponsible parents?
I understand the principle of the matter but in practice it would just be a clusterfuck.
[–]clydiebaby 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
right, because children ripped from their homes without evidence of abuse and thrown into our abuse-ridden and over-taxed foster care system. riiiight
Edit: also, there's foodstamps for this.
Edit: also, there's foodstamps for this.
You can buy weed with foodstamps??? YIPEEEEE!!!
some poor people sell weed to get by... they happen to have extra lying around so they smoke it for recreation.
[–]rivermandan 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
ever considered the fact that the parents may not pay for the weed they smoke?
MANY middle aged pot smokers smoke weed that one of their friends grows, as paying for a plant that practically grows itself seems silly to some.
[–]bechus 14 points15 points16 points 3 years ago
Selling it != smoking it.
[–]diaperboy19 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
Almost always selling it == smoking it .
[–]chemicalcloud 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago
In the words of Craig: How you gonna sell bud, if you smoke bud?
[–]diaperboy19 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago
Smoke with your customers.
[–]chemicalcloud 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
And if it's a single parent with cancer who smokes weed to ease the nausea related with chemotherapy, the costly reason the parent is applying for social programs in the first place?
[–]clamdoctor 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago
That's a problem with the medical field, not welfare. The law just leaks over.
[–]chemicalcloud 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago
No, it's a problem with the law. Crack and heroine are crack and heroine, but weed should be legal and a drug test for it should not bar one from receiving welfare.
[–]clamdoctor 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Well you were talking about chemotherapy, not drug law. I figured i would comment on the chemotherapy part.
[–]chemicalcloud 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Regardless, marijuana has medical benefits for a plethora of diseases.
[–]mazzarelli 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago
This is a very vague question. Can you be more specific? There is no program called "welfare" in the United States.
It is already illegal to use illegal drugs, what would be the point of such a rule? If it is to save money, that's not likely to happen by introducing more bureaucracy. If it is to punish them, we already have laws that punish law breakers. Why the hell would we do this?
[–]ebbomega 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
So we could put more people on welfare in our prisons, and spend even MORE money on them.
[–]wolftrouble 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago
No. Welfare is not about enforced morality, it's about doing the least harm to society. The fact is that that the more people who have a chance to recover from abject poverty the better for all, and thinking of it as some kind of mandatory responsibility does more harm than good.
[–]dalore 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago
No. What a preposterous suggestion.
I think drugs should be handed out with welfare, since your obviously having a shit time if your on welfare so you need an escape.
[–]aaomalley 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago
People have a very skewed idea of what welfare is in this country. It is not like an unemployment check. Very few people qualify for monetary assistance through the state. Depending on the state the level of that assistance, and restrictions on recieving it, are different. In Washington State, where I work in the social service field and deal with public assistance daily, the only monetary assistance is in the form of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which pays about 300 per month and only for 6 months without an extension. The applicant can choose to take a 1 time grant of 1600 in lieu of the monthly payout. In order to qualify for TANF you have to be below the poverty line, unemployed, and have dependant children. Outside of this program there is no monetary assistance in my state.
Welfare, in that case, come to state medical benefits, food stamps, housing assistance and employment assistance services. All of these should be basic human rights and not dependant on passing a drug test. For context I am a drug and alcohol counselor and I happen to know that refusing drug addicts services would only enhance societies problems by creating an environment where crime is the only option for survival.
[–]gingerman13 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago
No drug tests should be administered to anyone unless public safety is directly affected, like a pilot.
[–][deleted] 45 points46 points47 points 3 years ago
Definitely not. Yes, there are the occasional scumbag people on drugs. But most people are addicted to some substance and they simply cannot kick the addiction. Or maybe they have chronic pain and became addicted to pain pills. There are many scenarios I can think of where addiction is not the stereotypical story.
Main point: you would not want to hurt an addict, or their family, because an addict is still going to find some way to get their fix, not necessarily their food or rent.
[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points 3 years ago
Reddit really needs to be exposed to the under-privileged.
[–]BrewRI[S] 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago
That pretty much along the lines of what I was thinking. What would think about a required "rehab" or AA type program. Have a certain amount of required attendances (Bi-Monthly maybe), nothing to the point where it would interfere with looking for a job. Also "therealcheney" said
No, kids shouldn't go hungry because their parents smoke weed.
Completely agree. But I also think it wouldn't be out of the question to compile a list of drugs that would not be acceptable. I also think marijuana is going to be legal in many states in the near future. But at the same time, if the kids are hungry and the parents are still smoking weed, they probably are too fucking stupid to take care of the kids to begin with.
I read boredjesse's link to Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act and the bill didn't really seem to be that bad. The quote at the end where the critic was talking about the bill stigmatizing people and making them take low paying jobs didn't sway me at all. There's a chance that any one of us could be put into a situation where a social safety net would be a huge benefit due to job loss/health care cost etc.. etc... But when you're on the bottom, you can't set your standards at the top. If you have to take a low paying job do it.
[–]loquacious 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago*
Hi. I'm going to reply to you here because you're the OP, so you'll see this, because I think you and the general public are severely misinformed at what public assistance is actually available. May God, Allah, Buddha, Stephan Fry or whomever have mercy on your soul if you're ever in my shoes.
Sorry if this is a bit long, rambling and non-sequential, but I have cognitive issues I'm dealing with. It sucks. Thankfully for me - stringing pretty words together will probably be the last thing I ever lose. This is my current story about being on "welfare", right here and now.
I'm currently on "welfare" as disabled for severe, chronic depression. I've been on foodstamps before that for about two years. By welfare I mean "General Assistance".
Welfare doesn't actually exist any more. There's no such thing as "welfare" or "free money" anymore. If you're a woman or family with children - you may qualify for TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. As others have pointed out in the thread it's very little money.
As a single, childless, <em>homeless</em> adult male I don't qualify for TANF. I qualify for about $300 a month, plus $200 in foodstamps. It's very little money to try to survive on in the US. It doesn't pay enough for rent, a place to live, or any sense of real stability. It barely pays enough to barely survive in a city as a lost, wandering nomad.
In my state I thankfully also qualify for Medicaid insurance - which is what I really want, so I can try to get help for my chronic depression. Even with this limited, general insurance it's a huge struggle and a lot of hoops to jump through to even get to the point where I can start talking to a professional about solving/curing my chronic depression.
It's taken me almost three months to get in the system on this attempt at getting help, and all told I've been trying for about a year and a half to two years. I can pretty much get most anti-depressant meds at any time, but I tried that without counseling or home stability already and it damn near killed me.
In some cities or states General Assistance isn't even free money at all - it's a loan. You have to pay it back. How they expect people that are so broke that they have to go apply for GA to pay it back is fucking beyond me. That's how it was in Los Angeles, and I only qualified for basic GA there because I'd been self-admitted to a hospital under threat of self-harm (yeah, suicide, but at least I have the brains to go somewhere safe instead of climbing a building) and had the tenacity and intelligence to get enough doctor's notes together and fight for it. And I'm pretty damn smart for an idiot. I have no idea how other people even slightly less gifted than me deal with it. Many who need even more help are probably denied.
Here in Washington State I'm on what's called GA-U (General Assistance - Unemployable) and I fucking need it. I couldn't hold a job at McDonald's if my life depended on it - and it pretty much does. I'd probably just lay down and cry. Or die. Or both. I've kind of tried both. I wish I was dead. It's not about high or low standards - it's about being so fucking broken that I have dozens of thoughts about suicide every day. My whole body hurts. I keep thinking the world and my friends and family would be better off without me - and it's wrong. My body is dying because I'm telling it to by wishing I was dead. This isn't ok.
I used to work in very complicated, rewarding and high pressure IT and/or graphic design type jobs. I've also worked construction, demolition, gardening and have had my own business and freelance interests. I know what hard work is. Just for fun I've set up sound systems so big that they'd blow your mind. Now the thought of any of that gives me crippling panic attacks where I'm actually physically at risk of having a heart attack.
I miss being able to have and keep a job so much that if I think about it too much I throw up. No, really, I can barely write this without puking from anxiety and pain. I miss being able to be functional. I miss being able to eat food and have it taste good. I miss being able to enjoy sunshine, or music, or friendship. I miss how flowers used to smell. I miss not seeing everything in gray instead of color. I miss life itself. I miss not having my entire body hurt all day, every day. I miss being able to sleep regularly - it's always too much or too little.
All of the things you take for granted like laughing at a movie or reading a good book I'm physically unable to enjoy now. I used to read a few books a week, or more. I haven't been able to read a book cover to cover in almost two fucking years now.
So. As a requirement of GA-U, I need to prove that A) I'm sober, B) if not sober, in drug/alcohol treatment and most importantly, C) actively engaging in treatment for depression. Rather than going through the hell of B I just quit drinking and smoking pot, choosing option A, because I honestly don't have a drinking or smoking pot problem. They're just things that make the pain of depression go away temporarily. I'm more than willing to go through the temporarily increased pain of A if it means access to C - which means a more permanent solution to depression and a hopeful, eventual escape from it entirely. Sure, if someone offers me a beer or a bowl I'll take it - but I'm not spending money on it and I'm not out on the streets begging or stealing for it. It's not as important as option C - finding a long term solution for chronic depression.
So, yeah, they kind of already test for drugs for "welfare" in most places in the US. They just don't hand out money for free and turn you loose. There are checkups, doctor visits, rehab/job training programs you have to attend and more. I have a behavioral therapist I have to see every other week along with doctor visits, and I'm thankful for them.
And I'm grabbing every earliest appointment I can get, and it's still so slow and so overwhelmed and it's so frustrating and difficult to try to ask for help and find that it's not really there. I have to pay for my therapy sessions out of that $300 a month. The cheapest place I've found so far is $20 a session, and the therapists suck because they're all straight out of college, or burnt out losers who fell to the bottom and stayed there.
Thankfully they don't require you to quit smoking cigarettes or drinking coffee or I'd lose what's left of my fucking mind.
So, back to the exact point of your query - no, I don't think mandatory drug testing will help anything. Most of the people that I meet that are so far down and out that they qualify for either GA, Food Stamps or TANF are mentally ill, or undereducated, or disabled. Most of these mentally ill people are self medicating for mental illness. To demand that they stop self medicating as a pre-requirement for seeking treatment is not only illogical, but ruthlessly heartless, uncompassionate and extremely destabilizing. It would be cheaper in the short and long run to dole out illicit drugs while engaging them in treatment for mental illness and then substance abuse after they have better coping and life skills.
More, I'm not spending anyone else's tax money but mine. I've paid my taxes for years. I've put more money into general income taxes and Social Security than I could get out if I was on GA for ten to twenty years.
Granted I may be an edge case, but in the grand scheme of things this "social safety net" people like to talk about so easily doesn't actually exist any more. It's mostly gone. Try it, try walking into an ER in a big city and getting help. Try getting housing assistance. I'm on waiting lists for housing assistance and that waiting list is over 2 years long.
I think there's a whole lot of middle class Americans who mistakenly think that there will be something there for them when things get really rough and the economy really hits the skids. There isn't. The system is collapsing and breaking down now. It's broken, and the more we try to take money away from that system the faster it's going to collapse and leave tens of millions stranded on the street like we're living in fucking Somalia or some shit.
THIS IS AMERICA. WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING TO IT?
We've wasted our social safety net on bombs for huntin' ter'rists, on "homeland security", on corporate tax breaks and welfare, on bailing out banks and fatcats that don't even fucking need it. We spend the least amount of any first world country on our "social safety net", yet we spend the most on "defense" by several orders of magnitude.
We're doing it wrong and complaining about the wrong things.
Want to know what I dream of and wish for every day? I wish for the last piece of the puzzle so I can get back to work on my shit. I wish I could find some stable, legal, drama-free housing so I can really get to work on my treatment and take advantage of the handful of months I have left on GA-U. I would happily live in a tent - rain or shine - in someone's yard or basement. I'd live in a shed, a storage unit - as long as I could trust it to be stable so it didn't fall the fuck out from under me while I was in the middle of the very difficult tasks of therapy and finding out if there's a anti-depression drug that works for me. It's almost impossible to do this while homeless and unstable, and it sucks. I might not ever make it out.
And yet I'm one of the lucky ones because I still have my wits and most of my brain, so I can be more proactive than some of the truly helpless, fucked up people I've seen. I'm mostly atheist/agnostic but the sentiment remains - there but for the grace of god go I, and god help us all.
[–]iheartmyname 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Thank you for telling your story. I wish you the best.
[–]de4hbys4 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago
because an addict is still going to find some way to get their fix
because an addict is still going to find some way to get their fix
..you mean, like, spending their checks on it? if they can't pay for food or rent, then the obvious choice is to move the kids - not give the addict money. why would you rather pay to have the kids be exposed to this kind of environment in the first place?
if you're on welfare (vs disability), you're supposed to be looking for a job anyway, and a lot of jobs require a drug test... so, what's the difference?
if you have a medical issue that requires you to be on pain killer, etc, it will be on record, and obviously taken into consideration.
EDIT: in a typical pothead move, i responded to the wrong comment... but you were both kinda saying the same thing.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago
Who's going to take the kids?
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago
And, in the same vein, do you have any idea how expensive child welfare proceedings and foster care are?
[–]GuaranteedDownVote 21 points22 points23 points 3 years ago
I'm not sure about the accuracy of this but a friend once told me that in Spain you have to do about 30 hours of community service every week to qualify for unemployment benefits.
I'm unemployed and I would vote for this if it were introduced. Of course you would have to make sure that the drug addicts were in rehab ar at least attempting to get clean.
Unemployment is different than welfare.
[–]GuaranteedDownVote 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
In the US yes, in the UK unemployment benefits is what you would call welfare.
[–]LordCruelman 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago*
I live in Spain and that is not the case. Sadly, our welfare system also has obvious abusers.
[–]Craptcha 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago
I think people got the whole welfare thing wrong. In my mind, welfare and, to some extent, any 'social democratic' service policy, serves a greater purpose: it's a safety net. If you say: you don't get welfare if you do drugs, chances are the targeted audience will a) still do drugs and b) get their money somewhere else (i.e. in your house, at night).
I say welfare buys us some peace and it allows people unfit to thrive in society to survive without having too much of a negative impact on said society.
Maybe some of these discussions are fueled by people who are frustrated at seeing people 'having it easy' and making money without working: but would you trade your life for theirs? I wouldn't.
Lets focus on making sure people with potential aren't let down by the system, the others can have their 12-packs and their afternoon soaps for all I care.
[–]ike6116 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago
Welfare is for the bottom rung of society, people who are desperate. You know what desperate people do in spades? They make bad decisions. The whole idea of a social safety net is so that desperate people aren't breaking into your home for your shit. You give them just enough so that you can ignore them happily and be on your way. You want to give people with nothing to lose even less to lose? Go ahead but let me know how that works out. This is a popular republican talking point because it's so much more visible than corporate welfare or defense spending. Don't like the latter? Turn off CNN. But if section 8 housing goes in in your neighborhood and brings down YOUR property value (not to mention the less than savory crowd now playing basketball or having a shit ton of people over for BBQs that go late into the night on a weeknight) well then that's one more middle class republican voter. Democrats maybe right on a lot of things but they fail to get the whole "my backyard" element of the American public. A lot of people don't go skiing unless they see snow in their backyard.
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 3 years ago
People in general have no clue what the welfare system in the US is really like. You can thank Bill Clinton for reforming welfare and making it so the stereotype of people sitting on their asses for years collecting large checks is practically impossible.
[–]houndofbaskerville 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago
I can ride through most apartment complexes in my town and see practical impossibilities chilling on their front stoops any day of the week. That probably also adds to your stereotype.
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago
And they all receive welfare and will continue to for the rest of their lives right?
[–]torchlit_Thompson 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago
Tell those pretentious a-holes that those tests have a 20-30% false positive return rate(I've used that defense to buy time on more than one occasion), and they'll end up spending more money to cover fewer people, which means more people turning to "alternative" means. And make sure that when you say alternative, to mimic a pistol with your thumb and forefinger. Watch there amazement as they realize that welfare is for their protection, not a charitable handout. Remember, "Let them eat cake..." always leads to "Cut their fucking heads off!!!"
[–]k-h 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago*
Yeah, more big government interfering in people's lives. How could that be wrong? Oh and how expensive are the tests? Money well spent?
Wait, what if you drug tested the executives of all companies that got hand outs from the government, be it grants, loans, bail-outs, tax relief, contracts or preferential treatment. These people have responsibilities and it matters if they are not in full command of their senses.
[–]corbalt 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago
I'd be fine with this as long as every executive and shareholder has to piss in a cup before any corporation gets handouts, bonuses, subsidies, or pork.
God yes. All welfare applicants should know good weed from bad weed.
[–]Kerplonk 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago
I don't think we should drug test anyone unless they're operating heavy machinery. As long as they're not going to hurt anyone else its their own fucking business
[–]corillis 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago
What would you test for? Opiates? Many prescription drugs contain opiates. MM? If a doctor prescribes it, what is it to the government?
The measure would be a massive invasion of medical privacy and privacy in general. No amount saved on SS could make up for that.
Should there be programs aimed at people on welfare to help them cope with their addictions and substance abuse? Absolutely!
[–]apparatchik 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago
As long as the condition of receiving corporate Welfare (such as the bailout, or Military industry subsidies) is drug testing too.
[–]TreeFan 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago
And what about companies and corporations that take government subsidies of various sorts? Can we have some standards and tests for them (and their respective leaders)??
[–]cat_mech 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago
In the USA you have this insane, completely wrong idea that welfare enables people, or gives them incentive to do nothing or ever get off it. It exists in this vacuum of real facts that completely ignores how every socialized state that moves further away from that concept consistently ranks higher on global standards assessments than the US.
Let me say that again: the nations (i.e. the Nordic Socialist States) that reject this idea that is pounded into your culture, consistently rank higher on global indexes for standards of living, health and happiness, reduced infant mortality, education, length of life, individual rights.
To put it very very simply, welfare is a good thing, and it does not come from your taxes.
Let me say that again: your taxes don't pay for welfare. Your taxes pay for the massive tax loopholes used to give multinational corporations huge bonuses that are never taxed, but then siphoned out of your country to other accounts where the actual value of your dollar is removed from your immediate culture. This destroys your dollar value far more than any number of people on welfare.
Every single person on welfare has more money than they would if they weren't on welfare, in a society that has unemployment. And every single penny of that money eventually goes back into the system and is retaxed.
There is a massive lie being perpetuated in the cultures of the right wing capitalists- the lie that Rand perpetuated, the lie that you succeed based only on yourself, the lie of the conservative that everyone is to blame for their own shortcomings.
Welfare helps everyone in society. Every country on the planet that moves further away from the attitudes of North Americans about welfare and further towards socializing in the way of the Nordic Socialist states sees a massive improvement in all of the sectors of their society, and those states are consistently ranking higher with every assessment in health, happiness, education, standard of living, and almost every other scoring, than the USA. The USA is no longer even in the top 5 for living standards, and not even in the top 10 for educational standards.
You have been sold a lie. A lie that tells you that the rich earned it and the poor deserved it. A lie that tells you that the highest, most noble ideal is 'Fuck you! I got mine! Fuck you! I got mine!'
This lie seeps through every inequality in your culture. In every smiling, sneering sycophant telling you that the USA is the greatest nation on the planet. I'm not telling you it's the worst, it definitely isn't. But everywhere that isn't ravaged by war and poverty and natural disasters ignores the feeble bleating and empty chest pounding because it is ridiculous to them in the way elementary school patriotism is inane to a refugee.
Welfare is good; it is shown in every culture that no matter the reason why the person receives it, it benefits the society.
Correlation is not causation; if anything people who are poor are more likely to do drugs to relieve additional stresses of poverty because of poverty. They are not impoverished because they did drugs; they do drugs because they are impoverished.
If you want people to lead better, healthier lives, you need to improve and expand upon welfare; you need to give more in the way of education, and health care, and access to knowledge. Better food and healthier options.
You need to stop believing the people who own the news and television stations when they tell you to direct all the anger you have at seeing how life is one big train of people fucking you over for every last penny, and then blame it on the poor.
The only real welfare in the form of stealing from the people and producing nothing themselves are the elite upper class capitalists. They themselves produce nothing; they give nothing; they have no obligation to labour or to the rest of humanity, and they raise you your entire life to believe if you just fall in line well enough, you can grovel at their feet for some warmth from the cold.
nice post, thanks.
[–]uppercrust 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago
No, anyone who has ever taken a drug test will tell you how humiliating the experience is. Anyone who has waited in a welfare line or tried to apply for welfare will tell you how humiliating this is. Put the two together, and it's mentally and emotionally crushing.
[–]jordtallguy 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago
nobody should have to pass a drug test
I mostly agree with this… except where safety is tantamount (surgeons and pilots).
[–]interweb_repairman 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago
No. Drug tests themselves are usually an unconstitutional search/seizure without probable cause.
[–]feralkitten 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Tell that to HR. They will fire my ass if i don't take their test.
[–]ryalslawfirm 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago
Clearly the small amount of money spent on social welfare programs is the problem, not the titanic amount of unnecessary defense spending or other corporate welfare programs . Its welfare queens in Cadillacs. Don't look over there... look over here.
Nice try Reagan.
[–]deltadude 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago
If they would eliminate the tax loopholes allowing corporations to make an offshore p.o. box their headquarters, get rid of them being allowed to bill between divisions to hide profits, eliminate the capitol gains loophole, and raise the social security withholding limit above $106k income there would be plenty of money for social programs.
Especially get rid of the ss withholding limit. It's not fair that someone making $200k a year has to pay less % of income than the working poor.
[–]PandaK00sh 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
Lifestyle of the applicant is more important to review than just "Does person X smoke weed?"
[–]ogenius 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
as soon as they drug test every government employee on a weekly basis, sure thing! go for it! police, the president, senators, secretaries. every single one of them.. oh wait, that would be catastrophic... wouldn't it?
I think that if they did that cocaine would make a big comeback. Violent crime would increase and you would end up paying much more to house the same people in prison. You don't have to build ghettos out of steel and concrete. You also don't have to worry about hazard pay for armed guards.
I think that they should, but if they do screen as drug users, they should be offered free treatment and a smaller welfare check, then if they choose the treatment they will be granted the normal amount as long as they stay clean during semiannual screenings. I know there are many many problems with this, but this is just what I think and I know there is much room for improvement as well.
[–]whigs 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
I think corporate welfare recipients should have to pass a drug test too.
No. Who's to say they don't smoke marijuana with their friends? Friends often share their weed. You can't assume it's what the money is being spent on.
[–]komphwasf3 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
If yes, that would mean we are compelled to pay people who don't use drugs
[–]cyber_rigger 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
They should get a job selling drugs, ... legally.
[–]faschwaa 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
Sure, let's throw more money into welfare than is necessary to police the personal lives of the poor. Great call.
I don't care that people on welfare use drugs or not in the sense of 'drugs are bad'. I care in that they have money to pay for luxuries like drugs and still use the taxpayers money. So instead of testing for drugs, I would like to see a test for cigarettes, alcohol, fancy rims, playstation games, etc.
If you have to use taxpayer money to pay your rent, utilities, and food costs then you need to be exercising frugality in a big way. I work hard, save money, and often go without the things I want so that I don't end up on a government program burdening the state. I would like to expect the same from everyone else.
[–]weirdwithwords 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago
Former welfare child here, and this sort of topic pisses me off. My mother would never have been able to support me and both my brothers without government help. My mother also smoked pot, though she wasn't buying it. How is this possible? She had friends. Friends who were generous enough to get a stressed-out mom high.
My friends all tell me I'm lucky to have such an awesome mom. My government tells me I should have been taken from her at an early age. Which one should I believe?
It's good to have friends. I get weed included in my child support...baby daddy (oh why not?) thinks I deserve to chillax since I have the kids 24/7/365. He's not in a position to help me with raise them so he pays me an amount he can afford plus a little ganj...I haven't bought weed in years. I'm also not on 'welfare', whatever that means, but my daughter is on Medicaid because of her CHD. It's a 'pre-existing' condition, you see, so my husband and I can't afford to buy her a plan. And when I was in a worse situation, I applied for the food program in my area and you had to be either working 20 hours a week or enroll in a job training program. Since I was finishing my degree at the time, I didn't have time to jump through hoops so I ended up not even finishing the app process and ended up getting by. I did use low-income housing while in college, since my school didn't have any housing options for students with families. Thank you all for helping me through school. I hope my tax dollars can now go to someone who needs a little help getting ahead. I honestly don't care if that person can figure out a way to buy a joint with their EBT card or their rent discount or their WIC voucher. I chalk this topic up to a very selfish, uncompassionate mob mentality.
[–]N01SE 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago
No. Why does everyone confuse drug use with drug abuse? Not one in the same, sorry. They need rehab if they're abusing drugs and alcohol. Deny them welfare and addicts will simply turn to crime and violence. Also understand that drug abuse by impoverished people is a way of escaping the harsh reality of living in poverty, it's a vicious cycle. When are people going to learn that addicts need our help, not punishment, it only drives them deeper into their addictions.
[–]fubo 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago
Hell, I'd rather pay for your weed than pay a cop to bust you for it. You may be a bum, but the cop is a violent thug ... and a danger to the rest of society. If one of you is going to get your enjoyment at the taxpayer's expense, I'd prefer it wasn't the one who did it violently.
[–]bboy1977 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
Nope, but there should be a requirement to actively seek a job. Oh wait there is...
[–]theBishop 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
It's amazing how readily the lower classes conduct war amongst themselves.
Welfare recipients are not the problem.
[–]DharmaBeer 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
This is likely the most intellectual comment in this thread. The government love it when the people fight amongst themselves. It takes the peoples eyes off the the sinister acts they are preparing.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago
Wow, the pro-testing crowd on Reddit is shocking. Also the misunderstanding of the "welfare" system. Frankly, in less you are handicapped or have a mental disorder you aren't getting welfare in the classic sense. You can get food stamps, even then you have to fight to keep them. The only people who can really game the system are women with children with none of their possessions in their name. Even then its a few hundred a month cash and two hundred EBT (food "stamps") and requires a ton of constant hoop-jumping. It's so low you pretty much have to be stealing, selling drugs or your body to supplement. It takes a special kind of nihilism to stay that low for long. Not sure what my point is, but I've been slumming it in the city for so long I know these issues inside and out. Though I personally can't get anything when I'm getting thrown to the curb... because I'm male. Can't ever get unemployment because I freelance so much (even though I still have to pay the tax). Though the plight of the homeless is different than that of those on welfare. Oh, well. No point. I was just shocked by the discussion.
[–]El_Morro 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago
Sure, so long as every member of upper management in companies that received bailout money or are getting subsidies from the government are also subjected to drug tests.
After all, their f*ckups cost our country just as much (if not more) than people on welfare. Picking on the underclass is easier though, I understand.
[–]wonko221 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago
i haven't used much of a variety of illegal drugs. How many would i have to be able to identify to pass?
[–]xjvz 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
You'll love it when you find out that most of them are white powder or pills.
[–]flissss 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago
No, because it's a blatant violation of the Constitution.
I live in a small city where I see people pay their grocery bills with food stamps and load the groceries in a chromed out Mercedes filled with kids dressed better than me, and people who sit on their stoops and drink Steel Reserve all day long so I see the abuse everyday. But I will not erode my rights so that They can catch a few people abusing the system.
It's been shown that asking appropriate questions will usually net the same result when trying to diagnose drug use and actually works for alcohol as well, something that drug tests cannot show.
[–]e82 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago
Not necessarily pass, but if they fail - need to go into treatment/rehab.
[–]ballpein 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago
and who pays for the rehab? If there was such a thing as universally available, government-funded rehab, there would be much less chronic drug addiction.
[–]poopshoes 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago
It's almost like the cash used to prosecute and incarcerate nonviolent and socially productive drug offenders could be used in other, constructive ways!
[–]bubbo 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
way way way cheaper to give them the 'welfare' than it would be to put them in rehab.
[–]f4nt 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
I'd rather see us offerring free/public rehab programs. As it stands it can be rather expensive to get clean, and get back on your feet. For family members of mine it was fiscally more responsible to commit a "light" felony while high, or get busted selling drugs to get clean than it would be to do it on their own. Then again, I could be full of shit, cuz a drug addict told me that :)
[–]rachelina 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
If you want to punish people for their poor choices, we shouldn't have welfare at all.
the real scary thing is that once you make a class of people forced to do something, that line changes and sooner or later you are forced to do something.
i though this was supposed to be a free country?
[–]corduroy 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Only if politicians have to pass drug tests.
And how about all government workers and contractors hired by the government.
how about every fucking cop and every fucking politician pass drug tests every day they are on the job? And those douchebag judges and lawyers too.
[–]TooSloJoe 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
To what end? The implication is that having drugs in one's system invalidates one's need for help. Should we drug test indigents applying for medical assistance or other social programs? Say we had the technology to determine drug use before dispatching a fire truck to a burning building; should we just let it burn if they fail?
Where do we draw the line in this morality play? How about we require welfare recipients to attend church or vote for our political party? And consdiering the heinous nature of these people's lifestyle, why stop at publicly funded programs? Drug-test to buy groceries, faith test to receive medical attention, patriotism test to walk around in Arizona...
The people who promote this sort of agenda fail my empathy and humanity tests. Fuck them...
[–]Brown-Thunder 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
I'm not certain what drug testing these welfare queens will accomplish.
OTOH, why not? It could be fun.
[–]Malfador 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Fucking drug tests, how do they work?!?
[–]rhoner 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
why not make them contribute instead? I don't care if you get high as long as you get shit done.
[–]geak78 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
People on welfare should not have expendable income.
After being in social work in Philadelphia I realized a simple fix to all welfare problems. Stop paying them! Pay their rent to the landlord. Pay the grocery store for their food. Pay their electric company. DO NOT TRUST THEM to pay for these things on their own.
[–]lrnut987 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
The question should be why not?
I'm tired of putting users in jail though, dealers/makers should go to jail, but users should be ignored by the law.
If you are going to take my money for sitting on your butt, you should have good reason, and you shouldn't be high while there.
(Don't worry, Reddit, I have a lot of experience in these areas, I know what I'm talking about, I'm not just blabbing off like Palin or some Tea Bagger.)
[–]darwin2500 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Yes, because what we need is for drug addicts to be more desperate and have fewer alternatives besides a life of crime.
legalize marijuana but test everyone?
[–]DannyInflammatory 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Nope! Drugs keep the poor pacified, cut down their numbers, and direct their anger and violence toward each other and away from the government.
[–]Tubasaurus 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Drug tests are a fucking joke. I could go get blasted on coke right now, take a piss test thursday and pass, but I smoked some pot on 420 this year, and it was the first time I smoked in over 6 months, and I'm not sure that I would pass the piss test right now. I am by no means a regular pot smoker, but if I had to take a piss test I would get treated like a junkie for smoking once.
[–]Barnolde 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
No, because they're probably not going to catch users of the bad drugs.
and it's just more money being wasted for an invasive program that really only targets weed.
[–]jeanlucpikachu 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Welfare queens are an outdated myth that will not go away.
yeah, no money for those on pain meds!
[–]longshot 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Unless it's good to have the statistical data, and the ends the data is going to justify the breech of privacy, I guess.
[–]king_awesome 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
I remember my mom copying and pasting a message in her Facebook status that supported this movement months ago so no, this is probably a terrible idea.
[–]reodd 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
No one should be subject to drug tests unless it is a post accident worker's comp claim test.
[–]notjawn 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Who's gonna pay for the drug testing? Who's gonna pay for the lab to analyze it? Who's gonna pay the cops over time when the denied welfare recipients resort to crime to live?
[–]sardinski 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
What about the recipients of billions in corporate welfare? Or the politicians, leaching off the public teat?
[–]fluffykittie 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
I think those of us who pay for welfare for others should get a free bag of homegrown weed every month.
No, for the same reason that I don't believe in random drug testing in the work place.
[–]TheGhostRedditor 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Yes. What you do with your body is your business. What you do to your body with my money is my business.
[–]dwightmoody 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago*
Why waste more money trying to punish poor people? Welfare would be cheaper and more effective on the gods damn honor system than the way it works now.
Only because it may prevent their acquisition of a proper paying job. That perpetuates being on welfare. I think the whole concept of drug testing is moronic, though.
[–]JohnStamosBRAH 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago
it makes me sick to think that im paying for people to get high. im perfectly ok with some of my money that i work hard for going to a social program that helps people get back on their feet, but only if they do it responsibly. getting high is not a necessity. food, clothing, shelter, and transportation to a job is a necessity, which is what im ok with paying for. hell yes to a drug test.
[–]wildebeest 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Many people in poverty develop addictions, and many people with addictions tend to end up in poverty. There is an underlying problem here that needs to be addressed. Most of these people need help and support in the form of counseling and treatment, not more rules and restrictions. These are people we're talking about, people with problems, don't make the mistake of viewing them as bottom feeding peasants wasting your tax dollars, or you're no better than them.
If you really wanna do something about the abuse of the system then you should support and rally for programs that will fix the greater problem.
no, nobody should have to take a drug test except people operating heavy machinery and the test should be limited to whether or not they are intoxicated WHILE operating the machinery. Also test for alcohol.
other than that, it seems to be a gross violation of civil rights.
[–]everyothernametaken1 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
NO DRUG TEST FOR ANYONE, no matter how much i like or dis-like them
[–]uri0 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
I would rather drug addicts get enough money to pay for their drugs than to have to commits crimes to get that money.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
all it takes is a username and password
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
π Rendered by PID 4013 on app-126 at 2013-05-22 14:54:08.631723+00:00 running e4d885f.