That's bad logic no matter what the subject is. It doesn't follow that others should have to choose to not use illegal drugs because you choose to work somewhere where there is a drug testing policy.

That being said, if drug testing was free in terms of money and time, and it actually caught everyone instead of people who are ignorant of how to beat one, I'd want it to be mandatory too. Alas...

Thanks, buddy. :)

Ok, so how about we make membership in a Christian church a requirement for welfare too? I guess that's not a clear violation of the First Amendment because you don't HAVE to take the benefits...

IANAL but I don't believe the government can make services contingent on something that would clearly be a constitutional violation imposed on the general public. Something about equal protection of the laws, I know that pesky 14th amendment isn't everyone's favorite...

Whoop-dee-doo. My reasoning isn't that drugs are illegal. I care that drugs are not essential.

As illogical as it would be be, what if my company was performing the drug tests because they did not want me to spend my earnings to purchase drugs (disregarding that it is illegal, not my issue). Same thing applies. They don't want people using/wasting the money on drugs when it could be better used towards food, clothing, and shelter.

And if you are smart enough to swallow a couple drops of bleach in gallons of water, or somehow rig up a bladder pump, you really ought to think about putting your mind to work elsewhere.

If you can't get a job, I think one should make damn sure the money is going to be used wisely. I have grown up living next to both the families making the struggle when times are bad, and the families living the far too easy life by not trying at all.

Either test them or ensure that they can't misuse the benefits they receive. Which will be easily implemented first?

By accepting Welfare, you are accepting the rules of the system.. if you dont like the rules then dont get a check for free money every month.

urine tests are expensive.

they're also insulting.

I haven't worked for an employer who required a urine test. Once I was asked to do one as part of an application process. I did. I was offered the job. They were offended when I didn't accept it because they had paid for my pristine urine test. I refused to take it because they offered me less money than they had laid out in the interview.

Asking people on welfare to travel to a facility for their urine sample to be collected is unreasonable. I drove 20 minutes to the nearest urine testing facility the one time I had to go. Requiring that they mail in urine samples is just asking them to find a friend to pee for them in the instance that they're doing illegal substances.


Requiring urine samples for those on welfare might just give us some new and handy statistics on the prevalence of illegal drug use among the nation's poorest.

It would be a senseless requirement.

I would respond in depth to this post, but it seems you didn't read my first one so I do not see the need to keep explaining. I would urge you to at least read a little about drug testing if you think that bladder pumps or bleach are the best, safest, easiest ways to beat a drug test, though.

@ Toaster:
I did read your first post, and I don't agree with it. Any business can decide to test it's employees, not just the ones I "decide" to work for. I don't want to be tested, I should go find a new employment.

Also, what difference does it make that it can't catch everyone? It can catch some, if not most, and that is a start. I'd prefer better means of drug testing, to be honest. Again, the only thing I don't like about this solution is cost.

@ genuinegirly:
Convenience is not the issue here. Granted, I feel any tests should be performed right at the welfare office, that is not the current topic.

@ DieNamicz:
I agree.

As long as you treat all citizens the same when applying for benefits the 14th amendment isn't an issue. It would clearly be a violation of the US Constitution to require that all citizens take a driving test. But no one is required to complete such a test. You need only do so if you want the privilege of driving. Getting assistance and cash from the government is a privilege, not a right guarantied by the 14th or any other portion of the US Constitution.

Wow. I'm really astonished at how many people really do think that those on welfare are manipultive low-lifes.

I think we should create a whole new thread to question where these prejudices come from.

Instead of basing opinions on emotional reactions to anecdotal situations, it would be really great if people looked at the fundamental reasons why we have people on welfare.

Hmmm...maybe our entire economic system?

This is why I'm appalled at people's quick reactions to say we should drug test all welfare recipients. Have you ever thought there may be a systemic problem causing so many people to be out of work?

I think we should look at the entire situation. I just see no reason why substance abuse shouldn't be included in the assessment.

I don't think people on food stamps, welfare... whatever are in general low life's. I have no doubt some are, just as I feel some are not. My position is if you need help from the tax payers it's the tax payer's right to know exactly what the issues might be. No sense throwing good money for bad. If substance abuse is an issue I'm all for helping that person resolve that issue. I'm not interested in tax dollars going to support a never ending problem.

Hand up, not hand out.

Haha. Oh man. That's good. Whew.

Orrrrrrrr we could just spend all the money we've used fighting War on Drugs for the past several decades (with absolutely no progress) and hand it out in the street to bums.

I wonder how many of you who so adamantly support the idea that welfare checks are handouts have actually considered the possibility that maybe - just maybe we pay taxes into these programs to help the poor better themselves because as a society, we need those people.

Have you ever considered how much it costs each of us when a bum sleeps in the streets? How much it costs us when the disabled can no longer provide for their families? How much it costs us when those people are driven to crime and all the other ills that befall the poverty stricken?

I'm not denying that there are those out there who are intent upon abusing the system - I'm just trying to make obvious the very real fact that as a society we can not afford to search for new ways just to say "fuck 'em" as if their issues are any less our problem because they're addicted to drugs.

I can only assume you misunderstand my points. Such as:

Hand up, not hand out.

If substance abuse is an issue I'm all for helping that person resolve that issue.


Personally I'm very concerned about the costs of the examples you give here. The human cost as well as the financial. I honestly think poverty is one of, if not the, biggest issue facing the US. But I also think simply handing out cash or benefits is a very short sighted, ill conceived solution.

My point is if you're drunk or stoned everyday and that's the reason you can't maintain employment, it's probably best to resolve that issue first prior to working toward other goals such as job training et el.

Myself I'd want to know that just as much as I'd want to know if the reason you're not able to support yourself was that you were trying to care for a seriously ill parent, child or spouse.

Orrrrrr, you could look at it another way. How about programs that help people get off drugs or protect them from situations/environments where they get on them in the first place?

Yes, the War on Drugs is a "joke."

Yes, there is another way.

I'm glad you got a laugh.

Not everyone's laughing with you.

No need for a new thread.

My family just recently had to go onto welfare after my father lost his job. He's near retirement, so no one will hire him, and he has not enough left for retirement. I'll be correcting this next year after college is complete and I land a good job. My good friends are on welfare making the good struggle through rough times too. Some of my good neighbors are as well. So coming from this standpoint, when it is seen there are other people abusing the opportunity to help themselves by just getting drunk and stoned all the time, it is upsetting.

These programs are exactly here for helping the needy. Drugs are not a need.

I agree with alot of what Tully Mars here says, we need to help people with their problems and not be giving them ways to inflame them.