Should parents be drug tested in order to receive welfare or food stamps?

  • Government has to start cutting someplace

    While I don't agree that most people need welfare and food stamps, if they can afford drugs, they can afford food. Also, those who are positive are most likely addicted and will only spend the money on more drugs. Besides, welfare and food stamps aren't the only options out there.

  • Yes so they don't go blow their kids money and food on drugs

    Most parents need the welfare and food stamps but druggy parents use that money on drugs and sell their food stamps for money for the drugs so it isn't fair for those kids to struggle. There are so many kids struggling just to get by let alone their parents are using their money.

  • Yes, anyone applying for welfare should have to be drug tested.

    In my opinion, there are a lot of people out there who are taking advantage of the system. Meanwhile, people who really need the help can't get it. If you are going to get government assistance then you should have no problem showing that you are a responsible adult. That includes not doing drugs. Anyone who is irresponsible enough to do drugs does not deserve to get government help.

  • Yes. Welfare needs reform.

    I just think this is quite common sense. The only small potential down side would be that legitimate people who were laid off for unfair reasons have to go through more tape that is not necessarily red.

    I'm more of a proponent of "right to work" (the communist Soviet one. If you judged this based on your view of the Soviets, stop being biased). Anybody has a right to work a low-skill, productive, limited income job for the government (such as construction), if they want to. No money given to lazy people sitting on their butts (they can go ahead and eat out of dumpster, nobody cares about them).

  • No- it is not cost effective and only hurts children.

    You want to reform welfare, do away with EBT cards and make food stamps voucher based (limiting the food they can buy with it). But forcing drug tests on millions of people despite the fact that less than 2% abuse the system is discrimination based on poverty.
    Not to mention that mandatory repetitive drug testing would cost more than you would ever save, since once again only 2 out of every 100 people abuse the system.

  • A voucher system would be better

    Don't want people blowing their welfare funds on drugs? Give them vouchers instead, then. Food stamps already follow this model, since you can't ring up an EBT card at your local neighborhood drug dealer. The thing about vouchers is that they are useless for everything but what you are supposed to use them for. Wouldn't that accomplish the same goal without being degrading to recipients and treating them like criminals?

  • Cost More Then It Cuts

    In order to go along with the yes side you would have to believe that a large number of people on welfare are using drugs otherwise you are spending money to drug test and not seeing any cut in payouts causing an un necessary added expense to the program. Results from a test (although small) in Florida shows my point. 40 participants were tested out of that only two tested positive. The program saved $480 from denying the two positive testers but spent $1,140 testing the other 38. I see it as a difference in opinions on the number of people on drugs also on welfare.

  • Increases cost, doesn't solve the problem

    This will incur a cost against welfare usage that the state would be required to pony up. I don't believe it's the solution to reforming welfare. What I believe is the solution is reducing fraud through identification verification and eliminating wasteful usage of EBT Food. For example, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups do not need to be food stamp able. By re-allocating what can be purchased on EBT, it should also become more available. You shouldn't have to be dirt poor...It should serve as a method of not just getting the poor on their feet but keeping the lower/upper middle class from falling into poverty when times get tough.

  • drug testing always costs more than it saves...

    That alone should be reason enough not to do it..Pushing aside all the legal and ethical issues..Below...

    Federal courts have consistently ruled this practice illegal.. Nor is there any evidence that suggests that welfare recipients are more likely to use drugs...On top of that..Many if not most of the politicians that are pulling such policies own interests in drug-testing companies.. Most notably FL governor rick scott...

    Drug testing does not save any money.. Nor does it prevent drug use...What it does do is enrich a few crooked politicians...

  • No, profiling at it's best

    There's no good reason to do this. This is just another control of the bourgeoisie implementing policies to hurt the proletariat and sign away their rights to privacy. Drug tests should only be implemented if you have a probable cause or reason to suspect someone is using drugs on welfare (or working). It strips away our basic freedom of being able to do what we want to our body that, if responsibly controlled, does not hurt anyone else. The problem is it often does hurt someone else because of the stiff penalties in regards to the War on Drugs (which should end immediately) and the lack of accessible and free rehabilitation. If we decriminalize all drugs and treat drug users as those with medical issues instead of as a criminal, our society will be all the better for it (See: Portugal).

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.