Drug testing to get welfare

Sharon - posted on 01/27/2011 ( 108 moms have responded )

11,585

12

1314

has this been done?

I keep getting wall messages about "yay! Kentucky just passed a law mandating drug testing to receive welfare benefits."

Ok, I don't know if it is true or not, I've read it isn't.

But it strikes me as a DAMN good idea.

My thoughts on this....

... if you can afford to support your lethal illegal habit, then you can afford to feed yourself.

if people are worried about kids - if they can't support their kids because they're to busy supporting their heroin habit - then they shouldn't have their kids.

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Isobel - posted on 01/28/2011

9,849

0

282

To suggest that children should be removed from all homes where parents do drugs would result in millions of orphans...not exactly the money saver you were hoping for when you started testing for drugs.

Not all people who do drugs are addicts, or even bad parents and some people who do not do drugs are terrible parents.

The situation is FAR more complicated than you make it sound.

If you really want to get people off welfare and save the country money, then look at the CAUSES of poverty and drug use and deal with them...denying people food and shelter because they have fallen between the cracks of our society is useless.

Sanisha - posted on 01/30/2011

4

5

0

I think drug testing for government assistances is a good idea...in theory. But it would fail in practice. Illegal drugs, just like legal ones are part of an addiction. If you want it, you will get it. And if you know you can be "randomly" drug tested, you will get around that too. It is really not rocket science to beat a UA. And it’s not random, if you have x amount of time to get it done.

Removing children is not a solution either. The system is already filled with children who have been removed from their parents. And there is nowhere to house them. You would be punishing the child for the parents’ mistake. Plus technically what you are saying is POOR drug addicted parents shouldnt be able to keep their children. Of course the more affluent ones, wouldn’t be on welfare, wouldn’t be subjected to random testing, and would be allowed to continue being drug addicted parents. Are we punishing the low income level, or the drug addiction?

I am not at all saying that people on government assistance do not abuse the system. Nor am I saying that they should be able to use their assistance to finance their drug habit. I am saying that testing to get assistance is a futile attempt at fixing the real problem.

I do have one comment about wearing nice stuff when you are receiving assistance. I was recently receiving food stamps. I lost my job a few months after my son was born and remained unemployed for 6 months. Prior to the loss of my job, I made really good money and I bought nice things. When I lost my job, these things didn’t disappear. Yeah I could have sold them, but I wouldn’t have gotten a good return. I didn’t have a luxury car, but if I did, maybe I could have gotten something cheaper. Or maybe it would have cost me more to get rid of it, than to keep it. Not everyone on assistance has always been on assistance. And just because in order to keep up with my household bills, I need food assistance, doesn’t mean I should look homeless. I glad that time has passed. But at the time, getting dressed up to go to Target to grocery shop with my food stamps was the highlight of my day.

Isobel - posted on 01/28/2011

9,849

0

282

I agree that it's "not fair" that your tax dollars are supporting drug habits...but it's also not fair for a child to be raised by a woman who has turned to prostitution and leave her child alone all night because she needs to go out and make money to rent and drugs.

I don't look at it from the rights of the drug addict (although I do believe that they should be afforded a certain amount of dignity too), I look at it more from the angle of their children's rights.

I can support drug testing for people on welfare...so long as it's to identify people who need treatment...and make treatment mandatory, but I could not support using it as an excuse to take away their food and shelter.

Jenny - posted on 01/27/2011

4,426

16

126

I think we should find it all of our personal responsibilities that EVERY man, woman and child has access to food, water, clothing, health care, education and shelter regardless of the circumstances. I don't think it is possible to not deserve these basic vital things. If we can give that to them without just giving them a cheque, great, but how can we expect them to crawl out of the gutter if we make them literally live in it?

Jenny - posted on 01/30/2011

4,426

16

126

"Are we punishing the low income level, or the drug addiction?"



Both. We regularly punish poor people and they are constantly receiving the message that they are not worthy or as equal as people who have "stuff". Then we try to legislate a health issue as if that's ever worked. Why would we test them? Are you jealous you don't get "free money" from the government? Well go totally broke and you can join the club. Is it because of the children? Well then we should test every parent out there. Or are we back to just monitoring poor people?



Why do people keep reacting to side effect instead of trying to fix the root cause? People are not using drugs to screw you out of tax dollars.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

108 Comments

View replies by

Vanessa - posted on 05/06/2012

61

1

4

I see this debate has not been adressed in a while but I do have to say that I do agree 100% that you should have to be tested for drugs to be eligible for any kind of assistance, any job I have ever had, I had to pass a drug test, and for those saying that it would discriminate against poor people, well you literally have to be unemployed to receive the full amount of say foodstamps for example, so of course a drug addict who can sit on their ass and receive enough to do so because they can't hold a job or pass a urine test to get a decent one, will not try or have any desire to work because they are getting by on tax dollars, from experience any income you make and even if your hours at your job fluctuate, your benefits will be adjusted accordingly, most people who need to use these benefits because life has dealt them a shitty hand, can't wait to get back on their feet and not be eligible, I believe these benefits should be short term to help people get back on their feet, not a life long plan passed down like some legacy to your children as a way of life, say after x amount of months they help the beneficiaries develop job seeking skills and other resources available to job seekers and yes I understand that addiction is a disease and if a person would fail a urine test, there should be a program implemented to help them take the first step to recovery and if they don't follow the plan cut them off, if they need the benefits bad enough, they will come back and have to undergo testing again but that may be the way it would go for most, they will get pissed and leave because they are in denial about their problem but if they come back for benefits it may also be their way of asking for and seeking help

Jenn - posted on 01/30/2011

2,683

36

93

@Stephanie - no. We have 2 types of disability. Federal, which is through CPP (Canada Pension Plan) and Provincial, which is run through Ontario Works (welfare). Then there's him - he gets it through Six Nations Indian Reserve, and that's a whole other ball game. :S

Rosie - posted on 01/30/2011

8,657

30

315

actually laura the court has ALWAYS found leo (my ex) for me, an dwouldn't tell me where he was. he's moved multiple times, they've sent me letter after letter asking if i knew where he was. i have NEVER had to do anything to locate him, it's always been the state. :)
i would have to say 100% if the absent parent would actually do what they are court ordered to do, thousands of people wouldn't need to be on government assistance. if they're on welfare, i'm sure it wouldn't help that much, but i'm talking about people like me who use only the medical. grants dad has been ordered to provide medical insurance. i wouldn't need to be on state assistance for medical (at least for him) if he actually did that.

[deleted account]

@Jenn Morris-
In the US if a person is on disability(social security) their children and also given a monthly check until they reach age 18. Is it not like that in Canada? If you aren't sure it's something to look into bc maybe your child has some money due to them.

Jenn - posted on 01/30/2011

2,683

36

93

Yeah, I'm totally NOT seeing the connection between welfare and child support. You could be a billionaire and receiving child support - that has NOTHING to do with needing assistance - it's the non-custodial parent's responsibility to provide for their child. The point of child support is to maintain what you would have if you still lived together. For example - my bf pays $291 a month for his daughter (she lives with her Mother). If she lived with us, he would be providing things for her like food, clothing, transportation to friend's houses etc., fun money - or whatever else you would be providing. Just because she doesn't live with us, doesn't mean that our financial obligation ends. Now, my ex on the other hand does NOT pay and has told me that he pretty much has no intention of paying. Because he is on disability - there isn't much we can do. If he wasn't on disability (welfare), they could take money from his bank account, they could suspend his driver's licence, they could jail him. Apparently, people on welfare are not allowed to have tough action taken on them. And just to note, in Ontario if you are on Ontario Works (welfare) and you receive child support, it comes off of your cheque. So if your ex makes a lot of money and you receive a hefty monthly support payment, you would likely lose your whole welfare cheque. Now, if your ex does NOT pay their court-ordered child support, it still comes off of your cheque, unless you go through FRO (which is what most people do anyway and Ontario Works would push you to do - as well as making you go to court to have it ordered at the charted amount) - then it does not come off of your cheque. What happens is, when they (should I say IF they) finally receive payments from the other parent, then FRO would reimburse Ontario Works.

[deleted account]

Oh, and drug testing to recieve CS is ridiculous. CS is court ordered to the parent of a child. Welfare is a social privelage given to those who need help getting back on their feet.



Yes, people abuse both systems, but CS isn't a government funded (or I guess I should say taxpayer-funded) one, so the government should stay out of it (other than when the gov't helps find people who owe) IMO...

[deleted account]

My step daughter lives with us full time and her mother doesn't pay court ordered child support (we only asked for $100 per month!). The court doesn't care. So it's not just dead beat fathers that get off the hook... In fact, of all the fathers *I* know who aren't with their kid's moms, only 1 doesn't pay cs, and that's because he's unemployed and is barely scraping by as it is and the court is HOUNDING him and threatening him with jail time, BUT of the 3 women I know who are court ordered to pay child support NONE of them pays and the courts don't do a damn thing about it.

Now, on to the debate of the topic...

I think drug testing should be mandatory. My family is on welfare (though we were able to drop the cash aid last month - woo hoo!) and it pisses me off to see women in there with $1,500 purses and driving shiny Lexus SUVs that must cost a fortune to fill at the gas station, much less keep up, register and insure. I also see many men in there with $$$$ woth of gold chains and teeth. It's ridiculous how they don't even bother to hide their extravagant living style from the workers because the workers DON'T CARE. They only care about what you write on your little quarterly reporst (yes, quarterly, not even monthly!).

Yes, while drug testing with even further extend the deficit of my cash strapped state ('m in CA), I think it would be worth it. Maybe for a first offense they have to go though mandatory counseling and if they have 3 offenses CPS is called (if kids are in the house) and aid is suspended or something like that.

Shauna - posted on 01/29/2011

1,015

19

33

some cases just suck. My husband lost out on all that time his son spent growing up for her selfish reasons. And then just got a court document saying ... oh you may be the father of this kid pay up daddy.

what a way to find out your a father.

Shauna - posted on 01/29/2011

1,015

19

33

my husband didnt find out he had a child untill that child was 3 yrs old b/c the mother went to prison for meth, and never told any man she was preggo. She didnt seek father untill she got divorced from her x husband and wanted child support.

My husband never got a court case, just said "pay your child support, and get a lawyer if you want to see him"

the mother let him see his son for 1 yr and we had him 75% of the time , she never had him. Once i had my son and my stepson very much wanted to be a part of it, she got jelouse and ran.

since it was never a court order visitation just an agreement. they call it child abondonment on his part, b/c there is no proof we saw him that whole yr.

we got a lawyer and lawyer would of costed us thousands we dont have and said he pro wouldnt get what hes looking for anyways as courts favor the bio mother.

All im saying is their are some cases were fathers get really fucked. The only thing my husband lucked out on was not having to pay back child support, b/c the judge said to the mother "thats your own fault you waited 3 yrs to figure out who the father is"

oh and this women has 2 other kids by 2 other men whom she lost custody of for being an unfit mother.

Isobel - posted on 01/29/2011

9,849

0

282

I wasn't testifying to the character of your SO's ex...I was discussing the fairness of the court system.

If you don't know where your child is the court can't find them for you and force them to come out to visit you.

I don't know where you live but fathers' rights are very much taken into account where I am.

Shauna - posted on 01/29/2011

1,015

19

33

Laura--- i would hope a mother knows the names of the men they slept with. My stepsons mother had to have 10 guys tested before finding out my husband was the father. THe state located every single one of them.

court systems do kiss mothers asses more so.
NOT every father is a deadbeat. and i get sick of the man bashing.

Yes i 100% agree on childsupport---but your exactly right everyone has their own story.

my own sister hasnt received child support for 15 yrs.

Peggy - posted on 01/29/2011

193

59

0

Depending on the state you live in the income of your Ex husbands wife does not count for his income unless his name in on the papers... as in the state of Fla. I am against parent misusing child support also.. I was barely lucky to get cs for 2 that he should of been paying just for one. And yes CS does include everything it takes to provide for your children but when some have to have a 40,000.00 car when they could have gotten a 20,000.00 car and had less car payments and more $ going somewhere else when she is struggling to make end meet? But CS and welfare are two different issues... it's Americans tax dollars paying for welfare and I would rather waste $ on the random drug testing then just handing out $ and support to someone who is going to take advantage of it and abuse it... why give our tax $ to support a drug dealer? Hell I was a single mom with 3 kids getting only the amount of CS for one child not what my ex should have paid for two went to see about getting WIC to just help with the formula (my oldest was too old to qualify) and was denied because I made $15.00 more than their allowed amount per month?.... But hey if I wanted to not work I could have gotten all sorts of help... Welfare is NOT owed to people it should be earned.

Nikkole - posted on 01/28/2011

1,505

31

49

@Sherri i called before but i dont think they did anything she still lived there and so does her boyfriend! I think they call before they come over they just don't show up (thats what one of my other friends has told me thats on welfare to) So if they called she probably told him to leave for the day or something!

Sherri - posted on 01/28/2011

9,593

15

387

Shauna more moms get screwed over by child support and the gov't then the dead beat fathers that owe so much money they couldn't pay it back in their lifetimes. They walk around scott free with no consequences. Just ask my poor sister.

Sherri - posted on 01/28/2011

9,593

15

387

Nikkole you said you know someone that is abusing the system by having her boyfriend live with her. Have you thought of reporting her to the state??

[deleted account]

Dude.... I've given CSEA every piece of information I have on my ex.... where he lives, that he works for cash, that they own a business in his wife's name (I think it's in her's... they own a business at least), and the state STILL can't get him to pay child support. He still gets every single court ordered visitation that he bothers to show up for though.



Depending on your personal experiences you will find a person to prove or disprove every single possible angle of this debate. ;)

[deleted account]

Well, IF my ex ever decides to pay his child support while I'm on welfare.... it goes straight to the state and I'll never see a penny. I will only receive child support once I get OFF welfare (assuming he ever starts paying) and what I receive in cash assistance is just slightly over half of what he is court ordered to pay......

And things like rent, electric, gas for your vehicle ARE used to support your kids, so are perfectly legitimate things to spend child support on. The kid's gotta have a place to live. Buying clothes for yourself, make up, jewelry, drugs, going out getting wasted, etc.... would be a misuse of child support for sure, but other than what I personally eat..... over 90% of what I spend is spent to benefit my kids.

Karla - posted on 01/28/2011

224

5

17

I am all for this new law and for those opposed to it, here is my suggestion. Before the law takes effect for people currently receiving assistance, institute a 6 month grace period in which they can chose to get clean. That way they have a choice, get clean and continue receiving assistance or continue using and don't.



I really think this would solve many people's concern in regards to denying someone basic necessities. The addicted welfare recipient just has to make the decision if drugs are more important than food, shelter, and having their children in the home with them.

Isobel - posted on 01/28/2011

9,849

0

282

if a mother showed up and said I want child support but I don't know the father's name, address, or work place...the courts would tell her to get fucked as well.

Isobel - posted on 01/28/2011

9,849

0

282

courts can demand that the father has the right to see his child...but it's not their job to find that child for him.

Carolyn - posted on 01/28/2011

898

19

140

a chemically dependant person will most likely not be able to stay clean for 3 or so days. Especially if we are talking about alcohol and opiates. A daily drinker or user will go into severe withdrawal often within hours of their last drink. Opiate withdrawals peak around day 3, Alcohol within the first 24 hours. These physically dependant people who need to continue to use daily in order to function without getting extremely sick are highly unlikely to stay clean for 3 or so days before their test.

Regular marijuana users can still excrete metabolites in their urine for over a month.

so yeah , someone who binges on 1000 $ worth of cocaine once a month will most likely pass their test, sure , it isnt fool proof, but the individuals who are using every day because they literally get sick without their drug are unlikely to do to be succesful at staying clean long enough to piss clean.

I agree testing everyone once a month would be a tremendous waste of money. But if it were done a the time of application, or at a randomly chosen time within the first month, and then say 2x through out the year at randomly it would make it more cost friendly. You could also implement a clause such as, those who pass the initial only get tested 1x a year at random, those who may have failed but followed through on recommendations and pass 2 consecutive screens are graduated to only 1x a year random testing.

if you go to an extreme of course it will seem obsurd, as anything does at any extreme. But a decent system can be worked, it just takes people with the proper knowledge and understanding of how the addicted peronality works, what they need to make a better life and how to make it a financially and socially responsible program.

Shauna - posted on 01/28/2011

1,015

19

33

julianne--- yeah thats nothing like the states. YOu have to qualify for each thing. THere is help for housing, help for food, help for utilities, help for phone bills. Help for med bills. Basically help for everything!!!! they will even buy you a car if needed.

heres part of the fucked part in america..... mamma goes to court house says find my baby daddy i want childsupport. so he pays childsupport. Baby daddy says i want to see my child, but dont know her phone num, address or any of that. Court house tells baby daddy,,, get fucked.

Rights among mothers and fathers are not equal in the least bit.

Shauna - posted on 01/28/2011

1,015

19

33

Im not for drugs in the least bit. but the fact is ppl are going to do them weather its legal or not.

Shauna - posted on 01/28/2011

1,015

19

33

In NE if you try and get WIC. A mother doesnt have to claim child support. But me being marrried to a man giving childsupport i cant deduct that he pays childsupport. We dont see that money, yet have to claim it. When we were in need we couldnt get the measly crap you get from wic b/c of this.

[deleted account]

shauna, from being on assistance...if you get child support, it gets deducted from the amount you get from the government 784$ a month you get to live off, 200$ is child support, brings you down to 584$...so if your baby daddy decides to screw you in child support...your fucked welfare does not give you a lot AT ALL



. I dont get why people go on like welfare is luxurious...its bullshit



edit to add* its different than the states, food income is included in your budget, you get $595 for rent for two people you need to pass in a rent receipt each month and 214$ for food, clothing. etc... if your rent is over(like mine was 650) it comes out of the 214.

Shauna - posted on 01/28/2011

1,015

19

33

hell, lets just drug test everyone before they can get their paycheck. fuck ....

Shauna - posted on 01/28/2011

1,015

19

33

and teresa ... why the heck would you piss test everybody on welfare???? THATS MY POINT. you cant discriminate people like that.
But alot of women on COM are good at that, the most judgemental women i have ever met.

Shauna - posted on 01/28/2011

1,015

19

33

No, i actually dont see it as a differance at all. Its assistance. How many moms use child support soley on their kids alone. Not many.
child support .. is a form of assistance. And many moms get child support along with welfare. My stepsons mom and i quote said "hahah, i dont need your money i use it to buy my drinks on the weekends"

Jenny - posted on 01/28/2011

4,426

16

126

Actually I've had 2 glasses of wine and was trying to be funny *sulks away*

[deleted account]

I'm thinking Jenny made a typo and meant 'legal'?

Why the heck would you test people receiving child support.... unless you are going to start testing every single parent on the planet, of course. Welfare is government assistance. Child support is every single child's right no matter what the family structure... except that parents that are together already DO support their kids together. BIG difference between child support and welfare.

Shauna - posted on 01/28/2011

1,015

19

33

If anyone hasnt noticed ... drug rate is not going down. No one cares that its illegal. .... and i know this is off subject... but crime is comming from drug cartels, and drug dealers. Not the drug addicts.

The more money drug dealers have the more power they have. They have more power than the government. B/C they sure are not catching the major suppliers.

Look, i understand making drugs legal isnt going to happen, but it would in fact end the 'war on drugs' no money would be supplied to the dealers, and cartels.

However piss testing everyone is not the answer its way too pricey. and not good enough. The biggest drug users know how to pass a UA.

I think a better approach would be to have harsher punishments for those that abuse the system. Send them to prison .. not just a slap on the wrist. Once they abuse it .. they can never go back on assitance.

Shauna - posted on 01/28/2011

1,015

19

33

if they are going to waste countless dollars testing ppl on welfare. Than they better start testing women receiving child support as well!!!! ... B/C i know for a 100% fact my stepsons mother is on Meth. When ive turned her in. It takes paper work after paper work a whole bunch of round a bout shit.... and doesnt ever get tested. And for just the weekend users.... its out of their system come monday. Cant say it enough... WASTE OF MONEY.

Shauna - posted on 01/28/2011

1,015

19

33

And once a month drug test. Come on. WASTE OF MONEY. Do you know how many people are on welfare!? they would be spending more time testing . So you know i bet less ppl would be on help if that was the case, b/c they dont want to quit their drugs. But most drug addicts are not scared of a UA.

it just really seems like a wasteless use of time, and a huge waste of money.

Shauna - posted on 01/28/2011

1,015

19

33

Caroylyn--- many of those hard drugs dont last in your system more than 3 days. If a person is going in for benifts.. they are not going to be on drugs b/c they already know the test is comming. Urine tests are SOOO easy to pass. thats all im saying... seems like a waste of money.

I have a drug past, so does my husband... so do several ppl. We all know how easy it is. Ive never failed a UA.

[deleted account]

That part I knew, Laura, but I was still having trouble.... must've just been the headache.

So... now we're saying everyone on welfare should be tested once a month? Or they just have a different group of random receipients being tested once a month? Cuz if you're testing every single welfare receipient every single month.... THAT would be a waste of time and money.

And yes, it would be a hassle for many, many people to go in for the drug test. Not that they wouldn't DO it, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't be a hassle. Of course, the whole process of it all is a hassle... filling out the exact same 6+ pages of paperwork every 6-12 months. Not that it isn't WORTH it if you need the help, but it's still just more stuff that needs to get done.

Peggy - posted on 01/28/2011

193

59

0

Let the drug testing be random.. not just before you report to your case worker.... but once month at least. If drug testing is required for jobs then it should also be required for welfare benefits. Why should hard working people be subject to them but people who arent working and needing the assistance not?

Isobel - posted on 01/28/2011

9,849

0

282

Most debates have a clear majority and minority...perhaps this is just the first time you've been on the side of the majority?

Peggy - posted on 01/28/2011

193

59

0

WOW.. cant believe most are actually agreeing on this.. Guess there is a first for everything..haha! I agree 100%! If you have nothing to hide then you dont mind getting a drug test... what kind of hassle is involved?.. you pee in a cup.. WOW, such an inconvenience (being sarcastic).. cant be any more of an inconvenience than having to go into the Welfare Dept to apply for benefits and having to check back with them.. and if you are in true need for the benefits you do what you have to do to continue getting them.. right? Military members are subject to random drug testing 24/7. My husband had to report twice in 4 days but hasnt been tested in over a year, it just the luck of the draw. I also feel you shouldnt be allowed to buy junk food or CD's with your food stamps but from what a friend who does undercover security in Walmart you can. I hardly believe that all the drug addicts are using their food stamps to feed their kids.. most sell theirs to get $ feed their habit.

Carolyn - posted on 01/28/2011

898

19

140

most recreational users will be able to avoid using anytime near their application and drug test. Therefor, really not an issue.



In ontario here is how it works as far as children go.

- reports are made to Childrens Aid (cps) for what ever reason , investigation insues. Now it is discovered the parents are chemical dependant. The parents are given a list of guidelines/ recommendations/ rules what ever you want to call it they must follow / complete in order to maintain or regain custody of their children. These typically include, completing a treatment program and passing regular drug testing. These people are given chances and opportunity to clean themselves up. unless the cases are severe where the children are in danger or neglected, the children usually remain in the care of the parents while this occurs.



So implementing mandatory drug testing need not be more complicated than a routine Childrens Aid Society protocol.



Urine screen failed = requirements to be fullfilled within a determined timeframe, to include treatment and passing regular/ random drug testing through out your receipt of benefits. If you cannot complete these requirements, then as like any child welfare investigation, the benefits are suspended until you complete the requirements. In the chance that a person is endangering their child or neglecting them , then it is reported to the proper agency and investigated.



As any profesional, there is a duty to report child abuse regardless. So those children who need to be removed , it will be reported anyways.



It would be ideal to say lets deal with all the reasons people are chemically dependant. But how can you address mental health, emotional hurt, physical/mental/emotional abuse, addictive personalities, genetics etc on such a wide scale ?



and legalizing drug use isnt going to save any issue either, The government will produce and distribute the watered down version of drugs, so you will always have an illegal market for the more potent versions. especially as a user builds tolerance to the substances they use. And then you run into people doing jobs where safety and liability becomes a concern. Imagine your kids school bus driver driving stoned ? or your teachers smoking dubies during recess ? or how about your pilot flying after a cocaine binge the night before ?



There are always exceptions to the rule, yes you have amazing parents with drug problems, and you can have child molester raising children substance free. You bet.



the system can be designed to provide opportunity to determine between casual users and the heavily addicted who are taking from their children to support their habits. It can have protocols implace to help individuals get the help they need and become productive members of society. It can be designed to have the childs best interest at heart.



edited to fix something that got all messed up when i got distracted LOL

Isobel - posted on 01/28/2011

9,849

0

282

clearly the people who say kids should be removed are not the same group as the ones who say drugs should be legal

[deleted account]

I'm confused w/ this debate. You have people saying that the drugs should just be legalized since they're going to do them anyway... Then you have people saying that welfare people that test positive should have their children removed from their home.

So.... if people that do drugs shouldn't have their kids.... why are we trying to legalize drugs? I must not be computing something here. ;)

Sara - posted on 01/28/2011

9,313

50

584

Well, what do you do with the children if they are removed from the home? How do you change the system to make sure it's giving out benefits to those who really need it. How do you police it once benefits are given? I just came up with those off the top of my head, I imagine that there are MANY other questions that would arise upon further investigation.



What I meant in my last post was that simply denying benefits to people on the basis that they fail a drug test is not the answer to the problem of welfare fraud or poverty in this country. So many things have an impact on a person's life that leads them into poverty. You think that drug testing folks will be the magical remedy to this problem? Now, before you jump all over me, I don't think welfare is the answer either, but I certainly don't think that denying benefits based on a drug test is a SIMPLE answer to abuse of our welfare system. It would hurt too many innocent people (children) that have no voice in the process. More than a million children regularly go to bed hungry in the US. That's shocking and disgusting, that we live in one of the wealthiest nations in the world, but we have so many children that go without. You want to add to that number?



And also, simply stating that our country needs to go back to it's roots to solve it's problems is incredibly overly simplisitic. First off, it's not 1789 anymore. The world is different and our country is a different place. The founding fathers built this country on an idea, and understanding that the needs and expectations would change over time. That's why the constitution is amendable. That's why we have elections and the supreme court. The USA is not a fixed state, nor was it meant to be.



So, if people really want to stop fraud/abuse of our welfare system, then we need to look at the education system in this country as well as the state of poverty. That's the only way to truly fix it, and that isn't a simple question with a simple solution. Drug testing is a only a bandaid, it will never solve the problem is likely to hurt more people, and cost more taxpayer dollars, than the system that is in place already.

Stifler's - posted on 01/28/2011

15,141

154

597

I still think we should do mandatory drug testing. But as others have pointed out, what then? Do they just starve and their kids too? There should be more effort put into helping stop these kinds of problems because just cutting off their money won't work. They will just turn to other means of making money that won't always be legit.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms