Should We Drug Test Welfare Recipients?

01
Sep
2011

Should We Drug Test Welfare Recipients?

categories: Politics

Now, onto the regularly scheduled post: Last night I got into an pretty epic battle on Facebook regarding if drug testing of welfare recipients was constitutional. I wish I had access to Facebook at work because I’d totally post the entire thread, but it basically came down to one guy arguing the idea that the courts had already said that the government can’t drug test without a compelling reason, and that me arguing that the law would pass the strict scrutiny standard if I argued it in front of the Supreme Court. There was another gentleman somewhere in the mix who ended up calling me the scum of the earth because I am apparently discriminating against the poor by suggesting that this law is not only constitutional, but perhaps isn’t so bad.

First, I’m going to give you guys some required reading (all links open in a new tab):

Alabama Legislators Consider Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

Welfare Drug Test Results Preditable

Law Makers Ideas To Drug Test Welfare Recipients May Face Legal Hurdles

Drug Testing the Poor: Bad Policy, Worse Law

Now that you’ve hopefully read all my required reading, you have a somewhat educated opinion of where this debate is headed. Now, pick one of these two questions to answer:

Do you support laws that require people to be screened for drugs before going on welfare?

Do you think such laws are constitutional or not?

I will respond to everyone who comments in the comments with my own counter argument, even if I don’t believe what I’m saying, and tomorrow morning, I will post my real view on the issue.

sobota

as to the first question, of course i don’t think welfare recipients should be drug tested; the rates of drug use within the welfare recipient population is low and it isn’t as if your drug dealer will accept your EBT cards or food stamps. it’s another way the poor are treated like crap.
- http://www.howmanyfrogs.com/ Stephanie
  
  Okay Sobata,
  
  Question then, to receive unemployment benefits you need to prove you out there looking for a job. Would it be unfair to require unemployment to drug test since most employers do drug testing before you can be hired? It’s basically like saying you are being prepared to be employed – much like sending out resumes.
  
  Also, drug dealers do not take EBT cards – the argument is that some people on welfare still have jobs and are using the EBT cards to pay for their food/rent and then spending their cash on the drugs.
  
  And finally, rates for drug users among the population of welfare users is the same as rates of people who are non-welfare users (see required reading) the difference is non-welfare users are not asking for what amounts to cash from the state.
  - sobota
    
    so the state can tell you what you’re using your own cash for? as long as they’re not using their EBT or food stamps fraudulently, why should the state CARE what they’re using their cash for?
    
    That happens to be Florida’s experience so far. A Florida television station, WFTV, reported that of the first 40 applicants tested, only two came up positive, and one of those was appealing. The state stands to save less than $240 a month if it denies benefits to the two applicants, but it had to pay $1,140 to the applicants who tested negative. The state will also have to spend considerably more to defend the policy in court.
    
    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2090871,00.html#ixzz1WiZ52WT5
    
    there is no cost benefit to save the less than 300$ a month, at least in florida. not even mentioning how much this would actually cost each state to implement, and then to defend themselves against appeals.
    
    once again, this is basically certain governments punishing people for being poor, and treating them as beggars.
    
    and in before: the jobs are out there! they’re not looking hard enough!
    
    tell that to the mother of four who works three jobs and STILL is under the poverty level. how many jobs should she have? six? ten?
    - http://www.howmanyfrogs.com/ Stephanie
      
      Okay, I agree with you that the cost aspect sucks.
      
      Another question: What do you think of a system similar to New York, which requires drug testing to get benefits, and if you test positive you are required to attend counseling as well as the state pays your rent directly and buys your food directly?
      - sobota
        
        well if ny has the budget to do that, then why not? rehab is better than punishment in drugs abuse cases.
  - sobota
    
    reading the required reading? 1140$ for 38 people is THIRTY DOLLARS per person. so 30$ per week to feed a family?
    
    can you feed yourself on 30$ a week, stephanie?
    - http://www.howmanyfrogs.com/ Stephanie
      
      I’ve fed myself on less than $30 a week for many weeks when I needed to. I’m going to go ahead and remind you that when I was making only $20,000 a year but the cheapest place I could get was $600 a month, I did a lot of creative financing because I didn’t qualify for food stamps or anything.
      - sobota
        
        feeding YOURSELF, that’s brilliant. now be a single mum with kids and then get back to me on 30$ a week.
        
        http://www.howmanyfrogs.com/ Stephanie
        
        I said less than $30 – I’ve done it on $5. Of course, you can’t eat healthy on that little amount of money. But that’s not the point, the point is, if that single mother needs that money, why shouldn’t she have to follow the laws of the country to get that money?
        
        sobota
        
        and like i said, she’s not using the money from the state to do drugs; it’s not possible to do that. if the rule was “anyone with a driver’s license has to submit to drugs testing every month to be allowed to use the road”, would we be having this argument?
        
        and yes, it’s comparable; your license and the roads you drive on are tax-funded, public run things.
  - Tab
    
    Many jobs producing a paycheck require a drug test with application, and the possibility of randoms. Why should the government, or the people (paying for benefits) have to grant paychecks, or free money, without the same standard. ?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=642319189 Scott Coldwell on Facebook

The statement “the rates of drug use within the welfare recipient population is low” should be backed up by some statistic. Oh, they’re not drug tested so how would there be any statistics. SMH
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=619785857 Laura Church on Facebook

No, I don’t agree with this idea. It sounds like something our joke of a Prime Minister would suggest in order to satisfy the “little Englander” middle class’ lust for a fascist government which persecutes those worse off than themselves.
- http://www.howmanyfrogs.com/ Stephanie
  
  Laura – how is persecuting? It’s basically saying that if you are asking for state money, that you should not be doing drugs, which are in fact illegal. It’s similar to the fact that people who have any kind of convictions are required to get random drug tests to stay on welfare – only it’s prescreening them.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=619785857 Laura Church on Facebook

Who am I to begrudge some poor fucker a joint to get them through the working day? Booze and fags are legal but just as harmful, if not more so. If someone is willing to turn up and do the job required of them with no fuss, I don’t care if they are getting high in their free time. It is no different from getting drunk. Anyway, I believe all drugs should be legalised so… yeah.
- http://www.howmanyfrogs.com/ Stephanie
  
  I agree with you that drugs should be legalized – but right now they aren’t. ONE FIGHT AT A TIME LAURA.
  
  And it’s not your decision to on if they do it or not – it’s the state decision if they want to give them your tax dollars knowing they are doing illegal activities.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=5105246 Matthew Dorman on Facebook

I am currently working as a mental health counselor in addictions just to give some background. I’m not gonna bring up the stats of welfare and drug use because I’m too lazy to get them, but from what I’ve seen they are low. Secondly, it’s not even important to the discussion. What needs to be measured is what happens if you deny those who are on substances the assistance.

People think that money ends up being saved. You’re taking away a life necessity from desperate people. What happens when the desperate become even more desperate? Increases in crime. Everyday I see families struggling to hold it together. Somehow we think that we can just throw these people away and all will be well. I get to see what happens to people who are “thrown away” everyday. Financially, we pay more when we decide to not help.
- http://www.howmanyfrogs.com/ Stephanie
  
  Okay Matthew, well thought out response.
  
  What do you think of a system similar to New York, which requires drug testing to get benefits, and if you test positive you are required to attend counseling as well as the state pays your rent directly and buys your food directly?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=619785857 Laura Church on Facebook

Well, I don’t mind giving them tax pounds tbh. We give our mega-rich morally-questionable tax loopholes and we recently had many rich MPs claiming illegal expenses but nothing happened to them. Some things are rightly illegal because they hurt other people, like rape and murder. I don’t see any justification for drug use being illegal, so it doesn’t concern me if people do it while looking for a job. Also if people want drug users to be prosecuted, they should campaign for the famous and white-collar cokeheads to be arrested and not just the average bloke on the street.
- http://www.howmanyfrogs.com/ Stephanie
  
  Damn you and your good arguments Laura – it’s hard to argue this when I’m with you that drugs should be legal. You make a compelling argument as well that the rich and famous often get away with doing drugs while the lower class does not. Unfortunate fact but true. I will say though, that even with their tax loopholes, the majorly rich still pay the majority of taxes in any given country. (I think I remember reading something like 70% of America’s income on tax is paid by the top 15% of people.)
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=619785857 Laura Church on Facebook

Also I love debating with you, Stepeenie. Strong and clever women get me excited.
- http://www.howmanyfrogs.com/ Stephanie
  
  I love debating with you too Laura Ainsley would be proud of us!!!
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=677057022 John Reichart on Facebook

Florida spent $1140 to reimburse negative test results, but saved $5760 on the two applicants that tested positive ($480/month for 1 year, the waiting period until they are eligible to reapply). Not bad.
- sobota
  
  uhm, that’s NOT 1140$ per person, that’s for the entire group. you GET 120$ a month in florida. that’s 30$ a week per person.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=677057022 John Reichart on Facebook

Plus, I’m pretty sure that welfare is not constitutionally guaranteed, and has in place criteria that need to be met in order to receive it (income, ability to work, number of children and dependents etc). Why not add drug free to the list? (and, I’ll say it, alcoholics shouldn’t get welfare either). Or maybe just do away with welfare altogether? That way nobody can bitch about not being able to get free money that someone else had to work for. Welfare is not a right, it’s a privilege.
- sobota
  
  oh yeah, it’s SUCH a privilege to be so poor not to be able to afford to feed your family. wow, WHAT A DREAM.
sobota

okay, so, here’s florida’s thought process here:

we won’t give you EBT/food stamps/welfare because you’re on drugs, but we also won’t give you rehab so you spend a year not being able to help your family out and also possibly on drugs. and of course, you don’t have medical insurance and medicaid doesn’t pay for rehab, so…good luck!

maybe enough people on welfare will starve or get imprisoned so we don’t have to worry about giving out welfare!
http://opticynicism.wordpress.com Eric

You’re damn right I’ll support laws that require drug testing for welfare recipients. If it is constitutional for me to have to take a drug test for the JOB I have to get so you can have your welfare out of the taxes I have to pay, then you can damn sure take the drug test to get it.

Yeah, poor people ARE treated like crap by the government, in all kinds of ways, but THIS isn’t one of them, because at the moment you aren’t being drug tested to receive benefits while people that are working are, not just to get the job, but in many cases, randomly after they have it.

In the event anyone is wondering what my situation is, let me clear it up . . . . I am unemployed because I was laid off. For the last 3 months I have had to submit proof that I have been looking for work in order to receive unemployment benefits, and guess what, I was STILL denied the benefits! I got nothing. It’s supposed to be there to help people like me who were caught in a bad economy and let go from a business that couldn’t afford to keep us and give us something to lean on while we honestly search for work . . . yet I still get nothing, while people who know how to abuse the system and lay around not doing shit still collect.

Tried to collect welfare too, but when I lost my job I moved to stay with my parents while I tried to recover, and I was denied that as well because I have to report THEIR income . . . and they are retired! In order to qualify, I actually have to put myself in a situation that will make me homeless.

I am 42 years old and I have worked my ENTIRE life up to this point. I have had a job since I was 16 years old and I’ve NEVER gone without work before. I am simply a victim of a struggling economy. It was humiliating for me to have to apply for these things and DOUBLY humiliating to get turned down for them after having spent my whole life putting in to this system. I am a veteran of the US Marine Corps, and this system has turned it’s back on me.

So you tell me what’s fair? If all I had to do was pass a drug test, I’d be the first dude in the line to take it.

The ONLY people that should be bitching about having to take a drug test to get welfare, are drug addicts. If you don’t fall into that category, pee in the damn cup and shut up.

Signed,

I’m fucking poor too, deal with it
Em

First, I’d like to go on record as saying I don’t believe in drug testing for jobs that don’t have public welfare at stake. (Nurses, doctors, pilots, bus drivers and so forth, yes, drug testing should be required. Someone who gets paid to type or make music or make a cup of coffee or a zillion other jobs that don’t include public safety? No. It’s a privacy issue. And I am in support of personal privacy, though it is fast disappearing.
Second, drug testing is not at all accurate. In fact, the possibility of a false positive is incredibly high. (5 to 10 percent) it’s very easy to label someone a drug abuser who isn’t one at all. Statistically, those are incredibly high numbers. The type of numbers that make a statistician shake their heads and declare worthless any test that has that large an error rate. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/01/health/webmd/main6537635.shtml
Third, we are being easily led astray by looking at whipping dogs. This strikes me as yet another whipping dog. Let’s not look at the money the state could get from corporations – who are now protected by ‘personhood’ among other things put in to place in the last 20 years, the very, very rich – I pay more taxes by percentage than anyone who makes $200,000 a year or more or ending a war we can’t afford. Let’s instead look at a population that’s unpopular with everyone and go after them. This argument leads people away from the more viable ways to create tax monies. (Though very unpopular with the people with the money to create and influence public opinion.)
Finally, preliminary results of a recent study showed that 85% of drug and alcohol addicts were survivors of childhood abuse and/or neglect. Let that number sink in for a minute because it’s an enormous number. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213482900813
So we fail our children by not protecting them from abuse and then we fail them again by not offering treatment and care when they try to find a way to survive. Who are we and who do we want to be as a nation? Because if we want to be compassionate people who are trying to help our poorest, those with the worst possible breaks in life, the neglected, the abused, then we are failing miserably and this is yet another way for us to fail. Do you have a whip in your hand and are you heading with it toward an already kicked and beaten dog or not? Who exactly do you want to be?
- http://www.howmanyfrogs.com/ Stephanie
  
  Em,
  
  I actually agree with every single one of your points that you brought up. However, I’m going to go ahead and argue that the majority of people who are on welfare are not the lowest of the low, the ones who got the worst possible breaks. Go ahead and take a look at this report which describes people living below the poverty line in the United States:
  
  http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america
  
  (I know it’s from Heritage, but it’s the first report I found that had the stats I remember reading about from another source.)
  
  Most studies find that families rarely depend exclusively on welfare income; instead they use it to supplement their income, especially during lean times. If the study above is true – and most studies find that they are using welfare to stretch the money they already have (instead of say for instance selling their car) then why shouldn’t the government drug test. The lowest of the low, the ones who had the worst breaks are probably already in the criminal system by this point (sad to say – and I don’t agree with it, but it’s probably true). If all of this is the case, how is drug testing for money you want rather than necessarily need a bad thing?
  - Em
    
    I’m sorry, but anything from Heritage is going to be incredibly biased and I made an effort not to give you biased sources. I won’t bother going to read their report because I have no faith nor trust in an organization that has a political agenda. It’s far too easy to manipulate data.
    How is this money people want rather than need? You suggest they sell their cars!? Many, many places have little to no public transportation and living without a car is impossible. I’ve lived in those places and a car was no luxury, believe me. As far as people working, if 1 out of 6 people worked at least part time, which they did according to the US Census, and are still eligible for welfare programs, that means they are either at least at 130% of the poverty rate. The current poverty rate isn’t that cushy $20 grand you were making. It’s currently $10, 890. Close to half of your $20,000. To qualify, a person has to be at 130% of the poverty rate, or for a single person we’re talking about $14,088 gross a year. And realize that that poverty rate is the highest it’s been since 1997. (Meaning that you have to be poorer today than in 1997 to be considered poor at all.)
    One fourth of the people using these programs are children under the age of 18. Our government has changed the definitions for food insecurity and eliminated completely references to hunger which I find disturbing. So even the terms have changed. Most people using our “welfare” system use it for food. And that’s so they aren’t going hungry. Not so they can spend their time buying diamonds and playing the stock market. At $14 grand gross, you’re trying to figure out how to keep the lights on.
    Finally, this is up there in completely stupid as far as a way to control costs. We will pay for poor nutrition in unpaid for emergency room visits and medical costs if we don’t feed people who need that help. That should be self-evident.
    Why not put the blame where it really belongs? People who qualify for welfare programs that have been tightened under both Bush II and Clinton and who are working are obviously not making a living wage. Why not make businesses pay their employees enough to afford food, shelter and medical care? Why not keep more jobs in the US and make it costly to send them overseas, so people who want and need work can work and pay taxes? Why not tax the daylights out of imports and make it cost a great deal of money for corporations to outsource jobs overseas? It seems a fairly simple equation to me.
    
    http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_S1703&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_
    http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm
    http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm#income
    - http://www.howmanyfrogs.com/ Stephanie
      
      Actually, my $20 grand was for a family using welfare:
      
      In 2009, in the United States of America, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was US$11,161; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$21,756.
      http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html
      
      Even the link you provided for the foodstamp program proves my point. For instance, the gross monthly income for a family of four after deductions to receive food stamps is $2,389. The net income is $1,838. Assuming the family lives in a rural area like you suggest, they probably pay something like $700 in rent/mortgage which leaves them roughly $1,000 on other expenses. Yes – the cost of living is high, but do you absolutely NEED a TV and cable in your house? Do you NEED a laptop? Do you NEED two cars? Now, a family living in a city setting like I live in could not make it on that $2,389 unless they lived in a one bedroom apartment, and even that is stretching it because you are going to pay $1,000 for that.
      
      So, you give them $200 a month in food stamps, that frees up that $200 out of that $1000 to buy material goods like a TV, or a laptop. Or even better, how about things like air conditioning – you pay $200 a month in electricity in the summer when 30 years ago only 20% of households actually had air conditioning. What happened to opening the windows?
      
      The truth is, many people who live in poverty in America do so much, much, much more comfortably than people who live in poverty in other areas. And considering that, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for a drug test.
      - sobota
        
        So poor people aren’t allowed to have any sort of pleasures or entertainment? And a mother with school-age children shouldn’t have a computer so her students can do homework from home, or check their grades? And a refrigerator is just “extra”?
        
        Right then. Stephanie, I think you have a really lucky life but I want you to really think about your privileges.
        
        http://www.howmanyfrogs.com/ Stephanie
        
        When did I say they weren’t allowed to fun? And more to the point, why does entertainment have to cost money? When I was a kid everything I did was more or less free. It doesn’t cost anything to build a treehouse or hang out down by the river. Actually, a free bike you find on craigslist provides a summers worth of entertainment.
        
        And about the airconditioning – I have airconditioning because I can afford it, but you can bet your sweet ass if I made $20,000 a year it would be one of the first things to go. Just because it’s available doesn’t mean I’m entitled to it.
      - sobota
        
        And I want you to not use your air conditioning when the temperature for the day plus humidity is over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Seriously? Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that opening a window is okay when people DIE every year from heat stroke, and they’re the poor and elderly who can’t afford a window air-con unit? You don’t think they opened a bloody window?
sobota

lol lol lol lol

WHEN I WAS A KID, EVERYTHING WAS SO MUCH BETTER. POOR PEOPLE KNEW THEIR PLACE.

when you were a kid, your dollar meant more. and parents have about a thousand reasons why they don’t want their children doing the things you did as a kid, or, alternately, don’t have the opportunities to do so.

childcare costs, longer working hours, and general cultural differences mean parents can’t just let their children run willy-nilly around town, no matter how much we want to.

and guess what? my mum made less than 15,000$ a year when she first came to america, right up until i was 12 years old, and you better bloody believe we had airconditioning, because sometimes it’s bloody necessary.

i’m sorry. you are completely and utterly blind to what it means to be poor in america. and if you think that the statement “oh but being poor is so much worse elsewhere” will cut it, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

you’re actually saying that poor people should not get any opportunity to change their position. this is what it’s boiling down to. nothing you have said so far has convinced me otherwise.

people don’t want to be on welfare, they don’t want to live in housing projects, people don’t want to be treated like shit. this is what america is doing today.
- http://www.howmanyfrogs.com/ Stephanie
  
  When I was a kid, I wasn’t poor because my parents waited until they were more or less financially stable to have me. They understood where they wanted to be in life and worked to have it. When my mother was a child, she was poor – a poor military family that bounced from house to house, eviction after eviction and she never went to college because she couldn’t afford it. My dad, not so poor – but not fabulously wealthy either.
  
  I know what poverty in America is, I’ve volunteered at the inner city schools, and I’ve rebuilt houses for people with Habitat for Humanity. I’ve spent my time and money on projects and volunteer events to better their situations.
  
  The reality of the situation is that the poor are the poor. They will always be there for whatever reason – there will always be a class separation because not everyone can be middle class or better. I’m not denying them help, I’m saying that perhaps it’s not such a bad idea to make sure that they following my the legal rules while we give them help.
  
  I’m not saying they shouldn’t have the opportunity to better themselves. I’m saying they should play by the rules that the government set forth in order to help better themselves.
  
  I’m not even saying to get rid of welfare – it exists for a reason. I’m not even saying there are people out there who don’t need help – I’m saying that to get help, you have to HELP YOURSELF too. And if helping yourself too is submitting a drug test, what’s the problem unless you are on drugs.
  
  And I’m sorry, but you have a anger issue towards this that you aren’t thinking rationally and feel you need to attack me, but if you really want to do go toe to toe on this subject you should talk to Zack because he thinks the same as I do and lets just say that he could match you on everything you say you went through.
  - sobota
    
    I grew up in a military family as well. And I wasn’t poor. And my mum was already out of university–the reason she had a poorly paid job is because she was a LEGAL immigrant coming from Germany and the US at the time didn’t accept her diplomas, so she had to start from the bottom up, and did.
    
    Please, assume more about my life.
    
    Stephanie, there really is no reason for there to be the sort of poverty that is popping up in America. The fact is that we’re kicking them because they don’t have a voice. Sure, let’s get rid of minimum wage laws; sure, let’s make people jump through a million hoops for a pittance; sure, let’s put them in poor built housing miles from anywhere.
    
    I’m not angry. I’m sort of sad that people care so little about people.
  - sobota
    
    Shouldn’t the option be “if you are on drugs, we will offer rehab for you” not “we’re going to take away the money you could use to feed your family and oh, by the way, not help you”.
- Em
  
  Blast. I answered this once already and lost it. So, one more time:
  
  Thank you, Sobota.
  
  I wonder if heat is considered optional too? Because that’s hard to afford.
  
  I’ve been this poor and I didn’t have much fun. I didn’t end up in jail though, so there’s that. Poor and honest! And I did have a computer and I did use it with my son for his homework and so he could compete with the well-off kids and guess what? He got an academic scholarship to college.
  
  But once upon a time, his momma skipped so meals so I could buy the poster boards required for his science project ($7) and once upon a time, I bicycled to work at a laundry mat in the snow so I could pay for rent and bargain for heat. And once upon a time I had to take food from food banks and then go through the food I got because people donate dented and out of date cans and I wasn’t all that interested in food poisoning for my little family, even if I was poor. And sometimes I even fed a child in the neighborhood whose family had even less than we did.
  
  But I suspect that Stephanie hasn’t had to do without much at any time in her life, or she wouldn’t be talking this way.
  
  Spend a winter working at a laundry mat and biking back and forth to it in the snow, Steph, and then talk to me. Right now I have to agree with Sobota that a lot of your arguments sound like nothing but privilege.
  
  And it saddens me too. I’m so worried about our world and the closing of hearts and lack of compassion I see. It heartens me to have someone like you in the world, Sobota. Thank you.
  - sobota
    
    Oh but Em, you could have just gotten two other jobs, and did you really need that bike? Walking is free!
    
    Thanks for your comment. I’ve basically given up here, and most everywhere, because I’ve been told that I care too much about things I cannot possibly change.
    - Em
      
      I’m done here as well. But I’m grateful you were here.
http://Bodaciousboomer.com Bodaciousboomer

I can see some merit in the plan from NY. At least they’d have a safe place to live, have food and receive therapy. And that would only start after they failed a drug test. Seems like a good compromise to me.
Erica

No, it costs too much in tax money to administer the drug tests, and drug tests are unreliable at best. Only about 2% of the recipients have tested positive on the drug tests. The amount of tax dollars saved in withholding their benefits does not even come close to the amount it costs to administer the drug tests.
http://www.therebelchick.com Rebel Chick Jenn

I live in Florida, where this law was recently passed…there are a lot of hard-working employed people in favor of this law and many welfare recipients who are quite dismayed.
If I am required to take a drug test to get a job working for the county – or any job, really – why should they be given my tax money without a drug test?
Right or wrong, that is my personal opinion. I was actually going to blog about this but my husband was afraid he would get into trouble at work. LOL
- http://www.howmanyfrogs.com/ Stephanie
  
  I’m glad that I could provide you a place to sound off, but I would have loved to read your blog post on this.
Candice

we were discussing this subject today i my drug and alcohol outpatient program and almost everyone agreed that 90 percent of the people we know on welfare benefits are getting high with the cash they get or what they get from selling food stamps….im not discriminating because i use to collect welfare and get high with my benifts…im just being honest. I think that they should have administered drug tests years ago…if i was forced off my benefits i would have been forced to get a job and clean up my act alot sooner then i did. On the other hand i live in chester pa a town that with the majority of the population are collecting welfare..on drugs…living in poverty will probably go nuts if there only means of getting high is terminated because of failing a drug test. I am scared of how people will react and lash out….. I defenetly dont want to be here in this town when and if the drug tests happen
Tab

I’ve also come across numerous women who get pregnant on purpose, in order to receive more aid- I don’t see a reason for people to even end up with 3-4-5-6 kids (to bitch about) when birth control is FREE. ??
Jodi

Have to say I agree with testing if the costs are brought into line, thought my working life I had to take drug tests to get the job, as well as drug tests at random periods whilst in employment.

And as for drug tests only being justified when public safety is at risk, what about company image, which puts the company and your co workers jobs in risk.

Regardless of your profession it only takes one negative bit of press to get out about a companies employees being drug users and it all spirals out of control.

Forget rehab and an increase in crime rates for a moment, the fundermental fact is no one forced you to take ILLEGAL drugs, what ever your view on weather they should be or not. You can not pick the laws you wish to follow.

You broke the law, and if your now an addict you only have yourself to blame, and as for the I need it to get through the day excuse their are plenty of people who have a lot worse time, and do not turn to illegal drugs.

Yes tax loopholes are wrong and maybe the rich CEO’s should help more, but they also keep 1000′s of people in jobs who also give something back in taxes.

So to sum up my point I guess if you break the law and are continuing to break the law why should other people who live by the letter of the law support you, when you can not help yourself.

So drug testing is good with me.
carroll

i completly agree with drug testing for welfare . if you have to be drug tested for work then you should be drug tested for welfare. I am in college and make 400 dollars a month . i have a ten month old son and every sememster I am denied chilcare assistance . apparently making 400 dollars is making to much money . my son’s daycare is 680 a month (do the math) then i got food , gas, ect. but then i have neighbors that do nothing but sit at home all day, do drugs and get assistance. how do i know they do drugs? because there house gets raided every other week. how do i know they get assistance ? because ill see them at the dhs place or stores using there ebt card. its UNFAIR . People need to quit using the system and Let the people who need a little bit of help get it .