Welfare recipients could be tested for illegal drugs
I see a few problems with this pending legislation (or possibly just the article). First, they rely on self-reporting in a survey to help untrained individuals decide if tests should be ordered. Second, although the article implies that a positive test will result in losing benefits, would a positive test be appealed?
I like the idea that money that people get from the government to help them live (food, shelter, etc.) should not be used for illegal substances. But I also think that it should not generally be used for some legal substances (alcohol). And I am aware that this is a slippery slope.
On the other hand, as a Libertarian, I don't like the idea of drug tests generally. But this is based upon receiving money from the government, and I am not enthusiastic about the way that particular program is administered.
What do you all think?
While I disagree with the whole welfare system, by accepting state support the recipients are giving up some of their personal liberty. If this was Ohio it would be my money the state is giving to the recipients and I would want to make sure that I was not supporting someone's drug habit.
If a recipient wants the government to stay out of their life, they could get a job.
I can see where this idea has a lot going for it and I'm sure they will at least try to clear up any gray areas.
The premise that by accepting government money you should be required to give up any of your rights or liberties is astoundingly arrogant and blatantly supportive of an even greater governmental control of our lives.
If you believe that in order to benefit from our government that we need invite it to monitor our very bodies then where do you draw the line. Shall we set up surveillance cameras in the bedroom if we get a pell grant? Should we expect to be drug tested to make sure that we won't spend our tax returns on illicit materials? Perhaps in order to travel the highways and byways of america we should be required to submit to breathalizer tests each and every time we want to fire up the family vehicle.
Almost everything we do is somehow financed in part or in its entirety by government funding. Why should we single out one segment of the population for this kind of orwellian treatment? What makes them such a valid target for infringment on thier rights, on thier very persons?
There but for the grace of god test I.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ September 17, 2004 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Pi?a ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I disagree with you.Originally posted by Pi?a:
The premise that by accepting government money you should be required to give up any of your rights or liberties is astoundingly arrogant and blatantly supportive of an even greater governmental control of our lives.
If you believe that in order to benefit from our government that we need invite it to monitor our very bodies then where do you draw the line. Shall we set up surveillance cameras in the bedroom if we get a pell grant? Should we expect to be drug tested to make sure that we won't spend our tax returns on illicit materials? Perhaps in order to travel the highways and byways of america we should be required to submit to breathalizer tests each and every time we want to fire up the family vehicle.
Almost everything we do is somehow financed in part or in its entirety by government funding. Why should we single out one segment of the population for this kind of orwellian treatment? What makes them such a valid target for infringment on thier rights, on thier very persons?
There but for the grace of god test I.
<font color="#000002"><font size="1">[ September 17, 2004 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Pi?a ]</font></font>
In order to receive any number of benefits from the government, we must submit to various tests to determine eligibility.
The military requires drug tests, and they are direct employees of the government. I see welfare recipients as employees of the government also since they are getting directly paid. I see no reason why they shouldn't submit to drug tests.
reason
Since all of us, in one way or the other, benefit from governmental programs should we then all be subjected to random, or not so random, drug testing on a routine basis?
If not, why not? If so, then how are we different from any other type of police state?
So you think the government should just openly subsidize drug abuse?
Are you sure that not wanting people on welfare to spend their welfare checks on drugs is "Orwellian"?
Hey maybe they should just cut out the middleman and have the government just get the illegal drugs for them. That'd be a real timesaver. [img]graemlins/hmmm.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/whatever.gif[/img] [img]confused.gif[/img]
CG
So since you feel it's the governments role to keep us from drug abuse then I suppose you are in favor of all beneficiaries of governmental programs be subjected to drug testing?
Oddly enough I can see the validity of both sides of this argument. While I do not approve of welfare recipients using the money to buy drugs, I also don't like to see money denied to US citizens (of any stripe) when we send billions of dollars to other countries no questions asked, no requirements to fulfill. If we suspended even 1/3 of the money we spend in "foreign aid" we could perhaps use it to address a number of problems in this country. America First...
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Was just thinking about this comment and I'd like to know just which benefit programs actually do require drug testing?Originally posted by reason:
I disagree with you.
In order to receive any number of benefits from the government, we must submit to various tests to determine eligibility.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The military is not a benefits program. It's an adventure [img]smile.gif[/img] . Supposedly the military tests for safety reasons and I can actually see that as a valid reason for requiring testing. There is a direct correlation between safety and drug use in that situation. I still don't think it's the best way to deal with the issue but I can see a logical rationale for it. Same with truck drivers. Safety.The military requires drug tests, and they are direct employees of the government. I see welfare recipients as employees of the government also since they are getting directly paid. I see no reason why they shouldn't submit to drug tests.
Benefit programs have no direct safety-drug use correlation so they are not comparable on that basis.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks