It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why can't we require drug tests in order to draw welfare?

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:52 AM
Oh and to all you saying drug tests should be mandatory for people on welfare, I hope you don't mind stepping over the starving poor drug addicts in the street, I hope you don't mind dealing with the crazed addict that has broken into your home to steal your valuables, I hope you don't mind dealing with the young girls whoring themselves out so they can afford another hit, I hope you don't mind letting go of your memories of that family member or friend who gives way to drug addiction and homeless, I hope you don't mind getting sticked in the street for what little money you have on you, oh thats right you already don't mind.

How about we figure out how to stop people from becoming drug addicts and getting on welfare in the first place? Instead of stopping people from getting welfare because their drug addicts. Although that would mean taking a good, long, hard look at ourselves and why society has failed these people.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by blahdiblah]

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:07 AM

Originally posted by MegaTherion
also, something someone else said about australia is true of USA as well:

mostly it's Drunks abusing welfare, not drug addicts.

so you need alcohol tests, not drug tests, then.


I love how you have been conditioned to believe that drugs and alcohol are somehow different.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:40 AM
OP- It seems it's a matter of oversight and cost.
the federal govt ( much less state govt) would never spend the type of money and manpower on oversight of welfare distribution.

the cost would be astronomical.
testing offices must be built.. thousands of employees..etc.
it is not a small expense by any means.

all drug tests including "Hair tests" are extremely inaccurate, and could invite a HOST of legal issues, should a false positive put a nedy family in a serious position.

in theory it sound like a good Idea.... in practice it's just not feasable.

not to mention the whole alcohol issue ( most abused drug in the country, and legal, taxed and even used in the whitehouse by the politicians themselves).

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 08:34 AM

Originally posted by asmeone2
I think if you are going to ask for "help getting on your feet," you should be willing to make the comittment, and part number one of that is staying off of drugs.

I think you have a false premise. I don't buy into the argument that illegal mind-altering drugs have a net negative effect on people. Maybe a typical welfare recipient can have a happy "trip" every weekend and then go back to work Monday and function normally. Please present your evidence otherwise.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:21 AM

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
You just give it away that, you never made it in life, that your frustrated and angry, that your one step above welfare yourself, maybe you even have a home that you can barely afford, but only someone paycheck to paycheck sits and concerns themselves with what the poor are doing.

Bill gates gives Billions away to oher human beings, that's the mind set of success


With a billion dollars, that guy could give two thousand dollars to half of a million people and single handedly wipe out homelessness in this country.
Instead, he gives it to some, "organization" with three or four people paying for million dollar homes.
If he jumped on a bus and handed everybody on it a couple thousand dollars, those people would offer him prayers. Real prayers.

I understand your position though.
"Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves."
or in this case, "give them enough crack money and they will o.d."

I grew up in the system.
My parents were dirt poor, and as far as I can remember, they didn't even do any drugs. they were just lazy. and stupid. My mom had to ask me, when I was seven, how to spell things. And my dad would give you the shirt off his back if he saw that you were cold. I've seen him do it.
We lived in a dirt poor town in Ga. so as you can tell, I didn't learn too much.

As I grew older, my ignorance turned into anxiety and I made a ton of social and financial mistakes.

but I always worked (as a cattel I guess.) and now I am just one step above walefare myself. Even though that is not a real option for me.

Back to the thread, most people file a w-2 and a 1040 and never even notice their tax money being taken. They only notice the net.
But the self enployed landscapers, and computer programers, and nurses, that file a 1099, and send in a four thousand dollar check to the government every April 15th, definately notice.
And they would probably get a little pissed off if people started starving to death around them.

I think if the options were, smoke all of the dope you want and get no money, or lay off the dope and get money, a lot of the people, would lay off the dope. MONEY makes the world go around.

Restructuring the system would be expensive initially, but It should even out soon enough to make a positive difference.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by president]

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 10:27 AM
we get stamps in the amount of $650 a month and medicaid(full coverage). my wife is currently in her clinical phase of school to become an anesthesiologist. so she isn't getting paid for 16 months and i can't work because i have 3 kids to take care which is only 4. we don't believe in daycare so i'm not going to work. so the welfare really helps. btw...before all of this we both had jobs making about 90k between the 2 of us. ..but it's not like it allows you to just be a bum and have the benefits just roll while you do nothing. there are always other responsibilities. if the system is abused by some ppl i can live with it for the greater good that it does. if it wasn't for the school loans and scholarships this would happen. so welfare is good...and even when my wife is bringing in 300-400k a year we will think the same way...i thank the progressive movement for it...

better than spending money on wars...and corporations get more welfare than individuals anyways...

edit....forgot to mention...if they tested for drugs that would be retarded...unless we lived in some fascist state...oh wait...

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Freakaloin]

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 10:31 AM

With a billion dollars, that guy could give two thousand dollars to half of a million people and single handedly wipe out homelessness in this country.

how would giving someone 2,000 dollars keep them from being homeless?

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 10:35 AM

Originally posted by blahdiblah

I love how you have been conditioned to believe that drugs and alcohol are somehow different.

I don't think this guy's point was that alcohol and drugs are different, it's just that, you know, whiskey won't show up in urinalysis unless EXTREMELY recent, thus making it infinitely easy to get $h!tfaced every night and still get welfare, even with drug testing in place.

Believe the poster you responded to was suggesting putting measures in place to somehow prevent this loophole's presence.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 10:45 AM
I don't mind a person in need getting a little help getting back on their feet, or a working mom who's trying her best getting supplemental food stamps.

The reason why I find testing a good idea, and I have seen this from personal experience, is the fact the food stamp money meant for the kids is sometimes sold for drugs and alcohol

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:01 PM
I do believe there are mothers with a child or multiple children on welfare, and I think if at certain points in time it is needed then it should be available, but not for years and years at a time or permanently.

I also do not agree there should be drug testing, to be honest I do not really know anyone really on welfare or wic, but most of the times I see them using the cards they are either a new immigrant and maybe some other disadvantaged poor lady a child or maybe 2 hanging off her basket at the grocery store, and since I have seen them pull out the food stamp or wic coupon a lot of times the ones I saw do not appear to be on drugs they simply look like they are buying things for the children to eat, now maybe there are people on public assistance using drugs but I think that is a very small minority.

My beef a lot of times are the many people that outwardly appear well, do work around their home, hang out at the park all day and have some lame disability that they have somehow made up and fooled some federal agency, I'm not talking veterans or actual handicapped or certifiably mentally ill, but someone that is using medicaid or disability that could actually work at least part time, that are using public money as a means of support for themselves, many of these individuals have grown children or might be in their 30's 50's that figured out the easy way to sit at home, smoke blunts and get a check for some minor ailment that otherwise does not hinder their mobility or judgment to perform work of some sort.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:39 PM
This is truly an issue of cost to society and how much cost it can afford to bear with regards to an enormous increase in crime. This is debated frequently in Canada, with regards to the service to drug addicted individuals, and various attempts to deal with a problem, which by the way is created amongst our children and youths until it become generational, to fund black op projects. The cia is the drug dealers of North America. Most of the crimes, ranging from thefts, assualts, break and enters, and abuse (by the way), and the children in foster care, stem from drugs. Take the rug out from under these people, who need real help, and insure more can't afford shelter, and the crime will sky rocket with enormous amounts of break and enters, theft that will raise the costs of food, and violent assaults of all kind, not to mention the enormous costs of prison. Many will just keep throwing themselves in jail. Assistance is a small drop in the bucket compared to our legal system, the cost of jail and the cost of crime. Its a tiny drop in the bucket (in fact it needs to be raised) in regards to the 40,000 dollar price tag per child per year in foster care. What needs to be done is an awknowledgment of those with this problem and continued monitoring and treatment solutions. This is a really big area where being heartless will cost far more in the end.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by asmeone2
I'd like to pass along a thought.

Many jobs require random drug screens for their employees--if they do not pass, they lose the job. Most require them before hire, too.

Why can't our government require drug screens of people at the time that they apply for welfare, and at random intervals after they are accepted into the program?

I think if you are going to ask for "help getting on your feet," you should be willing to make the comittment, and part number one of that is staying off of drugs.

Because it is no one's business if I am on drugs. The fourth amendment gives me the right to privacy, so I have the right to say kiss my a##.

And I will NEVER work for an employer that drug tests. Until the day that they can prove that you were high at work, and not just using on your own time.

I use drugs all the time. I hope that that gets under your skin.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by mopusvindictus

THe problem I have with welfare is that it sets a poor social example. It tells people that they don't have to be motivated, they can depend on the system to support a mediocre existance at the expense of those who truly want to succeed.

This plays hand in hand with the drug-user mentality; I think an effort to separate them might go a long way to solve both problems.

One can claim an addiction as a disease, and be approved for disability. Sickening.

I do agree there. I have nothing but contempt for drug "addicts" figuring that the only drugs that are actually addictive, are any that are opiate based.

Everything else is simply human weakness.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:27 PM

Originally posted by styxxz

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I see the smiley and don't know if you're kidding or not... In case you are not... A bagel is BREAD.

Yep-yep, just kidding. Though bagels do costs more then a plain loaf of bread. Well at least in Aust they do, maybe not in the US. Dunno..

Well... I get bagels (day-old or older) at the local food pantry - so they cost me nothing. And yes. Many do have poppy seeds. So... If I was on Welfare and was drug tested, I might show up as being a "user of opiates," depending on what kind of bagels the pantry had to offer.

So you tell me why ANYONE should be drug tested.

Originally posted by styxxz
Drugs are bad mm'kay
Heh. Again, I don't know if you're serious

Of course, why else would I parody Mr. Mackie of South Park

LOL! Yeah, but there are those out there that might not realize what they typed could be seen as a parody of something. I figured it was done on purpose, but just to be sure... [grin]

One certain drug was cut from study by Reagan because all they could find was benefits, and THAT just wasn't what the government, who is using the War on (some people who use some) Drugs to bring the police state into our lives. (This drug in question can be homegrown and is considered a weed.)

Point taken, but there are many different drugs out there and mostly are bad for you. That includes some of the stuff the Doc dolls out too. Not gunna specify which. I probably should of said, most drugs are bad!!! m'kay lol

Oh, I agree that there are worse drugs. And I contend that not only are some of them prescription drugs, the WORST drugs out there are prescription drugs. (Long time ago, 60 Minutes, I think it was - one of those programs like that, anyway - did an expose on heroin and found that truly pure heroin had no OD level, and that what was killing users was the creppola the dealers cut the drug with to make more money. It also dispelled the notion that it damaged the body in any way. It merely created dependence - which a pure and legal source would address.)

Imo, drug testing the long-term unemployed should be considered. Not to punish them, rather to help 'em. Some people can't escape drug addiction on their own, so some tough love might be in order.

Ah, but how do you enforce the "love" part of that? It may, like so many initially well-intentioned efforts across the board, become the way to marginalize or otherwise discriminate against those who find themselves tested.

And as I pointed out, we have already slipped into the fascist fold because of the War on (some people who use some) Drugs, and any additional invasion into the lives of our people is another toe-hold for the NWO agenda.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:34 PM
One more thought relative to drugs... In theory we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Though some here are disgruntled by the ones who pursue happiness in drugs on their dime...why aren't they equally disgruntled by those who pursue happiness in the form of a full belly? (Yes, some here want to disband Welfare altogether, but many are not going that route and want to drug-test and castrate recipients...)

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Fourth, several of the "illegal" drugs are not just benign but good for you. I will not spell it out, for fear this will go RATS, but the primary one that is can be grown and starts with "M."

So basically, what you're trying to say is MARIJUANA, aka, weed, pot, 420 or whatever loser name that pot smokers come up with this time.

Come on, you can say it, man up a bit, because you're not all that clever.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Fourth, several of the "illegal" drugs are not just benign but good for you. I will not spell it out, for fear this will go RATS, but the primary one that is can be grown and starts with "M."

So basically, what you're trying to say is MARIJUANA, aka, weed, pot, 420 or whatever loser name that pot smokers come up with this time.

Come on, you can say it, man up a bit, because you're not all that clever.

Hey, dude. You can say it. I'm just not willing to risk having this thread thrown into RATS on my input.

Thanks for your astute evaluation of the point I made.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:58 PM
Dang, why hasn't this been made an issue before? Everyone I've ever known that is on welfare has either been a full blown meth/crystal user or heavy drinkers and or pot smokers. I swear to god, I've never met a sober person on welfare, and I have know a lot. My downstairs neighbors sit around all day, everyday smoking pot and drinking 40oz beer, it's sad because they have 2 kids that seem like they want to be better people but lately I've noticed them too have been hanging out with strange people.

By not enforcing sticter rules and restrictions among these people, they are only fueling this and encouraging it to continue and their kids imitate their lazy parents.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 02:19 PM
At first glance I think this is a good idea.

At least for welfare.

There are very few jobs which I think should require drug (inlcuding alcohol) testing. Specifically Surgeons and Pilots.

However, in order to get state funds for not having a job, you need to show proof of not being afflicted with personal choices which prevent you from actually acquiring a job.

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by mattguy404

People receiving government handouts on the taxpayers' dime have no right to complain about their civil liberties being "violated" as a consequence. If you ask me, nobody should be given welfare!

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in