posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:26 PM
What a great idea, taking away aid from people who need it most. If someone is spending their welfare check to pay for meth before food or shelter,
they're going to die soon anyway, regardless of where their money's coming from.
I don't agree with taking away aid from someone who needs it, even if they are a drug user. Are you telling me that none of you here on ATS have ever
smoked pot? You may say oh, it's not for people who buy pot -- it's for people who spend all of the money we give them through taxes on heroin or
crack. Well, drug tests include pot, and I don't think people who only test positive for marijuana will be given any breaks over people who test only
for, say, coc aine. Also, if someone were taking something like Ibprofen or Sudafed, they could fail a drug test. MANY legal substances produce
positive results on drug tests. I think the possibility of people testing positive for drug use when they actually AREN'T spending their welfare
check on illegal drugs is extremely high.
Also, drug tests aren't free. While money would potentially be saved by giving less of it to people who test positive for drug use, money is also
being spent on testing people in the first place. Let's say one out of fifteen people tests positive for some type of drug use - does that one
person's welfare check equate to the cost of fifteen drug tests? Do you know how much a drug test costs?
Furthermore, what do you think people who are using their welfare checks to buy drugs are going to do when that cash flow goes away? Do you think
they're going to quit trying to obtain a substance that they are physically addicted to, to the point of using money to buy drugs instead of food or
general improvement of life? Or do you think they'll get that money one way or another, whether by breaking into your car and pawning your stereo,
selling drugs, or whatever else results in instant cash? Do you think that giving people in poverty even LESS money is going to encourage them to
start playing by the rules? Or would it perhaps induce further desperation?
Have you ever met someone who was actually physically addicted to a drug? Do they seem happy to you? Do you think they enjoy giving away all they have
so they can feed an addiction? You think they WANT to be addicted to a drug? Do you think it's easy to quit once you're physically addicted to
something? You realize that once you're actually physically addicted to something, your body NEEDS that drug, or you'll get sick, possibly even die,
No, I don't think the answer is to take away help from people who need it the most. You may think drug addicts are lazy and don't deserve help. I
think drug addicts are people too, people who actually do need help. I do not think someone who is addicted to drugs is beneath me. We are all human.
Yes, it's DUMB to do drugs that are addictive. However, in poverty, drugs are a.) all around you, wherever you go and b.) one of the only ways to
make enough money to make a substantial difference in your life. Do you think someone with no money is going to get on his feet by working an honest
job? How many jobs are there in the inner city where you live? What if you had two options:
1.) Work some #ty job most of the day almost every day and barely make enough to get by or
2.) Put a few hours into dealing drugs a few times a week and make enough money to pay all your bills for the next month
Which would you go with? Honestly? Staying away from drugs in the poverty class, much less any social class, is difficult enough as it is. So let's
make things even harder, eh?
If you WERE to drug test people for welfare, and they tested positive, and it was determined they were addicted to drugs, the money from their check
should be put towards rehab, not taken away for a year to be spent on... what? It's not like you'd get that money back. It's not like you'll pay
Don't be so hasty to label people. Further separation of the people isn't what we need.