States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

CHARLESTON, W.Va. Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs. Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

[CJOHNNY]

Now , what are they gonna do if one is positive for drugs? Cut their welfare. I'll believe that when I see it.

[SISTERSEVEN]

This is a bunch of crock!! Talk about violation of someones rights. And he says " Noone is forced into accepting benefits", Yes, they are, our idiotic goverment has forced most of our nation into needing assistance now!! I agree though, this will never come about, Thank Goodness!

[Nurse]

Great idea! And, I sincerely hope that benefits are immediately stopped for anyone testing positive.

[Mtnbred]

Well, they test us when we get a job. Same difference.

[rebel to the last]

if a welfare recipient can afford to buy drugs to abuse their body, they dont need welfare from govt. how hard is that to understand.

[Jim Greenwood]

IMHO, it's a great idea!
"A violation of someones rights"?
What about the "rights" of those with a history of steady employment that aren't allowed to smoke a joint on their vacation/off days because a positive random test the following week would be grounds for termination?
In the larger metropolitian areas it's well known that "activity" in the vicinity of liquor stores and known drug-dealing areas increases with the arrival of welfare checks.
I'll need irrefutable proof before I subscribe to the theory that the govt. has "forced most of our nation into needing assistance".
"Generational welfare" recipients are all too common. I say break out the urinalysis kits!

[Dionysis]

In spite of the rah-rah from those that evidently don't like the U.S. Constitution, these attempts will never pass judicial muster. The courts have ruled on this type of thing before. If welfare or other assistance receivers have a record of drug abuse, they could likely be drug-tested as a condition of receiving assistance. To apply this randomly to anyone, regardless of their history, will not be upheld by the courts.

[Nurse]

Mtnbred wrote:

Well, they test us when we get a job. Same difference.

Yes, they certainly do!

[seekingspring]

If they drug test and benefits are denied for a positive result, the government should be held liable for neglect of any children in the household that are not removed. The children should not be starved for their parents substance abuse/mental health issues. Get ready foster care, you're gonna be busy. I am sick of the punishment of the poor and ill in our community!

[Mtnbred]

seekingspring wrote:

.... I am sick of the punishment of the poor and ill in our community!

In you first sentence you state that 'if they test positive' and now talking about the 'punishment of the poor and the ill'.

The way I look at it, don't test positive for drugs. Wha-lah, problem solved. If they have kids, then they should be held responsible for their own actions, not the government.

Geessssh....just like holding down a job with a family---Don't test positive. That's a no brainer for people who take their responsibilities serious.

For the poor and the ill, I doubt they go out of their way to buy crack and iffin they do, then it's on their heads---not ours.

[hikerusa]

All 'Lawmakers' in all states and congress must be tested for drugs...must be high on something to propose such laws.

[Heartbroke]

I think they should drug test, we get out and work and can be drug tested so why should'nt they get drug tested for the money that we give them to live on. Not all welfare recepiants are drug addicts however if we did a pol and they we're honest I bet at least 8 out of 10 do drugs.I don't think we should give money so they can spend it on drugs.I think it comes up positive then they should have to do something about it or lose their benefits. However, thats just my me.

[I Question Authority]

If they test positive for drugs, the children are probably already being starved in order for the users to get their fix. Not many addicts make great parents. Most of the employers today require drug tests before hiring. I don't see how it can be going against someone's constitutional rights to test them for recieving benefits any more than it is to test working folks. I think this is a great idea and one that is overdue.

[I Question Authority]

Mtnbred wrote:

<quoted text>
In you first sentence you state that 'if they test positive' and now talking about the 'punishment of the poor and the ill'.
The way I look at it, don't test positive for drugs. Wha-lah, problem solved. If they have kids, then they should be held responsible for their own actions, not the government.
Geessssh....just like holding down a job with a family---Don't test positive. That's a no brainer for people who take their responsibilities serious.
For the poor and the ill, I doubt they go out of their way to buy crack and iffin they do, then it's on their heads---not ours.

Yeah! What you said!

[Observation]

SISTERSEVEN wrote:

This is a bunch of crock!!
Talk about violation of someones rights.

No one I know has a "right" to take illegal drugs

Besides,
if someone has enough money for drugs,
then they have enough money for food and rent

DRUG TESTS SHOULD BE MANDATORY FOR ANY PARASITE
LIVING OFF THE BACKS OF HONEST HARDWORKING TAXPAYERS

[winegal]

If you apply for a job these days..might as well figure on getting drug tested. And the company can come in at any time and do a random drug test. I see this as no difference as to what working people have to do to earn a check. Need a welfare check then get drug tested.

[Noobs]

This will probably lead to more class warfare and hostility. Just what we do NOT need.

[thirdtreelight]

It is NOT a constitutional right to use taxpayer's funds to pay for drug abuse/child abuse. If you are taking government money, you have to accept the responsibility of receiving that money. Welfare is NOT free money. The system was NEVER intended to be a lifetime payment, that is what caused all the problems to begin with. It was meant as a helping hand so the poor could get equal opportunities to get jobs, medical care, etc. when there is no other resource. People who are using it as if they have a right to it need to get real. I don't have to work to support you, and your drug habit. I don't need to support drug addicts that bring beautiful babies into this world and abuse them, and not raise them to be hard working well adjusted people. The government could just totally stop helping everyone because of the abuse and then where will the helpless and poor be? Drug addicts, you are done taking hard working people's money. I am not talking about people who justifiably need the assitance, I am talking to the abusive, lazy, low life drug addicts. If you have a medical reason, that is entirely a different thing than what this is about. This is about hard working citizens getting tired of the government taking their tax money and wasting it on abusers, and Hell YES, take away the kids, they don't deserve the abuse. Decent hard working people won't hurt a child because the mom/dad are addicts, but your womb/penis are not pry bars to our wallets either. You shouldn't be allowed to just have kids to draw a check. Sick. It's time for hard working, decent Americans to stand up for THEIR RIGHTS for a change.

[mystery logger]

I agree, lets have some random drug testing!!!!! Thats the biggest point you get a new job you get a drug test. And many employers have random drug tests.

[crazy horse]

SISTERSEVEN wrote:

This is a bunch of crock!! Talk about violation of someones rights. And he says " Noone is forced into accepting benefits", Yes, they are, our idiotic goverment has forced most of our nation into needing assistance now!! I agree though, this will never come about, Thank Goodness!

Sounds like someone already has a little drug problem. Probably on public assistance too. If you need help from me and the rest of us who are lucky enough to have a job what makes you think you have the right to get all bent out of shape when we want to know you not spending it on drugs.