Do you support or oppose laws that require those who sign up for welfare to take drug tests?
Personally I support such laws as welfare should be for those disabled or otherwise cannot take care of themselves or for those who genuinely look for work and can’t find them not addicts who funnel money to the drug cartels or drunks. As a sidenote I think it would be a good idea to forcibly institutionalzie those type of people-one of President Reagan’s few mistakes was his law releasing most of them into the streets.
Your get tough solution is counterproductive and expensive.
In your opinion you think we, as a nation, should be incarcerating *more *non violent people?
Also, a parent who does drugs still needs to feed her children. If we pay people to feed their children, occasional drug use doesn’t change the social problem we’re paying for in the first place.
I’m not saying we should jail addicts-I am opposed to that. But we shouldn’t give taxpayer money at them either. And those children if their parents happen to be addicts are unfit and thus should be taken away by social services.
It will cost you more in the long run to try and do this (and it’s stupid in any case), and, as Lobohan pointed out, addicts still have kids who still need food, clothing and shelter. You are trying to ‘solve’ a non-problem, and the solution will end up costing more than the problem did…and will have fairly unsavory results.
If you think drugs are a problem then treat the problem directly instead of trying this dippy back door crap.
I would say even if the costs ultimately are higher, the principle behind this counts also.
In addition I do support treating the problem directly by legalizing marijuana and cracking down on other drugs by stricter strengths on drug dealers and making membership in criminal groups a felony.
Ironically, most of your opponents to this idea are going to say the same thing…and, IMHO with better justification. Personally, I don’t give a fig about the principle of the thing…it will cost more, won’t work, be essentially a bureaucratic nightmare, and will make things worse.
Out of curiosity, what problem are you trying to solve here?
Not exactly what I meant by treating the problem, though legalization of all elicit drugs would certainly be a start. When you make something illegal you restrict treatment options and criminalize the behavior of a large percentage of the population…like setting a speed limit of 25 mph on a freeway. You can have your police focus on enforcing such a ridiculous law, but then you will be unable to watch for more serious crimes going on somewhere else, or you could use spot checks and random monitoring, but then you are going to have a lot of folks breaking that speed limit and just catching random people…or you could not make a law that you can’t effectively enforce and that it’s clear a large percentage of the population is going to ignore anyway.
A while back, there was a study on outcomes of the policy that banned addicts from getting subsidized housing if they were still using. They ended up on the streets, and they didn’t get clean.
One community decided they would not make absolute abstinence a requirement for housing. They later found that a significantly higher percentage of these folks were getting straight after moving off the street than were the folks who were living on the street. (I’ll track down the study ASAP since this is GD).
Alcohol and drugs cause great human misery. The war against drugs as waged causes even more human misery. Treatment that’s non-punitive is more effective and cheaper than jails, prisons, more police, more courts, more laws.
To show that welfare will only be given to the deserving.
[/QUOTE]
So legalize cocaine, heroin and other “hard drugs” too? And I only support jailing dealers by making it a crime to sell or distribute the drug not to consume it.
While I am opposed to such laws the recently passed one in Florida allows for the money to be collected by another adult on behalf of the children rather than giving the money to the parent on drugs.
Dunno how well that will work out but that is the plan.
You throw drunks in there at the end. What is a drunk? Any definition I can think of would be a user of legal drugs. So unless you are simply irrational I’m sure you’d agree that anybody who drinks any alchohol cannot receive welfare.
Also, you are under the misimpression that drug addicts funnel money to drug cartels. Sometimes several levels later the money ends up in the hands of drug cartels. Using your logic, gun manufacturers should be put out of business for funneling guns to drug cartels.
Also, you haven’t decribed anything like the people that Reagan forced out on the street as part of his almost unbroken record of mistakes. Those people were mentally ill. Apparently you would leave the mentally ill living under bridges while people who take drugs will be placed into full care facilities to save money on welfare.
So after analyzing your bizarre OP, I’d like to ask you a question. Are you taking drugs, or drinking, or mentally ill?
Classic welfare, as you are thinking of, has been gone since the Clinton Administration. Now it’s mainly aid for single moms with young kids, the disabled, etc. There is no more “Welfare” as the Pubbies rail on about. It is as dead as the Dodo.
HAMLET
(to POLONIUS) Good my lord, will you see the players well bestowed? Do you hear, let them be well used, for they are the abstract and brief chronicles of the time. After your death you were better have a bad epitaph than their ill report while you live.
POLONIUS
My lord, I will use them according to their desert.
HAMLET
God’s bodykins, man, much better. Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping? Use them after your own honor and dignity. The less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty. Take them in.
Welfare is for the needy. It is not a reward for moral turpitude. We give it out because they’re desperate and also, because we can afford it* and because it’s against our “honor and dignity” as a nation to allow our children to starve in the streets. Well, it used to be anyway. It used to be that people with money felt a responsibility to society at large and humanity in general to provide for the needy and improve our society’s honor in general. Now we’ve become so cheap and miserly that you’re proposing we spend $1000 dollars so that we can weasel out giving a hungry family $100.
Who are you to sit in judgement and decide who “deserves” to be able to feed their children or put a roof over their head? In what twisted religion is “judging the needy” more moral and worthwhile than “feeding the needy”?
Not only do I not support this pissant, mean, and useless proposal, I vote that any money appropriated for its implementation should be immediately put into the bank for Head Start and low cost birth control.
Absolutely against this for all the reasons listed, and because we have such a fundamental misunderstanding of addiction. It isn’t a moral failing any more than diabetes, and until people get that through their heads we won’t get anywhere with drug treatment in this country.
People taking the government money, unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc should be tested for drugs.
Why? People who take drugs are far less likely to be able to get off those programs and actually get a straight job. Those programs are not meant to be a lifestyle, they are meant to be a temporary help. If Mom wants her kids to eat and to stay out of social services, don’t do the crime.
I honestly don’t care if it’s more expensive, the government does a lot of things “for your own good”. I wouldn’t prosecute them or anything, and I’d probably try counselling/treatment before I’d cut off funds, but hell yes, drug test 'em.