# Drug Tests For Welfare Recipients? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 21, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784 "2011-07-21T00:47:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/21 "2011-07-21T03:12:41Z")
The elderly are the biggest welfare queens in this country. They eat up tons of money via medicaid, medicare and SS. ---
**Author:** ![Indygrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@Indygrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indygrrl)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/22 "2011-07-21T03:18:24Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > 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. You think children are better off in the terrible foster care system than with their parents who love them, but happen to have a drug problem? Clearly you aren’t familiar with the concept of functional addicts, which is a category most addicts fall into. You can be addicted to drugs and still be a good parent. Hell, even if they were only borderline acceptable parents they’ll still take better care of their kids than “the system” would. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/23 "2011-07-21T03:19:47Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > 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. I meant alcoholics, not anyone who ever drinks. > [@](#): > > 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. No both of those groups should be institutionalzied or at least treated. > [@DrDeth](#): > > 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. > > [Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_Reform_Act_of_1996) There is still state welfare. > [@Merneith](#): > > 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. > > - Yes, we can. Especially if everyone chips in. Simply throwing money at addicts will hurt them more. If we truly cared for them we would treat them physically, mentally, and spiritually. > [@Indygrrl](#): > > 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. That’s why addicts should be treated not given money, that won’t help them at all. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/24 "2011-07-21T03:26:15Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > 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. Drug tests, alcohol tests, check for steroids, make sure they are not overweight, check their high school transcripts, check out all their family members for bad genes, yep do them all . These people obviously have given up all their rights and dignity. Sic them when they are down. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/25 "2011-07-21T03:28:26Z")
I’m opposed. I don’t see any valid government purpose being served by such a policy. If people have a valid need for welfare, they still have it regardless of whether or not they’re on drugs. If you feel people who are receiving welfare don’t have a valid need, it’s a separate issue that doesn’t involve drugs. What are you going to do about a single mother who’s a drug user? Are you going to let her child go hungry because she’s afraid to face a drug test? Are you going to test people who receive Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid? Unemployment and disability insurance? Farm subsidies and disaster relief? You going to make everyone submit a urine specimen before you give them a check? Or are you only going to test the people who receive the bad kind of government assistance? As far as an issue of curtailing drug use, I say let law enforcement enforce laws. There’s no legal justification of doing a major sweep of an entire category of people just because we can. Drug tests cost money - a decent drug test costs about fifty dollars. And that’s not counting all of the extra people you’re going to have to hire to administer these tests. And the police, court, and prison resources you’re going to need for the drug users you catch. A lot of welfare is handled by the states. What are you going to do about those states that don’t want the added expense of drug testing (or the expense of dealing with newfound drug users)? Are you going to have the federal government step in and start telling the states how to run their welfare systems? ---
**Author:** ![Indygrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@Indygrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indygrrl)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/26 "2011-07-21T03:55:50Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > That’s why addicts should be treated not given money, that won’t help them at all. It’s clear that you don’t get it. Drug treatment, as it stands right now, is a joke. The 12-step model is not enough for most people, and the few alternatives to it aren’t much better. Before you go terrorizing addicts with the threat of taking their children and throwing them into institutions you better do some research into what all of that would actually entail. The cost of enforcing all of these ideas would be astronomical, and it would do more harm than good. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/27 "2011-07-21T03:59:58Z")
In Florida, where such a law was recently passed, it does cost more to do the testing than it saves by not paying welfare to those who test positive for drugs. So basically, the money that would have gone to some needy drug-users will go to some providers of drug tests.\*:eek: > [@](#): > > “Studies show that people on welfare are using drugs much higher than other people in the population,” he said. (Gov. Scott) > > After that interview, [PolitiFact Florida](http://politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jun/09/rick-scott/rick-scott-says-welfare-recipients-are-more-likely/) asked the governor’s office exactly which studies he was referring to. > > The Scott crew handed over **one** , 11-year-old national survey that found 9.6 percent of people in families that receive some sort of government assistance – which includes non-cash assistance programs like food stamps and Medicaid – compared to 6.8 percent of people who receive no government assistance at all. > > The ACLU supplied PolitiFact with a very similar study – it’s old, national, and includes other types of cash assistance – but it found a very different result. Drug use for welfare recipients was between 1.3 and 3.6 percent, compared to 1.5 percent of those non-welfare recipients. > > We’re guessing the governor’s \*other \*study he was referring to must have come from the “Rick Scott University of Learning Good” – because like that university, the other study doesn’t exist. > > Let’s say we give the governor the benefit of the doubt – 9.6 percent of the 93,170 people on welfare in Florida use drugs, and they won’t be receiving their cash assistance. The average monthly check for a welfare recipient is between $100 and $200, but we’ll use the latter to maximize the state’s savings. Based on 8,944 people failing their drug test, that saves the state $1,788,800. > > Then the state has to reimburse the cost of the test to the 84,266 welfare recipients who they believe will pass. Since the drug tests are believed to cost up to $25, that’s $2,106,650 they would be paying to the welfare recipients. > > That’s $317,850 the state believes – based on their presented research – they will lose in the first round of drug testing. > **[Gov. Rick Scott Invents A Scientific Study On Drug Use During Nationally...](https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/gov-rick-scott-invents-a-scientific-study-on-drug-use-during-nationally-televised-interview-6455172)** > > Now for Gov. Rick Scott's charade of the day -- making up a scientific study on drug use by welfare recipients on a nationally televised CNN interview.As you know, the governor signed H.B. 353 into law last week, requires Floridians on welfare to... But the major problem I have with the new law is that if someone fails just one drug test, they lose benefits for one year, or six months if they complete (and somehow pay for out of their own pocket) a drug-treatment program. But drug tests aren’t infallible. One false positive or one lab screwup can cause someone who is completely clean and innocent to lose much needed assistance, meager as that assistance may be. \*:eek: Surprise, surprise, the FL governor Rick Scott was found to own $63million in shares in a prominent company that provided walk-in drug testing. :rolleyes: Once that little fact got out and caused an uproar, he tried transferring the shares to his wife. When that ploy proved insufficient to quell the uproar, he finally gave in and sold the shares. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/28 "2011-07-21T04:29:06Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > That’s why addicts should be treated not given money, that won’t help them at all. You can’t force treatment on someone. It doesn’t work, sadly. ---
**Author:** ![buckgully](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb9ed0/32.png) [@buckgully](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buckgully)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/29 "2011-07-21T04:46:00Z")
Is being poor against the law? Is having a financial disaster in your life probable cause? Being the beneficiary of government programs should not require citizens to give up basic constitutional rights. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/30 "2011-07-21T06:30:14Z")
Did we not just do this in another thread? Ah, here it is: > **[How I think welfare money should be distributed.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=616218)** > > If you are under 25, The US Govt will help you. If you are over 65, the US Govt will help you. If you are between 25 and 65, you are on your own, unless you are found to be physically or mentally handicapped by a Government-approved expert on such... As I mentioned in this thread, effective addiction treatment is very, very expensive. Much more expensive than welfare. And since welfare workers aren’t trained as addiction counselors, you’d be turning the welfare system’s mandate into “find excuses to not help people”. This is not the magic bullet that will make an addict into a rational person who will clean up and get a job. Now if there was a pill like antabuse that could cause an aversion to drugs and if it wasn’t a horrible invasion of privacy to force someone to take it, I could see that being a part of a more stringent system. But this would be somewhat akin to making pregnant welfare moms have mandatory abortions (no one in the US objects to aborting the hopeless children of the poor, do they?) and I can see ACLU-sponsored lawsuits from a mile away. Anyhow, I think those who feel welfare is such a great ride for addicts should buy a vial of crack rock and hop on the train. Take the welfare challenge! If it’s such a great and rewarding life, why would you slave away in a cubicle or cleaning toilets when you could live like Ol’ Dirty Bastard, driving your limo and twenty children to the welfare office to pick up your food stamps? (Oh wait, ODB is dead… but he lived large while he was alive, all because of the endless benevolence of a welfare system that is built around supporting bad habits!) ---
**Author:** ![HumanBear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/919ad9/32.png) [@HumanBear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumanBear)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/31 "2011-07-21T07:31:17Z")
Part of the job of Government, in my opinion most of the job, is to make a nice society where people are happy and life is good. Of course they can’t do this by spending more money than they have, at least not in the long term so it needs to be sustainable in all ways. One the reasons I am happy to pay taxes and give money to undesirables (not all welfare recipients are undesirables, but some are) is that I don’t want them mugging me on the street, breaking into my car or home etc. Some people are just not a good fit for our society, and we completely ignore those people at our peril. On top of that I think the way the Government treats its citizens reflects back on to society, it’s one of the reason I am against the death penalty it makes a harsher society when the state kills people it doesn’t like. Principles are complicated, and while the principle of not giving money to people who don’t deserve it sounds reasonable, it has many, many ramifications throughout society which most societies have decided are not beneficial. You have to be very careful with your principles when they are to be applied to the real world. ---
**Author:** ![inbabylove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@inbabylove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inbabylove)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/32 "2011-07-21T09:08:08Z")
I get so angry at people who have the misconception that welfare is for drunks and druggies. I had a baby in October, the birth was partially paid by state medicaid, and only what my private insurance did not cover (maybe 1500 of 15k) . While still on medical leave waiting for surgery related to said thing my baby’s father had a life moment and was out of work for 2 months. I applied for food stamps. the whole process was smelly and uncomfortable enough without dropping my drawers in such a filthy place, and believe me they don’t just give you foodstamps. you have to produce paperwork showing what you make and spend every month, and the verify with the work number. It took 30ish hours to get it all in! Thanks to the folks who pointed out the impracticality and expense of such a program. ---
**Author:** ![HumanBear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/919ad9/32.png) [@HumanBear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumanBear)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/33 "2011-07-21T10:24:29Z")
> [@inbabylove](#): > > I get so angry at people who have the misconception that welfare is for drunks and druggies. I had a baby in October, the birth was partially paid by state medicaid, and only what my private insurance did not cover (maybe 1500 of 15k) . While still on medical leave waiting for surgery related to said thing my baby’s father had a life moment and was out of work for 2 months. I applied for food stamps. the whole process was smelly and uncomfortable enough without dropping my drawers in such a filthy place, and believe me they don’t just give you foodstamps. you have to produce paperwork showing what you make and spend every month, and the verify with the work number. It took 30ish hours to get it all in! Thanks to the folks who pointed out the impracticality and expense of such a program. It’s great that your country has made such a thing available, help to people when they need it. But you must understand the right-wing argument that you shouldn’t have a baby if you can’t afford it, and if you haven’t go enough savings to cover a family illness at the same time. It’s hard to argue with that viewpoint, apart from you can’t expect that of everyone for all kinds of reason and there will always be people who need help, so what should we do. ---
**Author:** ![PandaBear77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@PandaBear77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PandaBear77)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/34 "2011-07-21T10:28:31Z")
Totally against it. The cost alone would grossly outweigh any money saved by kicking drug users off the rolls. This is just a hunch, I have no cite … but I wouldn’t be surprised if, percentage wise, Congress has a higher rate of illegal drug users than welfare recipients. Not that Congress would EVER drop their drawers to submit to such a blatant invasion of their privacy. It’s ok for the unwashed, but they’re above that sort of thing, see … never mind that they’re paid 6 figure salaries whether they show up to work or not. ---
**Author:** ![HumanBear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/919ad9/32.png) [@HumanBear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumanBear)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/35 "2011-07-21T10:50:23Z")
> [@PandaBear77](#): > > Totally against it. The cost alone would grossly outweigh any money saved by kicking drug users off the rolls. > > This is just a hunch, I have no cite … but I wouldn’t be surprised if, percentage wise, Congress has a higher rate of illegal drug users than welfare recipients. > > Not that Congress would EVER drop their drawers to submit to such a blatant invasion of their privacy. It’s ok for the unwashed, but they’re above that sort of thing, see … never mind that they’re paid 6 figure salaries whether they show up to work or not. You could be right, but people may argue that congress isn’t using tax money to pay for their drugs. I think many would say that drugs aren’t a problem if the users can pay for them for the rest of their lives. Not necessarily true of course, drugs have all kinds of negative effects, but there is a difference between an addict with no money and an addict with lots of money. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/36 "2011-07-21T11:06:13Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > … I think it would be a good idea to forcibly institutionalzie those type of people … > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > I’m not saying we should jail addicts … And the difference between being forcibly institutionalized and being jailed is what exactly? CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![diggerwam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/919ad9/32.png) [@diggerwam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diggerwam)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/37 "2011-07-21T11:13:44Z")
People who are opposed…you really want the government (your tax dollars) to pick up the living expenses for people who use drugs? You don’t see how some people might have some issue with that. Let’s say, unemployed person uses drugs, therefore effectively keeping him away from a straight job (due to drug testing at the prospective employer). You are OK with paying this guy’s unemployment checks for 99 weeks, even though he has no shot at improving his situation? Let’s put it this way. Threatening benefit dollars may give people incentive to stop using, if they stop using, by definition their lives are improved, even if they are not able to find a legit job. The people who oppose seem to say it’s not worth the cost trying to help these people become more productive members of society. You are just giving up on a certain sub-sub-sub-section of society and forcing legit taxpayers to pay for it. Let me say again, taking away benefits should not be the result of the first failed drug test, counselling should be the first choice. But after a person demonstrates they can’t get off the drugs, you have to have some further punishment, not just a slap on the wrist. ---
**Author:** ![HumanBear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/919ad9/32.png) [@HumanBear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumanBear)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/38 "2011-07-21T11:57:09Z")
> [@diggerwam](#): > > People who are opposed…you really want the government (your tax dollars) to pick up the living expenses for people who use drugs? You don’t see how some people might have some issue with that. > > Let’s say, unemployed person uses drugs, therefore effectively keeping him away from a straight job (due to drug testing at the prospective employer). You are OK with paying this guy’s unemployment checks for 99 weeks, even though he has no shot at improving his situation? > > Let’s put it this way. Threatening benefit dollars may give people incentive to stop using, if they stop using, by definition their lives are improved, even if they are not able to find a legit job. The people who oppose seem to say it’s not worth the cost trying to help these people become more productive members of society. > > You are just giving up on a certain sub-sub-sub-section of society and forcing legit taxpayers to pay for it. > > Let me say again, taking away benefits should not be the result of the first failed drug test, counselling should be the first choice. But after a person demonstrates they can’t get off the drugs, you have to have some further punishment, not just a slap on the wrist. No, I don’t like giving money to druggies, but I do accept that every society will have useless people in it and that something has to be done with those useless people. There isn’t a way to make them better people, all we can do is educate on the pitfalls of drugs, try to keep drugs off the streets, and offer help to those who want to get off drugs. If we just lock up druggies in prison or force them to take medical care will we solve the problem and will it cost less. I suspect giving them money to keep them quiet is the cheapest way to handle this situation, other than killing them of course but I don’t think we’d like to go down that route. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/39 "2011-07-21T13:06:31Z")
> [@diggerwam](#): > > You are just giving up on a certain sub-sub-sub-section of society and forcing legit taxpayers to pay for it. > > Let me say again, taking away benefits should not be the result of the first failed drug test, counselling should be the first choice. But after a person demonstrates they can’t get off the drugs, you have to have some further punishment, not just a slap on the wrist. So same question I asked already. Would you support drug testing as a condition for receiving Social Security? ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/40 "2011-07-21T13:07:31Z")
What is so special about welfare recipients? Tales of welfare queens are nothing more than an attempts to misdirect people away from the real waste in government spending. If there is a problem with people using government money on drugs then the rule should cover everybody. Who is to say the farmer who receives subsidies doesn’t waste it on drugs, or the student asking for a loan or the CEO looking for a billion dollar bailout. What percentage of that bailout money went to hookers and blow I wonder? Or is only those on welfare who waste money? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784.md?page=3)