Drug testing for welfare recipients
- Thread starter allison
- Start date
I agree - although I think it shouldn't be a "positive, deny, negative, accept". It should be used as evidence to either support them getting welfare (if they're clean and obviously clean), or deny.
But if they test positive, but provide proof of trying to get help (addiction isn't a choice, and quitting hard drugs cold turkey just does not work) - such as a doctor's note, a treatment program, etc., then I think it shouldn't deny them - just monitor more closely.
But if they test positive, but provide proof of trying to get help (addiction isn't a choice, and quitting hard drugs cold turkey just does not work) - such as a doctor's note, a treatment program, etc., then I think it shouldn't deny them - just monitor more closely.
Yeah, cost is a huge factor. When I was really down on my luck and couldn't find a job, the job I was finally offered - after 4 months of searching and couchsurfing - was under the condition I payed $25 to get a drug test processed, which is a lot of money when you're hardly eating one full meal a day, and I'm sure it's no different for a lot of people looking to get on welfare.
I don't like this reasoning. It's like saying that pleading the 5th Amendment when questioned means you are hiding something and should be under more suspicion than previously.
I agree with drug testing, but like Whispered said, it should not be "drugs=no welfare." It should be used along with other information to sway a decision one way or the other.
I agree with drug testing, but like Whispered said, it should not be "drugs=no welfare." It should be used along with other information to sway a decision one way or the other.
But I think that is the purpose of the fifth amendment. Take, for example the recent IRS scandal (targeting conservative groups). Lois Lerner, former head of the IRS, keeps pleading the fifth, instead of answering questions. This in turn is making a lot more people suspicious
As it should be I suppose
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is NOT the purpose of the 5th Amendment, it is to protect you from self incrimination, something that is possible regardless for you being innocent or guilty.
Although you may not be too interested, this is a VERY good video explaining why you should never talk to law enforcement, and ALWAYS plead the 5th.
off topic, I know, but I just feel strongly about the 5th.
Although you may not be too interested, this is a VERY good video explaining why you should never talk to law enforcement, and ALWAYS plead the 5th.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
I know it's long, but really the first 25 minutes hits the point home
I know it's long, but really the first 25 minutes hits the point home
off topic, I know, but I just feel strongly about the 5th.
No. Just no. The only problem it's solving is welfare cost, and it's been shown to cost more than it's worth. So what's the point in implementing it. Never mind the question. Why are we screening for drugs? Should they not be allowed welfare? Why not? If it's because drugs are unhealthy, why not require them to use a card which forwards purchese made with it to the agency? You can only eat things that are healthy. If it's because it's a waste of money for recreation, then why not do the same thing there? If they own a TV, they don't qualify! Let's go down the laundry list of logical conclusions you should reach from the same reasons you could be against welfare.
The ironic thing is, I don't even like welfare and I think it's a bad idea. Conservatives should also know better than anyone that programs that don't achieve their original desired effect are near impossible to get killed, even if they don't work.
The ironic thing is, I don't even like welfare and I think it's a bad idea. Conservatives should also know better than anyone that programs that don't achieve their original desired effect are near impossible to get killed, even if they don't work.
I forget who it was, probably one of the libertarian leaning representatives, was trying to introduce a bill that would a part of law that required certain conditions to be met by a certain time, or the law would be nullified.
For example, in this case, your caveat could be that if the law doesn't save more money than it cost within 3 years, then the program is discontinued.
For example, in this case, your caveat could be that if the law doesn't save more money than it cost within 3 years, then the program is discontinued.
