Do you think people on public aid should be drug tested?

It is difficult to tell the exact answer as nobody can approve any drug for longer point to point for specific set of diseses for drug therapy without help from most of the people, again sometimes my learning on drug trial before it can give some scope on use is on allowed risk issues, for example on neurological disorders, it is actually a puzzle between set of functioning and non-functionting unimpaired people to regulatory appproval especially from FDA on drugs therapy on healthy individuals,For example Methylphenidate( Ritalin, Concerta etc. ) used in ADHD and nacrolepsy having risk could worsen on performance in a subject of users or on complex tasks,cardiovascular complications and seizures, hallucinations and addiction. Again Modafinil(Provigil) for nacrolepsy and excessive sleepiness because of shift work or obstructive sleep apnea; risk here may give higher potential to addiction than originally thought, can also cause serious skin rashes; Similarly there are numerous complicating aspects from cognitive disoders to HIV to Cancer to its effect about passing capability to fight on challanges on US frontiers. The main challange we can do long term animal experiments unless it is useful to people in most regular basis . I will pray for you for your safe health along with all US citizens to GOD.Thank you all.

There are a lot of different forms of corporate welfare, some more blatant than others. For instance, subsidies are flat out, literally corporate welfare (e.g. corn subsidies). A level down, there are government contracts, especially no-bid contracts. After that it gets more subtle: For instance, governments sometimes indirectly pick and choose winners and losers by selectively giving out government loans with special rates to certain corporations (e.g. Wal-Mart).

If requirements were put on voting, we could easily and quickly come to the point where anyone who worked for one of the above employers could be disenfranchised. After that, if politicians wanted to disenfranchise more people, it would probably come from loopy Elizabeth Warren thinking like "well, we all use roads, blah blah, so we're all on the dole." ;)

It's true that only land owners used to be able to vote. While this made it harder for government to arbitrarily redistribute wealth downward, it could also have made it easier for government to arbitrarily redistribute wealth upward, either directly or indirectly. (BTW, you might be interested in Frederic Bastiat's "The Law," actually.) Ultimately, I don't think these problems can be solved by restricting voting; I think they can only be solved by severely restricting the powers of government altogether.

Back to corporate welfare for a moment:
Most people wouldn't consider this corporate welfare par say, but on a much more subtle plane, you have a plethora of regulations which (inadvertantly or not) harm small companies more than larger corporations, thereby giving them an unnatural competitive advantage. (Most people have trouble navigating the actual impact of regulations though, so they don't realize how this happens.)