Do you think welfare recipients should have to pass a drug test to receive their tax-payer supported welfare check?

by Rocker6240 Posted 2012/06/12 07:10:35

Related Topics: Welfare, Drug Test, Fair, Drug, Tax, Test

494 votes
Read all 1,337 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	YES	365 votes	74%
	NO	97 votes	20%
	UNDECIDED	32 votes	6%

I work in an Industry that requires passing a drug test on a random basis and at the time of being hired. It's only fair they pass a drug test to receive a welfare check , if I got to pass one to give it to them.

+40

Add a comment above

George 2012/06/12 10:04:49

YES

+19
Any person on this poll that does not support this is either NOT paying into the system OR is a doper living off the system.
Common sense dictates if your a taxpayer paying for this with your hard earned money you simply cant have a problem with wanting to see its not misused or abused and those that benifit are held accountable.
It really is that simple and clear.
>> See Replies

sbtbill to Sparky 2012/06/12 18:01:29

Possibly people who buy at places like Walmart should look in the mirror and ask why are they shopping at places that encourage their employees to go on welfare so they don't have to pay a living wage.

reply
cmdrbnd007 to MentalO... 2012/06/12 17:14:35

If you are poor enough to receive a welfare check you are not paying income taxes. Any that you pay will be refunded to you the next year. Usually it's more than you paid in if you have children.

reply
Sparky to cmdrbnd007 2012/06/12 17:31:05 (edited)
mz jane to MentalO... 2012/06/12 21:51:47

Loop-holes, loop-holes, that's how the system is beaten. If they are stuck in a job that doesn't pay enough then they should/could look into other opportunities. There are people out there that hold 2 or 3 jobs just so they don't have to be on welfare! Then there are those who just feel they are "entitled".

Oh, I guess you took the literacy test so you could be on the internet....kudos for you!

reply
CODE 11 to mz jane 2012/06/13 00:07:02

You have to have 2 or 3 jobs, because they only hire part time employees..no benes

reply
santa6642 2012/06/12 16:03:48

YES

+1
And work for the county in order to collect their wellfare.No work, no check........

reply
GaolBlaze to santa6642 2012/06/12 16:45:13

That's also called a job, and if they had the possibility of a job, don't you think they'd have taken it? Everyone on welfare isn't some drug addict, there are a lot of people who just don't have another choice, and it's very difficult for them to accept that they need to take this money - if they could get a job, I'm sure they would. What you're suggesting is some sort of class system where there are people working for their money in "Jobs" and people working for their money in "Welfare" and while both are working hard, one will feel more entitled to their money than the other, lots of other stupid things will go on and everyone will be a hell of a lot meaner in the working world. Great idea. Maybe you should think about the reality of the situation.

reply
none 2012/06/12 15:58:32

YES

+1
Taxpayers fund welfare and they have to have a drug test at work so it only seems fair that those that receive those funds should be tested too.

reply
harley oldman 2012/06/12 15:45:12

YES

+1
HELL YES..... And on a regular basis....!

reply
Shawee to harley ... 2012/06/12 16:47:38

+1
Who pays?

reply
harley ... to Shawee 2012/06/13 13:33:03

Who pays the original tab?

reply
Shawee to harley ... 2012/06/14 17:45:59 (edited)

The applicant, but first what sense does it make to ask for someone to pay for a service they claim they need because they are struggling?? Who pays the tab when the drug test passes? The state. Where does the state get their money from? Taxpayers. I don't wanna pay More taxes

reply
harley ... to Shawee 2012/06/14 20:26:19

The TAXPAYER`S ALWAYS PAY.

reply
politicalsoldier 2012/06/12 15:35:28

YES

One-hundred-million, freaking, percent YES!

reply
Kaimeso 2012/06/12 15:32:27
Racefish 2012/06/12 15:26:39

YES

+1
Absolutely. These people should be available to work as well.

reply
prosper... to Racefish 2012/06/12 16:47:50

I'm not disagreeing. But, I will point out that a lot of people on welfare are on that system while waiting for disability to kick in.

reply
Racefish to prosper... 2012/06/12 21:45:24

Disability is a completely different kettle of fish. These are people who would love nothing better then to be able to work. Ask my wife's brother in law (arthritis, diabetes), and my son (schizophrenia).

reply
prosper... to Racefish 2012/06/12 21:49:39

that's what i was trying to point out.

reply
GaolBlaze to Racefish 2012/06/12 16:56:12 (edited)

That's also called a job, and if they had the possibility of a job, don't you think they'd have taken it? Everyone on welfare isn't some drug addict, there are a lot of people who just don't have another choice, and it's very difficult for them to accept that they need to take this money (do you really have no soul and would want to make this entire situation worse for them?) - if they could get a job, I'm sure they would. What you're suggesting is some sort of class system where there are people working for their money in "Jobs" and people working for their money in "Welfare" and while both are working hard, one will feel more entitled to their money than the other, lots of other stupid things will go on and everyone will be a hell of a lot meaner in the working world. Great idea. Maybe you should think about the reality of the situation.

reply
Racefish to GaolBlaze 2012/06/12 21:47:05

"That's also called a job"

Only by the Democrat/Obama administration definition.

reply
The_Machine 2012/06/12 15:24:49

YES

+1
Yes yes yes and yes again!

reply
Average Joe 2012/06/12 15:24:33

NO

+2
Too many people are buying into this Big Brother concept as a ways to reduce the deficit and Budget when the glaring facts are different than what the public is being told. First, the "baby mama" welfare accounts for such a small percentage of total welfare. "Corporate" welfare and special interest spending dwarfs the baby mama welfare and secondly, when faced with a problem, one always should begin at the top, NOT the bottom. If we are to begin sifting through this nations' bodily fluids as a prerequisite for ANYTHING based on the notion that they receive tax dollars, then begin testing the elected officials whose salaries are paid with tax dollars and those who support this concept and work your way down to the bottom of the proverbial food chain. Start at the top, not the bottom.

reply
The_Mac... to Average... 2012/06/12 15:27:10

If you want something from big brother prepare to pay for it with your rights. Play with snakes and you should get bit. You can't have your cake and eat it to!

reply
Average... to The_Mac... 2012/06/12 16:00:30
MentalO... to Average... 2012/06/12 16:29:50

+2
FINALLY, someone with logic, facts, and reasoning. I applaud you.

reply
Sparky to MentalO... 2012/06/12 17:10:42
KrSpo 2012/06/12 15:20:14

UNDECIDED

Put a hard set date that they have to get off. Give them 2 months. A couple of different reasons. I can see some of these people selling their kids for sex to get money , or drugs, or far worse. There are seriously screwed up answers to this seriously screwed up system. We need to look at setting benefits up to where you do not get any more for anything past the first kid. End CHIPS, WIC, SSI for people. Eventually the watering hole will be spoiled enough that people will be begging to work.

reply
Katfish 2012/06/12 15:14:00

UNDECIDED

+2
Who pays for the test? Who feeds their kids when they fail?
Cut back on the handouts instead.

reply
politic... to Katfish 2012/06/12 15:34:44

That's just it. They aren't getting the welfare if they fail. That's cutting back on the handouts.
Obviously the welfare check wasn't feeding their kids anyway if it was going to drugs.

reply
Katfish to politic... 2012/06/12 15:42:04

+2
Personally I think the administrative costs of the testing and the appeals process and all would not be worth it.

reply
politic... to Katfish 2012/06/12 16:00:49

I can't see a person getting random test once in a while to try to get on and stay on the public dole would be as much as handing them a check of tax-payer money and food stamps once a month live on (on top of the other government free-be programs).

That's like saying it would cost a company more to do a random drug test on someone than to pay an under-the-influence, less-productive and dangerous worker a salary.

I have a family member that runs a company that does drug testing for companies and for worker's comp claims and an instant-result urine test doesn't cost much and they do it right there on site.

Establish the flat-tax and we'd get rid of the IRS. That would cover the admistrative cost and staffing ten-fold.

reply
Katfish to politic... 2012/06/12 16:18:50

+1
So you dont think there would be case workers and an appeals process? You know every one that fails would challenge the test, probably be a class action suit. And remember, all of this would be an increase in government, sure you can say well cut some government tasks over here and shift some personell over there, but this would still in itself be an expansion.
Myself, the root of the problem is the recipients breeding more of them for compound generations. I am for mandatory vacectomy and tubal ligation for those that have 2-3 children and wish to continue to receive benefits.
I agree, the IRS needs to go but am more for a fair tax, which would tax consumtion rather than production.

reply
prosper... to Katfish 2012/06/12 16:50:30

+1
I agree with you on the fair tax. But, I'd still prefer a flat tax to what we've got.

reply
politic... to Katfish 2012/06/14 14:58:21

Well, to appeal it, they'd have to be confident that they'd come back and pee clean. And since probably 98% of those that tested positive know they couldn't do that, I just don't think there would be many appeals. That's how it works on the job site. They either get fired on the spot or walk out because they now they will be fired. I haven't heard of any appeals to the test results.

I say a two-kid max if you are on the public dole.

reply
Professor Wizard 2012/06/12 15:11:04

YES

+2
I have to pass a drug test AND a police check to get, and keep, my job...

Hell yes they should be tested!

reply
««Gingey, the Master Debate... 2012/06/12 15:06:19

UNDECIDED

+5
If this is the case, then you need to apply this to those who receive corporate welfare as well.

reply
prosper... to ««Ginge... 2012/06/12 16:53:39

I'm opposed to corporate welfare as well. but, just to be the devils advocate, who would you test? These companies have thousands of employees in some cases.

reply
««Ginge... to prosper... 2012/06/12 20:02:21

+1
You don't test the employees, you test the corporate heads. I guarantee you many of them would fail. I don't think too many single moms would fail a drug test though.

However, this drug testing would be very, very expensive

reply
Cookielane 2012/06/12 15:04:17

YES

+1
I just wish that it would actually happen, rather than folks just talking about it.

reply