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

As in any job you apply for you must take a drug test..in the case you get money, free medical, free housing, free food for doing nothing you bet...

This is one of several questions that are perpetually recirculated here on SodaHead. It should be required yes. I pay taxes, so they can get the benefits, then yes, frivolous drug spending shouldn't be allowed while you take handouts. A drug test now and again will determine eligibility.

Sounds reasonable! Why should taxpayers have to support some sluggard's drug habit?

And I think the majority would pass. Congress should also have random testing

Of course they should. If some have to pass a drug test to work, welfare recipients should absolutely have to pass one to get free money.

Being poor isn't a reason to drug test a person, so no I don't agree with it. When you say welfare check, what and whom do you apply to that? There are so many forms of government help, many partial subsidies for people who have worked for them. So where do you start?

No one said to test all the poor, just those that want free money.

- First, a person testing positive for a drug is not necessarily abusing or addicted to the drug found.
- Secondly, legal drugs and alcohol could not be included and yet it does not mean the person is not a drug or alcohol abuser or addict, even though it is "legal".
- Thirdly, the vast majority of "welfare" is for health insurance. What sense does it make to take an addict off of insurance? How does this help them?
- Fourthly, (and most important) is that if you test a person and they come out positive this means state DCF involvement and a whole littany of services that will need to be provided, assuming that because they tested "positive" they are a drug addict or an alcoholic (if they are not an addict or the drug is "legal" and they are - this is unfair) - not to mention an invasion of privacy and a terrible cost to you, the taxpayer, for a whole lot of invasive procedures and taking children away out of otherwise good homes.

If they have money for drugs, even of they are not abusing or addicted, they don't need free money. Again, if they can afford drugs, they can afford their own health insurance. I don't care if they're addicted or not, a recreational user doesn't need tax payer's money to support themselves. It's not an invasion of privacy. If they don't want to take the test, the don't have to. They don't get to keep living off those that actually do work for what they have, but they have that choice. Peeing in a cup is now an "invasive procedure"? Right... A home with drug using parents that can't support the family, sounds like a GREAT environment.

Someone testing positive for anything "illegal" could lose everything because people like you assume they must be addicted, or abusing it. Alcohol and prescription drugs are "legal" and they are just as addictive and capable of being abused.

By your logic someone smoking a joint is a bad parent and should have their children taken from them (because that is what will happen - the testers will have to report them), but someone hopped on prescription legally prescribed morphine or a flaming alcoholic is OK - all they need is a doctor's note for the drugs and the alcohol is well, legal and, therefore, not going to be tested.

NO, this is why this law would not be good.

I might add that people spend money on lots of things I think are wasteful, drugs and alcohol only being a couple of them. So you made no point here at all. You can't monitor what everyone spends their money on. If you are concerned about people getting benefits they don't need or over and beyond what they should have, that is a different argument.

I don't know how to put this in a simpler way, I don't CARE if they are addicted or abusing drugs. If they have money to use drugs EVER, they do not need free money. They could lose everything? That's their fault, not mine. Again, if they're drinking, they DON'T NEED FREE MONEY. They're obviously figuring out a way to support their drinking, they can figure out a way to get food as well. If a parent is smoking a joint instead of using that money to provide for their child they ARE a bad parent. I don't care what someone spends their money on as long as MY money isn't supporting them.

"If a parent is smoking a joint instead of using that money to provide for their child they ARE a bad parent."

You've made several assertions here:
- that the person smoking a joint actually paid for it themselves.
- that the person smoking a joint did not provide for the child.
- that they spent money on recreation, including alcohol, is somehow not OK, even if it's just once in a great while.
- that in doing so, they are automatically a "bad parent".
- that there will be testing for alcohol (there won't be or at least it's highly unlikely and, therefore, unfair application of the law) along with "prescribed drugs" which will be OK with a doctor's note.

You've ignored ALL of my points (or nearly all) making it difficult to really have an intelligent debate on this topic with you.

This law won't help anyone. All it will do is cause a lot more problems in the social welfare system and foster care system. That's it. Oh, and violate people's constitutional rights just because they are poor.

If the person smoking the joint is in welfare, THEY AREN'T providing for the child. If they have someone willing to give them drugs, they can ask that person for money. Instead of smoking said joint, MAYBE they should be out looking for a job. I'm not sure what about this you don't understand. If they do not have enough money to buy food for their family, they SHOULD NOT be buying alcohol. ANYONE that puts their own habits ahead if the needs of their children is a bad parent. I haven't ignored anything you have said. You continue to attempt to make excuses for these people, and it's not going to work. I do not feel sorry for them, I do nOt think that I should be supporting them. I CERTAINLY do not want to support them if they're wasting money, even $20 on alcohol, drugs, or anything else. Their decisions in life have somehow become the tax payers responsibility. The lack of personal responsibility is disgusting. Welfare is getting something for nothing. They should gladly pee in a cup and be happy there are people out there actually working to support them.

Alcohol testing ?

Don't think they can really do that since it's legal, same thing with prescription morphine and other legal drugs. Therefore, it's an unfair application of the law silly.

But even if they did, the alcohol is pretty easy to get around and a lot more dangerous than a joint, which stays in a person's system.

How would you test for ALL drugs, legal and otherwise, including alcohol and who would you test? Which freeloaders, the disabled, the elderly, who?

Please do tell and answer all of what I've asked and addressed, please, as so far you have not.

Same way they test parolees or those on probation. ALL FREELOADERS. Every single one. Do not attempt to dictate how I respond. They can test for alcohol, and they should. It's unfair?!?! Why?? They are getting FREE MONEY. How many people have to pass a test to WORK? Those on welfare are the same as children. They depend on those who work to support them. They cannot pay for their own food, housing, healthcare, etc... They cannot survive without those who are supporting them. As a result, they do not have the same rules as the adults. They don't get to do whatever they want. If that's how they want to live their life, that's fine, but they need to get a job and support themselves.

The only thing I don't agree with that you said is they "can't", the more accurate word that applies to most of these deadbeats is "won't". They have no incentive to find work when they can go unchecked. Drug testing will supply the incentive to get off their butts and get work or lose benefits. Make no mistake. If Welfare is not cut down by drug testing or some other method. Those sponging off the public will kill the host organism and the benefits will stop anyway.

You are right, thank you for the correction. Why this doesn't make sense to some I will never understand.

I'm not trying to dictate anything to you. I've simply asked questions that you have not addressed. That is your choice.

What that you have posted have I not addressed?

I could cut and paste, or you could go scroll up. It's all there.

If you want to claim I have not addressed something, YOU need to show what exactly you are referring to.

It was pretty much most, if not all, the points I made. It's past now and I've moved on.

So... You can't back yourself up. Ok

You answered a couple, but definitely not all. A couple of points here about I'm curious, so I'll try again.

- You do realize that they don't test for alcohol, right? So your assertion that it's a fair application of the law is wrong. Do you agree?

- Also, people who take prescription drugs (legal) do get addicted to them as well. That is also an unfair application of the law. Furthermore, just because something is "illegal" does not mean it's better than something that isn't in all cases. Can you address that?

- Also, I asked you specifically which people in the population you think should be targeted, but you did not answer. You just said anyone getting "free" money. Care to be specific just which people? Or are you not capable?

Address these few points, one by one, and let's see if we can resume. Just saying I can't back myself does not make it true. Try again.

Who doesn't test for alcohol? No, I don't agree, it's absolutely fair. If someone gets addicted to a legal prescription that is no longer prescribed to them, it is no longer legal. I don't care if something is better than something else or not. If they are spending money on alcohol, weed, cigarettes, pills, or illegal drugs, they don't need free money. Food stamps, TANF, WIC, Medicaid, Disability, unemployment, LIHEAP, HUD, Lifeline, Is that enough of an example, or do you need more? ANYONE GETTING FREE MINEY TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

Is alcohol testing part of the drug test? And is that a fair application of the law if it isn't?

I never said that they were taking medications no longer prescribed to them. I said that they can become addicted to legally prescribed medications. You did not address that in any way, shape or form. Of course, if it's no longer prescribed, it is illegal, that goes without saying.

I also said which people, not which programs. Have a comprehension problem there? You still cannot answer.

In addition, I pointed out that not all legal drugs vs. illegal drugs are better/worse than the other. You did not answer. Saying "I don't care" does not address it.

You can't seem to answer my questions, but yet you claim I can't back myself up. The weakness is in your debating skills, not in my ability to present my points.

Yes, it should be. What law are you talking about? As long as the medication is legally prescribed and they're not taking more than they're supposed to, who cares? ALL PEOPLE IN THOSE PROGRAMS. I have said that multiple times and it seems that you are the one with the comprehension problem. I never said that you said they weren't still being prescribed the medication, I was giving an example. Saying I don't care does address it. By referring to it, I am addressing it. And I don't care if they're better or worse, legal or not. Unless they have a prescription, they shouldn't be using it.

It seems that it is not a matter of me not answering your questions, it is a matter if you not understanding the answers. Your inability to comprehend simple concepts is wasting my time. I'm growing tired of answering the same thing over and over.

Nice try, but you did not answer specifically, not then and not now. You should have gone over each specifically, since I've posted multiple times at your insistence that I can't "back myself up".

Do you honestly believe that people on prescribed medications can't be addicted and/or some of them are not dependent on the system in part because of it?

If we're talking about ALL PEOPLE in those programs, that would include the elderly, the chronically ill, the paralyzed, the disabled, many vets....the list goes on.

I'm frustrated as well at your lack of comprehension and find it tiring as well. It's you though, not me.

Seriously, ask for a refund. Though, I can't think of any college that allows someone who can't read in, how you slipped through is a mystery. Where did I say that someone on prescribed medication can't be addicted? That's right, I didn't. If they're taking only what they are prescribed, there should be no reason for it to lead to dependency on the system. Yes, it would include all of those people. The fact that it has taken so long for you to understand that is sad at best. Hahaha, even other people have told you that your questions have been answered, you're just not intelligent enough to understand that.

You inferred that they couldn't be addicted by assuming that the medication is legal, so long as it's prescribed. This was corroborated by another wrong assumption on your part that being addicted to a legally prescribed drug is not legal - not so unless another crime or failure to get treatment is involved - the first of which does not apply and the second of which is not a legal issue, but a medical one.

You now say "if they're taking only what they are prescribed, there should be no reason for it to lead to dependency on the system". This is false. Many people who take legally prescribed drugs are on the system who are regularly drug tested and found to be taking more than they were prescribed. This is handled both medically and legally now, without random drug screens for ALL people, as you wrongly assume should be done without probable cause.

I beat you in this debate kiddo. You're the one that needs a refund.

No I didn't, you're just making asinine assumptions. I also never said that being addicted to a legally prescribed drug was illegal. You're just pulling stuff out of your ass at this point. I'm actually surprised there's any room left in there with your head taking up so much space. You're a mental midget, and a delusional one at that. But hey, if you need to maintain the delusion that you somehow "won" something, go for it. I imagine you haven't have many wins in your lifetime. Haha

Without probable cause random drug testing is an inadvertent way of criminalizing it, as for the person to obtain the drugs it must be assumed that they possessed, bought or sold them before ingesting them. It is, therefore, an invasion of privacy requiring state intervention in many cases involving children or other dependents. If you apply it to all people in every situation for any type of benefit, it would violate several laws on the books already.

You failed in every way to make a case for random drug testing of all people in every situation for all benefits across the board.

You're just calling names and putting me down because you lost the debate. So sorry, but so far you lose.

You keep telling yourself that. Lmao, pitiful.

but you can't refute it as you're completely incapable, LOL

I have, too many times. You continually prove that you are not intellectually able to comprehend it, even when it's dumbed down to your level.

I summed up all you had to say on this topic in about 2 or 3 sentences. And the bottom line is your plan about what should be done isn't constitutional, it isn't legal and it violates the law already on the books in many respects.

LMAO, you are just pissed because you know I'm right.

You wouldn't know, or at least understand what was right if it smacked you in the face. The reason it is not an illegal search is because no one is forcing them to do it. If they don't want to take the test, they don't have to. They won't get their free money, but they are not forced to take the test.

That's called coercion, if the only way they can get services, which in some cases is a matter of life and death. Remember, you said ALL people, ALL benefits, ALL situations should receive random drug testing. You are truly an idiot.

Seriously, we're you dropped on your head as a child?

You do not possess the skills to address the topic at hand in any coherent fashion. All you have are knee-jerk responses. That's not a way to base policy or law. Any idiot knows that. You obviously missed the memo.