PUBLIC OPINION > Welfare Recipients Should Take Drug Tests
SodaHead News
2012/04/23 23:00:00
Georgia recently became the third state to require drug testing for welfare recipients. Michigan passed a similar law, but it was ruled unconstitutional in 2003. Florida also passed a law, but federal lawsuits are holding it up in court. Opponent organizations like the ACLU are already threatening to take action against Georgia's law, set to go into effect on July 1, but we wanted to know how the public feels about it.
Despite legal complications in the past, the vast majority of voters are fine with the drug tests. In fact, they think it's a good idea. It's easy to read the law as an attack on benefits in general, but most people agree it's a fair measure that private employers use all the time. The Top Opinion wrote, "I have to take random tests to receive my paycheck. Why can't welfare recipients do the same to get their paycheck?"
Leniency From the Left
Progressives and liberals were two of the only demographics to side against the measure. It might seem odd that government intervention would be embraced by the right and rejected by the left, but welfare is already a relatively liberal concept, and some see the test as a way of scaling back government aid. Plus, liberal note that welfare can be issued in the form of food stamps. However, moderates mostly sided with conservatives on this one.
No Complaints From the Unemployed
Surprisingly enough, unemployed voters agreed with the majority -- 77% of them think welfare applicants should be tested for drug use. Granted, it would only affect unemployed people who also do drugs, but it was an interesting statistic nonetheless. Part-time workers seemed a lot more concerned about it. Maybe because they aren't job hunting...
Smokers Sign Off
Obviously, we can't ask users if they do drugs. The closest thing we can come to is inquiring about legal substance use -- smokers and drinkers, in particular. Maybe they're a little more likely to empathize with addiction. But here, too, the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of Georgia's laws. It's not looking good for drug addicts on welfare.
If you'd like to vote on this question, dig deeper into the demographics, or engage in existing discussion about the topic, visit our poll about drug testing and welfare. We'd love to hear from you!
It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly judgmental people are toward others.
The general idea that there are people who use drugs does not cause me to judge them as good or bad or upstanding or "low life scum." Evidence of deplorable behavior would certainly do that, but knowledge of drug use would not. Believe me, Honey, there are loads & loads of wealthy drug users & loads of wealthy "low life scum."
I guess it's a matter of age... once a person has lived a few decades, he/she hopefully sees enough of life to know the difference between between being poor & being scum or the difference between being wealthy & being a good person. There is no link between socioeconomic status & quality of character.
I think you're misreading that a little. If the law is put into effect, people who receive welfare can "opt-out" of the drug test by not accepting welfare anymore. About 5 years ago, I got laid off from my job and while trying to find another, I got food stamps. If I was told I'd have to submit to a drug test to get them, it would have been my decision.
I agree with the drug testing, to a point. I would would gladly donate my time & money for more options, such as: daycare, career training, housing, etc for people who want to get ahead, instead of just handing them a check. It's the whole "Teach a man to fish" concept. Who knows? After getting back up on their feet, some of these people might even re-invest in the same assistance options and help even more people in the long run.
I do, however, agree strongly with the "teach a man to fish" concept. It is implemented in most states already though.
At this moment, our nation has high unemployment & is in a very deep economic pit. So, it is only natural that we have higher numbers in our welfare systems. Those numbers will go down again when the economic situation levels out & employment goes back up.
Notice how I didn't say everyone, or even a large percentage of people on welfare, are doing drugs? I don't that they are, but there are a few people who abuse the system. "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
The funny thing is, I'm against the government meddling in the lives of citizens but, there's not a black or white answer to the problem. It's either all or nothing. Knot_Rich, who posted below me, has a possible solution. At least, it makes more sense than just "random" testing.
The Constitution is, however, very important & I don't think there is an amount of money that is worth usurping it.
Consider this: There are so many already wealthy individuals who receive governemnt subsidies, grants, various tax write-offs & loopholes, etc. & are never asked to take a test. They fleece our nation of far larger, much more substantial sums than some poor schmucks who don't have a pot to piss in. Why is our dander raised so high when someone poor puts his fingers in our pockets but the wealthy have their whole hand, up to their elbow in some cases, & we don't bat an eye?
Look, there is going to be a certain amount of abuse of every system. It's to be expected. Yes, we have to be as frugal about things as possible & most of the real problems could be all but eliminated by simply following the rules/regulations that already exist. I don't think more rules or more programs need to be established.
However, I look at it like this: A poor person is legitimately poor. He/she has nothing somewhere he/she is trying to hide. There is something that is somehow justified about a poor person wanting something from me. However a wealthy person, who is in need of nothing, w...&
&
The Constitution is, however, very important & I don't think there is an amount of money that is worth usurping it.
Consider this: There are so many already wealthy individuals who receive governemnt subsidies, grants, various tax write-offs & loopholes, etc. & are never asked to take a test. They fleece our nation of far larger, much more substantial sums than some poor schmucks who don't have a pot to piss in. Why is our dander raised so high when someone poor puts his fingers in our pockets but the wealthy have their whole hand, up to their elbow in some cases, & we don't bat an eye?
Look, there is going to be a certain amount of abuse of every system. It's to be expected. Yes, we have to be as frugal about things as possible & most of the real problems could be all but eliminated by simply following the rules/regulations that already exist. I don't think more rules or more programs need to be established.
However, I look at it like this: A poor person is legitimately poor. He/she has nothing somewhere he/she is trying to hide. There is something that is somehow justified about a poor person wanting something from me. However a wealthy person, who is in need of nothing, who puts his/her hands in my wallet, is somehow somewhere below the rank of a nit that lives off a maggot. Why would I focus my energy on the poor person who receives a pittance, literally paltry sum from government while so many incredibly wealthy people receive huge, unbelievably large sums from government. This is a deliberate diversion of our attention from the real issues of actual waste & corruption in our government.
I don't recall anyone important saying anything about giving charity or forgiveness to the wealthy. However, I've heard that there have been a couple of quite important figures who have said things about being charitable to the poor & to children.
If there was a question about rich people being forced to be tested before getting government bailouts. I would have said, "There's no reason for multi-billion dollar companies to be receiving bailouts." Would I get a bailout if I started a own small company and it failed? Probably not. I don't pay lobbyists to sway politicians or donate enough to anyone's campaign fund for that to happen.
Personally, I don't agree with "welfare" as it stands. There are plenty of people in my area that use organizations for assistance. There's: Salvation Army, St. Vincent De Paul, Section 8 (housing), Operation Threshold (housing & utilities assistance), Jesse-Cosby (rent / deposit assistance), and several churches have assistance programs. If given the choice, I'd stop paying taxes to help fund welfare and d...
&
If there was a question about rich people being forced to be tested before getting government bailouts. I would have said, "There's no reason for multi-billion dollar companies to be receiving bailouts." Would I get a bailout if I started a own small company and it failed? Probably not. I don't pay lobbyists to sway politicians or donate enough to anyone's campaign fund for that to happen.
Personally, I don't agree with "welfare" as it stands. There are plenty of people in my area that use organizations for assistance. There's: Salvation Army, St. Vincent De Paul, Section 8 (housing), Operation Threshold (housing & utilities assistance), Jesse-Cosby (rent / deposit assistance), and several churches have assistance programs. If given the choice, I'd stop paying taxes to help fund welfare and donate that money to local organizations. I stayed at Salvation Army when I first moved here. I was moving home but, my truck broke down and I got stranded in a strange state. They helped me with a place to stay, food, and to get a job. As soon as I got my own place and had a few extra dollars, I donated it back to the Salvation Army and still do.
When I was staying at the SA, if someone came up and they were drunk or high, they were refused a bed. The beds, and other resources, were used for people trying to get back on their feet. I took it upon myself to get my life straight so someone else could have the same chance I had. That, to me, is the key. People acting responsibly for themselves and others.
You also stated, "The Constitution is, however, very important & I don't think there is an amount of money that is worth usurping it." Again, I agree with you. But, here's the rub: if the Constitution is our basis for our laws, which it was, then why do we have welfare in the first place? And since we have to Constitutional right to hand out welfare, then the same would go for corporations, as well. Right?
It's not often that I find a line of thought on here that not only makes sense, but also goes against the grain of most people's logic. When I do, it makes me happy to see it.
Should be compound the problem by testing people on welfare? I guess we shouldn't. You were right when you asked, "Should we should add an unconstitutional act on top of another one?" It makes sense and logic is one of the few things I can't argue against.
You, sir, have won this debate. Congrats! heh heh.
(edited for spelling)
But I deeply respect your ability to see the logic behind the reasoning to be against the testing of welfare recipients & your willingness to say so.
We all have to remember that.
You're welcome & thank you, too.
Now, I have a riot to go to.
;-)
(some things about living in Germany are really fun!)
That's an interesting question. I haven't read about it being tested in the Supreme Court.
The way I understand it from loads of studying it, there simply has to be some sort of reason for the search. So, if a person causes an accident or somehow injures someone/thing else, there is cause to search him/her. Up to that time, there isn't.
I'll continue researching that point. It is definitely an interesting one.
However, I very much applaud the remainder of your post. That is, indeed, the biggest problem with our system as a whole. Those we hire to run it seem more interested in expanding it instead of making it more efficiently/effectively.
Mmmmmmm.
Problem is, the next day the cursing of whomever dubbed him a "gentleman" is profound.
T'was a lovely thing to have around... for tea, for coffee, for just plain shots.
mmmm.
the only thing that it does hurt is the helpless kids in the families that will no longer get support and the scumbag parents wont support them as they did on governmental checks
i have the opportunity to use food stamps but would rather struggle than be a welfare handout case
If you want tax payer money you have to be responsible. The problem with that concept is.......????