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!
I busted butt for all the time I was in school and later on when I was in service, taking the "easy" route rarely, if ever, gets anything other than mere existence as a result.
EDIT: spelling
Everybody seems to be concerned
over the constitutional rights of the adults
What ever happened to sanity!!!!
Test positive and you are retired. We win because the size of the military and welfare will shrink.
Be well
Also--I know that this isn't a popular opinion--but I think we should show compassion to all people, whether or not they are healthy and drug-free. People turn to drugs, most often, as a result of unfortunate circumstances and biological, physiological, and psychological vulnerability. That doesn't mean they deserve to starve. I don't think that they should be spending any money they have on drugs--that's not what I'm saying, by any means--but they shouldn't be so harshly discriminated against. It's a lifestyle that very few are familiar with and very few are in any position to judge. If they're hungry, don't interrogate, violate, and lecture them; feed them. That's the humane thing to do.
I believe that the government should give money to rehabs to assist addicts. However, it is ethically wrong to stereotype the poor as druggies and unconstitutional to force them to take drug tests based on their socioeconomic standing. Unless there is a warrant or immediate cause, based on reasonable evidence of unlawful activity, the government cannot force anyone to take a drug test.
Additionally, if it's self-destructive behavior, I don't believe it's the business of others. It would be nice if we could persuade all addicts to get help and be clean, but you cannot search someone without cause and send them to rehab.
I am not stereo typing them. If you don't have a job and can't support yourself my government has a duty to work to eliminate whatever is holding you back and get you a job and get you off all forms of public assistance. Drugs are part of the problem. The focus should be getting people off the tax dole and making them contribute to the system instead of free load off it.
And I have news for you, the government can force anyone to take a drug test. They do not need a warrant. Ever heard of a sobriety check point. Refuse the test and you are presumed guilty. The supreme court ruled such checkpoints legal. So the government can screen anyone for drugs as long as they screen everyone at the check point. Just like they can search everyone in an airport.
i also know people that are able to work and collect welfare because its the easy thing to do, live in section 8 housing and do side jobs for cash, they seem to have enough for drugs, and the newest video game console out. these are the ones that hurt us
i noticed someone put 8% failure rate up above so thats 80,000 people outta a million failing. 80,000 x 200 for food stamps alone is 16,000,000 dollars a month that the tax payers can be saving. im sure a simple spot check can save a lotta money
yes ,there are those that need the food stamps and only smoke "weed" because its cheap, but if your doing good enough to roll joints our doing good enough to say " welcome to wal mart, do you need a cart"
No one is forcing them to ask for assistance. However, if you're in need and you can suck up your pride and ask for help, you should be given help. You should not be interrogated simply on the basis that you can't afford food.
The unemployment rate is going down, but it's still relatively high. There aren't enough jobs. Most people on welfare are looking for jobs, but can't get them. They'd love to work for their food, but they're unable to in this economy.
If this policy were implemented, you would be paying MORE money to make sure "drug addicts" DON'T have food on their table. Less money would go towards food for those who need and "deserve" it, so you'd be starving more than just the "druggies." I think it's simply not compassionate to take away from others due to discrimination.