Should Welfare Recipients Be Required to Take Drug Tests?

by SodaHead News Posted 2012/04/23 13:00:00

Related Topics: drug tests, Georgia, Welfare, Drugs, Fuel, Marijuana, Free, Lawsuit, Tests, Florida, Court

2,139 votes
Read all 3,521 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	1,670 votes	78%
	No	469 votes	22%

In an attempt to ensure that welfare money doesn't fuel drug habits or support illegal markets, Georgia has become the third state to require drug testing for recipients. The Social Responsibility and Accountability Act is scheduled to go into effect on July 1. From that date on, applicants cannot receive benefits if they fail a drug test, and the amount of time before they can apply again depends on how many times they've failed.

According to Reuters, Michigan and Florida have already passed similar laws. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled the law unconstitutional in 2003, and a federal lawsuit has the Florida law on hold. Oklahoma is also trying to pass a similar bill. Opponents are already planning to fight the Georgia law. Do you think it's fair to withhold welfare from drug users?

+82

Add a comment above

S and S 2012/04/23 13:47:05

Yes

+47
absolutely. I have to take random tests to receive my paycheck. why can't welfare recipients do the same to get their paycheck? Why can't welfare recipients be required to do something for their community as part of their payments?
>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead News

Stacy F to Shawee 2012/04/27 04:38:43

+2
All good points. Well said!

reply
William... to Shawee 2012/04/27 04:44:05

where in the **** would you get drugs for free

reply
Stacy F to William... 2012/04/27 05:07:22

+1
That is "the" question, isn't it? Drugs for "free"? If they have the money to buy drugs, then they have the money to buy FOOD instead! And pay bills. AND make sure their children are taken care of. This is the quandary we, as tax payers, find ourselves in. We pay taxes to fund welfare, just so someone else can stay at home, collect the money, and live on the "government tit". No matter that the same individual is, in all likelihood, fully capable of getting a job.
And we wonder why most of us are broke...

reply
Shawee to Stacy F 2012/04/28 17:16:39

So you also have to agree that the child tax credit is welfare as well since its a credit and not a deduction.

reply
Stacy F to Shawee 2012/04/29 01:46:19

No, I don't think the child tax credit could be described as "welfare", seeing as you need to have a job to claim it on your taxes.

Welfare, in and of itself, has nothing to do with taxes, at least not inasmuch as the person RECEIVING it is concerned. To the REST OF US, however, welfare funding is automatically deducted from the taxes we pay in, in order to pay for that entire system.
Personally speaking, I believe the entire tax code is a complete and utter failure. A flat tax is a much better idea. Truth be told, I still think Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan was the best idea around.
If Romney wins the election, I wouldn't mind seeing Herman Cain as Secretary of the Treasury. Hell, he can't do any worse than Timothey Geithner!

reply
William... to Shawee 2012/05/10 00:24:25

wait... what... 0_o

reply
William... to Stacy F 2012/05/10 00:24:06

well said

reply
Shawee to William... 2012/04/28 17:14:58

From someone else

reply
William... to Shawee 2012/05/10 00:23:38

...
...
...
:facepalm

reply
Rusty S... to William... 2012/05/23 11:12:24

Where do you think the "just say no" campaign came from? You think they pay then just say no? lol

reply
Ron to Stacy F 2012/04/25 13:01:23

It's going to cost more and will not stop drug use. The US taxpayers will need to pay for more police, more judges, and more prisons.

reply
Shawee to Ron 2012/04/25 21:39:59

+3
If you're implying imprisoning marijuana users as well you should smoke some and let me know if you became violent and a threat to society. Police lock up more people to get more funding which keeps them employed. The drug cartels are only a problem because marijuana is illegal, make it legal and taxpayers save money while raising funds for government operations. Drug cartels won't make any money.

reply
Ron to Shawee 2012/04/25 23:10:53

+2
I am in full agreement with you.

reply
Stacy F to Ron 2012/04/27 04:49:26 (edited)

+1
Not at all. Why the need for "more police, more judges, and more prisons."? How about this... if an individual wants to receive a welfare check, they give a urine sample. Fail the drug screening, and they don't get as much welfare as they would if they were clean. Every time the individual fails the drug test, they lose more of their check. If they keep failing the drug tests, they lose more and more, until they finally get it through their heads to stop doing drugs, and get a job. (Of course, they'll have to give a drug screening to get the job, lol!) Whaddaya think? And since welfare isn't supposed be given out for YEARS on end, they will be much more likely to get that job if they're clean!

http://rlv.zcache.com/welfare...

reply
Radical 1s1am1st 2012/04/25 03:53:48

No

+4
Only if the legislators from the state proposing drug testing have to take the same monthly drug tests. I wonder who will have the higher failure rate?

reply
diane RN to Radical... 2012/04/25 03:57:06

+4
Marion Barry of course.

reply
Radical... to diane RN 2012/04/25 04:01:21

+1
Newt Gingrinch, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, they have to be high.

reply
diane RN to Radical... 2012/04/25 04:05:02 (edited)

+2
Fact? I think thats just opinion....http://www.washing...

reply
Stacy F to Radical... 2012/04/25 04:10:11

+3
No. You're just trying to turn this into a liberal free-for-all. Don't, okay?
I DO, however, agree with you that the politicians should also be required to take random drug screenings. ALL of them! (Yes, that includes the President.)

reply
S* to Stacy F 2012/04/25 04:26:00

+1
Why stop there, why not everyone then?

reply
diane RN to S* 2012/04/25 04:42:06

+2
And why would that be...I contribute more to the system than I take out

reply
S* to diane RN 2012/04/25 04:55:13

what does that have to do with it?

reply
diane RN to S* 2012/04/25 05:00:08

+1
It has everything to do with it, I am contributing ... paying into the system, one of the working stiffs that is keeping the boat afloat. Without those like me this country would be a definite cluster f--k.

reply
S* to diane RN 2012/04/25 05:06:44 (edited)

for the same reasons required transvaginal sonograms are a bad idea.

reply
diane RN to S* 2012/04/25 05:10:53

+1
What does a pelvic ultrasound have to do with the fact that I am contributing a significant amount of my income to taxes?

reply
S* to diane RN 2012/04/25 05:12:03

but the states that suggest transvaginal sonograms do not identify who pays for an abortion.

reply
diane RN to S* 2012/04/25 05:13:22

+1
what the hell are you talking about....we went from drug testing to paying fair share to abortion....are you ok?

reply
S* to diane RN 2012/04/25 05:17:50

paying taxes does not give you the right to invade anyones privacy.

reply
diane RN to S* 2012/04/25 05:20:49

+3
Get real, you are living in a dream world. I am done talking to you. If you cant see that there are fewer and fewer of us that are paying for more and more of the unemployed than you need to go back to school and take a course in basic math. I would be willing to bet that you are unemployed. Done talking to you, I dont argue with idiots:)

reply
S* to diane RN 2012/04/25 05:23:17

your assumptions are incorrect. Good Day.

reply
john doe to diane RN 2012/04/25 12:27:01

+3
Diane, you've just hit upon BHO's master plan. Career welfare voters are the preferred demographic. Their votes are MUCH easier to coerce and much cheaper to buy than those of the middle classs.

reply
diane RN to john doe 2012/04/30 01:19:14

+1
Right, you throw them a bone and they repay you with a vote.

reply
diane RN to S* 2012/04/25 05:15:18

+2
Btw, I am conservative but believe in abortion for most. I would rather pay for the pregnancy termination upfront than pay for the rest of my life for the drain on society.

reply
SteveA to diane RN 2012/04/25 08:46:30

+4
Wow! I'll bet you think that's a "Christian" attitude you're sportin' there too!

reply
diane RN to SteveA 2012/04/25 10:54:18

+1
Nope, not Christian, just a realist.

reply
Radical... to diane RN 2012/04/25 16:42:40

+2
So do I, I pay quarterly and I upped my estimate by 25% last year and I was still short for 2011 because my company did well last half of the year, I had to cut a pretty good check and still pay a fine. With the increase comes an increase in workers comp. and all the other insurances. I do not mind paying for the politicians to take drug tests. My employees have to take drug tests so I can get bonded and bid on contracts. Politicians are our employees and if they are high or drunk and making bad policy then I am affected financially.

reply
diane RN to Radical... 2012/04/25 23:13:23

+2
THIS is the type of thing that gets me, I thought this was a joke but sadly it isnt

reply
Stacy F to S* 2012/04/25 04:58:11 (edited)

+1
As I wrote, "... the politicians should ALSO be required..." I already have to take random drug tests, just to KEEP my jobs. (YES, you read that right... JOBS, emphasis on the S!)

reply
EmoMcPa... to S* 2012/04/25 05:31:32

+2
Truck Drivers, Aircraft mechanics, fork lift drivers, & even the Dominoes Pizza Delivery !

reply
diane RN to Radical... 2012/04/25 04:43:39

+2
Just because you disagree with someone doesnt mean that they do drugs. Do your research before you cast stones. Karma.

reply