-24 People on welfare shouldn't be drug tested. Places like Florida have tried it and reimbursed the people who came up negative, and still saved no money even with the people who actually were on drugs paying for their own drug tests. The government would either pay for everyone's test, do what Florida did, or have everyone pay for their test, either way they either make no money, end up spending more money on drug tests than they save on welfare, or make people in need suffer for the 2% amirite?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The whole thing started when someone made the claim that people on welfare use more drugs than people not on welfare- only 2% of people on welfare use drugs but out of the rest of the population about 10% do. It's not OK to make 100% of welfare recipients pay for drug tests when they're already suffering just because 2% of them abuse welfare for drugs. So what would most likely happen is either the government would have everyone pay for a drug test and only reimburse those who came up negative or pay for everyone's drug test even those who came up positive. Drug tests cost money. They could spend more on drug testing than they would save from finding out those 2% of people who use drugs and are on welfare. And the whole thing is about money- if it wasn't but was actually about stopping people from using drugs then we'd drug test everyone, which is also unrealistic. The other problem is that even if the government was willing to spend more money that people can show up falsely positive just for eating certain things- ex poppy seeds make you show up for heroin. So they'd have to be re tested- unless the government decides to just throw them in jail or automatically discontinue t

by Anonymous 12 years ago

heir welfare- which would cost even MORE money. Then there's the whole thing with how impossible it would be for the drug tests to be random. They couldn't have someone show up to every single welfare recipients house and demand they pee in a cup- the closest they could get to random is calling them up and telling them to show up at the designated drug testing center, which would more than likely be the same place TASC is at, by a certain day or even the same day they call- which is all the opportunity they need to go spend a mere 30 dollars on a detox kit. And if it wasn't needed by that day, depending on what drugs they do they could just quit for 3 days or so and go test. It doesn't matter if you think welfare recipients shouldn't use money for drugs- they shouldn't- but that's not the point. The point is it doesn't save money and could potentially end up costing more than they'd save which would be detrimental to the already in shambles economy. http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/just-we-suspected-florida-saved-nothing-drug-testing-welfare They saved no money and that was with the people who were positive paying for their own test. If the govern...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

ment payed for everyone- they would lose money, and making people who are already on government aid pay for a drug test just because 2% of them use drugs isn't OK. TL;DR: Forget your opinion that people on welfare shouldn't use drugs- it's about how much money it would cost to have the money situation either the same or even more negative.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I like how there is one person who NWs like "FORGET HOW MUCH MONEY IT COSTS- STOP ALL THE DRUGS!" in which case I hope they're for giving everyone drug testing, not just welfare recipients.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If they're for drug testing everyone- I think it's stupid but at least it would be consistent reasoning. You're right though- a bunch of people are ignoring the statistics and the amount of money it costs and not looking at places who have tried this and didn't save money- they just want to stop drugs. I also think it's funny your comment is down voted because it's true.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You should eliminate monetary welfare and instead give coupons. The coupons will be for only basic needs, so they have almost no street value at all. Better yet, give a welfare card that's good for, say, two meals a day, and pay for the first, say, $200 of utilities.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's actually a really good idea. There's still a few problems though- Like my aunt who is on food stamps used to sell them for drug money. Still a better system that what we have in place though- it makes it harder.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah the problem is food stamps is that you can use them to buy anything from participating stalls. If you make each stamp specific to a certain type of food, the street value drops to like 1% of the printed value. I still liekthe card thing. I actually thought of that during a pro-welfare rant with my classmate.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And if you gave someone a coupon for running water and electricity, they aren't likely to want to sell that for drugs.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not sure if sarcasm or not... I mean, drug dealers need that stuff too, so their street value is still pretty high. I still say the welfare card is a near- ideal system.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

While that's good in theory, ultimately the cheapest way to give money is just to give the money straight. Welfare is made to be below minimum wage regardless so how much money are these people making to spend? They barely get by month to month and usually only have their basic needs met, if that at all.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Why don't we make people EARN their welfare money by simple jobs such as cleaning roadways community service etc. they wouldn't have to work much but enough that getting a job at Walmart or McDonald's would be more favorable than being on welfare

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If my parents, who both work full time jobs, were to test positive on a drug test they would lose their jobs. So, why is it that people who are getting their money for FREE are able to sit at home and do drugs all day? I know some people on welfare really are trying to work and just don't have quite enough to make ends meet, but it's the people who don't even TRY to be productive that do not deserve to get money handed to them.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Read Naggs comment below this one.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm gonna use Canadian stats because I feel like they'd be the same for America. 45% people on welfare are children. 30% of them are people with disabilities. Welfare is below minimum wage and the most someone can make on welfare is one grand monthly. Only 2% of people on welfare abuse substances(which isn't ok but is comparable to the 8-10% of people working) Most people in welfare are UNABLE to work.

by Anonymous 12 years ago