Now we talking about a debatable topic. I happen to reside in a state where we have this "rule". As in everything in regards to politics, there is always a crooked politician getting his cut off the top. I feel that our Alienhead governor passed this in hope that the company ran by his wife would benefit from millions of dollars in drug testing fees. After much public scrutiny in the media, he finally sold his family's interest in the business, again making millions. Are there people on drugs who gets welfare. Yes, of course there is. But do we throw out the baby with the bathwater in this case. I say no. Why should the children of these poeple suffer because of their parents disease, and drug addiction is a disease. I would agree that if someone has a drug related conviction, we need to test them, but to make it a criteria for receiving aid, I think it is a bad idea. Then, what type of drugs are we talking about. What if the person is addicted to Narcotic pain killers for an injury? How about medicinal marijuana? What about the nicotine and alcohol dependant person? I am sure they use welfare money to support their habit, either directly or indirectly.
So, while I do not want my tax money going to purchase drugs, I view it as choosing whether to give the begger on the street corner a dollar so he can go "buy him a burger". I know there is a chance that my dollar will end up in the pocket of a drug dealer in the next 3-4 hours, but I can rest better at night because I gave from my heart for him to purchase food. There is also a chance that he can use my dollar to buy a meal that will fill his belly that night. That needs to be the way we look at it in a general sense. No perfect solution, but the lesser of our society needs to be looked after.

I think I have just known too many children who would have gone hungry or possibly gone totally homeless if their parents had to be drug tested to get help. Especially if they were to fear possibly going to jail or having their kids taken away. Addiction issues are not simple.

I am not saying its a totally bad idea, but I don't think it would be very simple. And I think it could end up costing the tax payer more than one might think.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Huge local & state costs + very few "positive" test results = No.

That is very true too.

Do you guys ever wonder who is lobbying to get this stuff on the ballot. There is a lot of money to be made from all of these tests.

Yes yes and Yes.....AND...if you are on welfare, and proceed to have your THIRD child......I think you should no longer have welfare.....they make it way too easy to sit at home and have babies, if people knew they would not get assistance anymore, maybe they would be more mindful of birth control...
Furthermore.....I also think you should not be able to go out and get a brand new car if you are on welfare...I am sorry, but if you can afford that car payment......then WTF am I paying for you groceries and care for?????

If we are only talking about testing welfare recepients and wasteful spending, what about just blanket testing everyone. In my state, there is a program called Medicaid for Pregnant women. By far, the ones taking advantage of this the most are people who can afford to pay or have insurance already, but paying nothing out of pocket is more attractive than paying even .50 to have a child. While most of these people will past a drug test, they are still wasting tax dollars. I don't think testing known abusers is an issue here, I just think that the ones who end up suffering as a result of this are the ones who need protecting the most, the children of these drug abusers.

So... drug testing costs money. Do we raise taxes to support this?

So... drug testing costs money. Do we raise taxes to support this?

nope force them to pay for it,take it out of their first check. Also I worked in a social services office in Cali,most were on drugs.

If you are on welfare you are supposed to be looking for work, training for work and/or attemtping to provide for you and your family. If you are on drugs you are not capable of any of those things. There are programs like WIC etc. that are for children and are not part of the "welfare" group so the kids would still have subsistance. The people on welfare should have to live up to the same standards expected of the people paying for them.

http://www.iberianet.com/forum/florida-s-welfare-drug-tests-results/article_cf30abce-d181-11e0-aa9c-001871e39d26.html

Flordia recently enacted a law demanding that all welfare recipients pass a drug test before getting checks. Proponents of the law said that the savings in welfare payments would be substantial - well enough to cover the cost of the drug tests because people on welfare did drugs more frequently than people not on welfare. Opponents of the law said that this reasoning was flawed and relied on stereotyping with no supporting evidence whatsoever. They said this would cost the state more money and was nothing but a waste of money designed to punish the poor.

The data is in. 98% of welfare recipients passed the drug tests, costing the state of Florida $30,000 - $40,000 a month in testing while saving the state $3,400 - $5,000 a month in denied welfare payments.

*~*~*~*

I'm going to repeat that last bit and wish I could bold/italicize

"98% of welfare recipients passed the drug tests, costing the state of Florida $30,000 - $40,000 a month in testing while saving the state $3,400 - $5,000 a month in denied welfare payments."

Add to the fact that it is unconstitutional:

4th Amendment - “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The fourth amendment is supposed to protect us all against unreasonable searches and seizures. Being poor can’t be a justification for suspending someone’s civil rights. Receiving public assistance is not reasonable suspicion.

great post!

Nope, because drug addiction is a disease and even addicts need food.

ALSO because there should be no requirements to get government assistance other than NEEDING it.

That's kind of where the question comes from: how do you define "NEEDING" it?

Do I need it if I overbought a $600,000 house, so now I don't have enough cash from my job to buy food too?
Do I need it if I choose to spend my food money on drugs or alcohol (or tobacco, or gambling, etc.)?
Do I need it if I chose to have 10 kids on an income that is only sufficient for 1 person?

The other part that I really have a problem with, is why do we need entitlement programs? The very definition of entitlement allows people to say that they don't have to do anything because they will just get it - because they are "entitled" to it. Entitlement programs are a fairly recent concept - they have been around for less than 100 years. People managed for thousands of years before entitlement programs - how do we justify them for more than a very small subset of the population? The last figures I saw show almost 40% of the US is on some form of public assistance. This should probably be a separate thread though

Do I need it if I overbought a $600,000 house, so now I don't have enough cash from my job to buy food too?
Do I need it if I choose to spend my food money on drugs or alcohol (or tobacco, or gambling, etc.)?
Do I need it if I chose to have 10 kids on an income that is only sufficient for 1 person?

I would say that YES, all of those point to needing it.

Speaking as someone who had to break down and ask for help from my state....

YES THEY SHOULD BE DRUG TESTED!!!

I'm busting my *kitten* trying to get ahead and NOW I'm at a point where I make too much money for this or that but not enough to afford it on my own kind of thing. MEANWHILE I see some of these b!tches sitting on their *kitten* NOT TRYING to better themselves and doin god knows what and receiving ALL KINDS of FREE ASSISTANCE! It pisses me off.

I know of a couple where the girl refuses to work and her boyfriend is a druggie ex felon working as a cook part time and they're receiving $400 a month for food for them and a newborn...PLUS WIC, PLUS MEDICAID....WTF?!?!

Do I need it if I overbought a $600,000 house, so now I don't have enough cash from my job to buy food too?
Do I need it if I choose to spend my food money on drugs or alcohol (or tobacco, or gambling, etc.)?
Do I need it if I chose to have 10 kids on an income that is only sufficient for 1 person?

I would say that YES, all of those point to needing it.

Then you can let them have your money.

What you are talking about is teaching people that it's ok not to be accountable for poor choices. What happens when everyone becomes NEEDY for no good reason other than feeling entitled, laziness and poor choices.