The employed are drug tested, how about the unemployed?

Employers pay for unemployment insurance, typically if the worker is fired for any fault of his own there is no benefit. Having sex at work is the legal equivalent of handing in an immediate resignation... Welfare is a little different than unemployment

Well I reckon he wouldn't be saying to test them if he assumes 'em all guilty, eh?

guerrilla owned this thread already: "legalize drugs & abolish welfare"

I'd start with HUD & TANF

 

It's very simplistic to believe that welfare is going to be abolished. Drugs aren't going to help the problem. The big issue with drugs is that the addicts cost hospitals billions of dollars. The rehab programs also cost billions as well as the crime that the addicts commit.

 

I think he/she would, to save paying all the benefit users, since they are all doped up

 

Much of which is caused by the illegal nature of them............

 

No, it's not. We're broke. The free ride at the expense of our past and future prosperity, as well as at the expense of foreigners, is coming to an end.

There are over 1 million Americans in jail for non-violent crimes, mostly drug related. They cost at least $25,000 per year to house, feed etc.

That's $25 billion we could take out of imprisoning people and put into treatment and education each year.

Not to mention how many taxpayers it would put back on the street....

But that isn't even about the simple, moral arguments.

What people put into their own bodies, is their business. If businesses want to test their employees, fine. They will be bearing an additional expense, and limiting their labor pool, which will drive up their costs.

If people truly own themselves, then no one should be dictating what they can or cannot do with their body.

And welfare is simply a state ploy to gain power and justify taxes, which is the forced confiscation of wealth. Before welfare, we did just fine with charity. That was until the Depression, which the state created and exacerbated. Then "welfare" was seen as a solution to the million of poor and unemployed created by tariffs, price and wage controls.

The entire system is out of control and no one has the nuts to hit the reset switch. For the love of all thats holy, we can't even pay welfare anymore, we have to debase the currency to keep up with our entitlements, and it is only going to get worse.

Wake up folks.

 

In the last year I have come to know two people with obvious physical scars due to there being two people too few in jail for drug use. One has a scar from a tracheotomy and she is still paying for her time spent in a coma after being hit on her way home from dinner by someone under the influence of drugs. The other person has a speech impairment and some facial scarring from the time he and a bunch of buddies were out driving around while drugged up and they ran into a parked truck. Drug use may be non-violent but the physical affect on others can be quite violent.

Here's a script for the welfare office personnel: "You want a welfare check, pee in this cup. It will be good practice for when you actually get a job."

 

Last I checked driving under alcohol and many substances is illegal..

Not very good logic IMHO you have going for you here.

Much of the 'violence' that comes from drugs is the legality of them, I always love those against drugs being legalized who bring up the violence issue, yet most of the violence is caused by the black market and uncontrolled nature of a black market product.

 

I wasn't bringing up violence related to legality, it was an example of violence as a product of it usage.

 

The same could be said for alcohol, except it’s legal, that is the only difference.

It's about the person not the product used, alcohol, pot whatever can all do the same thing to a person, therefore they should probably all be banned because of potential violence they cause.

 

I have very mixed emotions when it comes to this, because there are drug addicted parents who love their kids and the kids know that they are loved. Taking the kids away from them can cause a lot of problems to the children. The world is full of foster parents who wind up molesting the kids and do who knows what to harm them, so I am always for parents' rights in general, BUT ... there simply is not a fast solution to this.
Absolutely not. The key is to have real help for those who reach out to it and organizations that help change people's lives. I don't think the government is the one that should do too much trying too hard to change anybody, but organizations, churches etc. using donations given to make positive changes.

No, the government should not spoil the rotten, but I do believe also that when there are kids involved, you NEED to look out for their bad interests and sometimes turn a blind eye to their parents and their wrong doings.

 

well i would deifnitely not go for the test..i mean well if its a hard drug, its a different case but simply smoking weeds, i dont think its fair. There are hundreds of responsible users .. and your family simply suffers for your habbit, crap!! its personal and it should be ignored, the government shouldnt prod nor poke!

 

If you're unemployed and the taxpayers are paying for your expenses, I don't think you should be using the money to purchase illegal drugs. If the government did do drug tests on people before they could receive benefits, the only real losers would be the drug dealers and traffickers.

 

If the purpose is to target the "drug dealers and traffickers" & put them out of business then it would make more sense making drug testing mandatory for everyone.

The proposed measures & current measures would only stop unemployed people from using drugs & those who are employed & are tested.

It doesn't put the drug dealers out of business neither would it really hurt them to lose a bit of money & people will still use drugs, so what is the point?

The real losers would be the children of the unemployed who smoke pot as they will be taken into care, or suffer & society will suffer if the person is on hard drugs as he/she will find a way to fund their habit, probably be dealing or the like.

I couldn't give a damn if my tax pays for a bit of pot or not, it's not like i will get a refund if benefits were stopped because a person was on drugs

 

Yes, I honestly don't feel that there's much of a need to test the elderly and retired, and students are often drug tested as are civil servants. It's really about targeting those who are most likely to be taking drugs for financial and logistical reasons.

You are wrong. If you stopped every unemployed person from purchasing drugs, it would have a huge impact upon drug dealers.

Who said anything about jailing? If they fail their test, they don't get my tax money. If they don't get my tax money they won't be able to afford their drugs. I think the children have already lost if they have a parent who is reliant on drugs, and identifying the problem and offering government assistance in breaking the addiction sounds like a much better way of dealing with it.

I actually do care. Why should my money be spent on feeding someones addiction to weed and filling some drug dealers pocket when it could go towards saving lives in hospitals, educating children in schools or pioneering scientific research? Granted, you could say this about a lot of things that the government wastes money on, but this is blatantly obvious.

 

Actually you directly used it as a reason for more drug users to be put into jail.

 

What about the self-employed, those who neither work nor claim benefits (probably dealing or the like)?

They wouldn't be jailed but their kids would be took into care or forced to live on straw, it's not an argument for saying "it's fine" but there are repercussions, like Blogmaster said earlier.

Would these druggies accept that they have no money once benfits are stopped? think to themselves "oh well i can't buy the drugs anymore!? (if they were hard drug users), if not how would they fund their habit?

That is exactly my point the government needs to stop wasting big money first, benfits are a little proportion of the waste, if you look at it that way.