Current Events > Should welfare recipients need to pass a drug test to receive benefits?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Feels or Reals?
---

JustMyOpinion posted...

Seems to be a bit of buttmad in the two options.

---

I suppose I could have included a third option, "No, I think it's wrong to drug test recipients regardless of cost," but I figured more of those people would be ok with the second option. Otherwise all possibilities are covered.
---

Waste of time

Let em get snugged if they want
---

People should be drug tested, but anyone who's caught out should be able to receive benefits depending on whether they attend mandatory rehabilitation or counselling. Regular testing and consistently showing up to scheduled appointments - that's the way to do it.

It's a shame that any public health funding that could go towards this in America is being funneled into the military. Military shit gets used for a handful of years, then gets sold on the civilian market for peanuts or given to the police force. A lot of that loss would surely be better used improving the living standards for American citizens.
---

MrMallard posted...

People should be drug tested, but anyone who's caught out should be able to receive benefits depending on whether they attend mandatory rehabilitation or counselling. Regular testing and consistently showing up to scheduled appointments - that's the way to do it.

It's a shame that any public health funding that could go towards this in America is being funneled into the military. Military shit gets used for a handful of years, then gets sold on the civilian market for peanuts or given to the police force. A lot of that loss would surely be better used improving the living standards for American citizens.

So you'd like to spend even more money on it?
---

Its been proven time and time again it costs way more money than it saves, like 100 to 1
---

No. But there should be drug checks for politicians.
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

Its been proven time and time again it costs way more money than it saves, like 100 to 1

The only purpose it serves is self-righteousness, which is never a good reason for legislation.

No.
---

MrMallard posted...

People should be drug tested, but anyone who's caught out should be able to receive benefits depending on whether they attend mandatory rehabilitation or counselling. Regular testing and consistently showing up to scheduled appointments - that's the way to do it.

It's a shame that any public health funding that could go towards this in America is being funneled into the military. Military shit gets used for a handful of years, then gets sold on the civilian market for peanuts or given to the police force. A lot of that loss would surely be better used improving the living standards for American citizens.

Wait so they just have to show up to counseling and say they don't have a drug addiction or problem?

Y'all Americans are pretty wild with your drug testing so maybe I don't wanna hear the answer.
---

HANGtheDJ_86 posted...

MrMallard posted...

People should be drug tested, but anyone who's caught out should be able to receive benefits depending on whether they attend mandatory rehabilitation or counselling. Regular testing and consistently showing up to scheduled appointments - that's the way to do it.

It's a shame that any public health funding that could go towards this in America is being funneled into the military. Military shit gets used for a handful of years, then gets sold on the civilian market for peanuts or given to the police force. A lot of that loss would surely be better used improving the living standards for American citizens.

Wait so they just have to show up to counseling and say they don't have a drug addiction or problem?

Y'all Americans are pretty wild with your drug testing so maybe I don't wanna hear the answer.

I'm actually speaking from an Australian point of view. The idea I'm getting at is that a drug user should be able to get benefits, but if they test positive to drugs they need to take mandatory appointments with counsellors and groups and stuff - AA or other groups, for example. If they don't show up to appointments, become belligerent or violent at appointments or test positive for drugs at a highly concentrated rate multiple times - then they're at risk of losing their payments. If they can prove that they're making progress through progress reports from their appointments, and cutting back on their drug intake significantly - to the point that they begin delivering clean samples - they can keep getting benefits.

To do this, you can cut a tiny bit of funding from the country's most well-funded sectors like the military - like I said, army vehicles are decommissioned after a certain amount of years and sold on the civilian market for dirt cheap, and military-grade equipment has been passed on to police officers. That must lead to some degree of revenue loss over the years, buying and selling vehicles for hundreds of thousands of dollars and selling them to the public for a smaller sum, and just straight up donating stuff to the police - so through some reform and cost-cutting that leaves the military just as functional as it was before, America could maybe shift a couple million towards the public health sector to try this out.

I think it's worth at least conducting trials. Worst case scenario, nothing has changed and a drug user loses their eligibility to receive benefits until they get clean. Best case scenario, someone gets access to help and advice that they can really apply, they kick drugs and get back on their feet. People might be quick to label it a waste of money, because you know those shady druggies are just gonna take their benefits and spend them on drugs (/s), but it's better to try and help people than to deny them any aid out of fear and cynicism. Incentivising cleanness by giving them benefits, but putting their eligibility at stake if they don't turn themselves around, is one way to try and help people who can help themselves with the right support behind them.

It might not be feasible to do this nation-wide, but conducting trial runs to give people a chance to turn their lives around is much preferable than just writing all drug users off as a lost cause.
---

I dont think it will ever happen because of money. A lot of literal companies (who need good, preferably sober, employees) wont bother with testing simply because of prohibitive cost. And thats before even getting into how much hair testing costs.
---

Yes, it's only fair.

Yes. So I keep my benifits.
---

i feel like this dRuG uSeRs ShOuLdNt HaVe WeLfArE thing has the mindset that addicts spend 100% of that money on their habit, but like....everybody needs to eat, even addicts. youd have to be an idiot to think that every penny they spend goes towards their habit
---

lel
even if they were literally spending all their money on drugs, unless it was some extreme amount, it still comes out as less to let them just fund their life ruining habits than testing them nad having them kicked off
---

let them eat cake
---