Should welfare recipients be subject to drug testing?

As a matter of fact, up until a few months ago, Medicaid recipients had to be alcohol/drug screened. And if they screened "positive", they HAD to go to an evaluation and continue with any treatment the professionals thought were necessary. So, in essence, they are required to do testing.

I can't really answer that because I dont want to offend anyone, but how the money is used, should be monitored. The money should be distributed accordingly, or something, so that there is some control of the money.

everyone who recieves any kind of government assistance should be drug tested in my opinion... what if the reason they need assistance in the first place is b/c they spend all their money on crack? then if theyre serious about getting assistance they need to prove theyre going to get help for their addiction and not just using the system to save money with food stamps or something so they can buy dope later

I think that's a damn good idea!

Hell yeah! They get free money- they should have to be subjected to something!

yes and in my state if you admit to being a drug addict they will give you help, only if you go to treatment, but I think all welfare recipients should be tested randomly so we know where the money is going, speaking from experiance, when I was younger I was on welfare did not do drugs, but my husbands mother use to sell her benifit Ie foodstamps for drugs, kids didn't eat sometimes

Many companies require a drug test with application for employment.

Yes! Most people with decent jobs have to be tested to be hired. Why should their money go to someone taking drugs?

No. I think that's discrimination. Unless you say everyone who is suspected of drug taking should be tested. It's not fair to say just because those people have fallen on hard times and get money from the state that they have less rights then others.

And there are a lot of people that aren't on benefits who want treatment and have to wait for a place in rehab or untill their condition gets worse. Why should you automatically get help just because you get benefits?

What of the children of those people? What will happen to them if they won't go away to take treatment? And who gets to pick who looks like they are on drugs. That system could be easily abused and used as weapon against people.

Even the police has to go to court to get your fluids if you don't give permission. Why should the benefits agency have more power then the police?

There isn't enough money to test everyone on welfare anyway, and if they did how are people on welfare supposed to afford treament?Do we pay for that too? Not everyone on welfare is a drug addict. They are people who are out of work or have had health issues. It's wrong to assume people who need help abuse it.

Not unless you're living in a fascist state, no!! And seeing as poverty is one of the main reasons for drug use, that and poor education (both synonimous with people on state benefits), it would be a kind of double prejudice. Isn't America the 'home of the free?' or does that only apply to those who are beyond reprehension? There's talk in English parliament right now about this issue & hopefully it'll be thrown out, as it's yet another small step towards a police-state. Also, what about the 'Champagne Charlies' who work in the city & snort their way through life, whilst making stupid gambles with people's money and bringing about global financial panic, before giving themselves a big, fat payrise that they will no doubt go and spend on more champers and cocaine? Shouldn't THEY be tested? They're in charge of our finances, for Christ's sake! And what about the politicians who 'didn't inhale'? Wasn't George W Bush an alcoholic coke-fiend at one point? Or are we gonna skate over that? Doing this to people on the margins of society will do nothing more than marginalise them further, creating divides and tensions which will no doubt end in riots and looting and burning. Oh, and have you ever seen a heroin addict rattling? I have & hell fire and brimstone wont stop them getting a fix if they want one. Same goes with meth and crack. This reactionary, rabble-rousing type of politics is an insult to our intelligence and i suspect the only people who'll suffer as a result of this infantile and discriminatory tactic will be drinkers and potheads - the 2 LEAST dangerous type of drug-user, rather than meth heads, for example, who are EXTREMELY dangerous. And where does this end? Will cigarette smokers be next? then what? Fat people? Drivers? It's a slippery slope and people ought to think very carefully before backing this, or soon it may be THEIR 'vice' which is coming under scrutiny. Sorry for going on, but i feel very strongly about this subject. Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Mama Cass, Elvis, the Beatles,Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash,Syd Barratt, Pink Floyd, Bob Marley etc, etc were ALL inspired to some degree by the use of one substance or another - think about that. The only 'clean cut' pop star i can think of right now (with any significant musical influence, not counting boy/girl bands) is Micheal Jackson, and we all know what hes (alledgedly, but never proven) into! Which is the lesser of the two evils, i wonder? Drugs, or Peadophilia? I rest my case.