Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / Politics And Modern Events

by DJ Butter jetpacking up up and away on November 8th, 2007

DJ Butter jetpacking up up and away

Question

Help answer this question below.

Do you believe people receiving welfare/foodstamps should have to pass random urine screens to get those benefits? Many people have to pass one to be able to have their job and pay the taxes to provide those services. I think it would be a good idea.

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. Showing one answer.

  • by Mr. Meaulnes on November 9th, 2007

    Mr. Meaulnes

    Absolutely not.

    For one thing, the American "War on Drugs" is a travesty that clogs our prison systems with non-violent offenders, generates massive illicit profits in the drug trade which actually *Increase* violent drug-related crimes, and violates people's basic rights to do whatever they choose in the privacy of their own bodies as harms no one else, and tying welfare benefits, which are intended to support people and their families through financially rough periods to the passing of a drug test would be draconian and utterly unethical.

    What direct relevance does the fact of whether a person fails a drug test or not have to their ability to hold down a job?
    If a person is say... Fired from their job for being intoxicated on the job, then I might be behind the idea of restricting that person's access to welfare benefits, but if no direct correlation can be drawn between the person's drug use and their lack of gainful employment, then it's none of the government's business what they put into their bodies.

    And even if you are behind the "War on Drugs", what do you propose to do with the people who fail said drug test? Deny them the benefits needed to support their family? Throw them into one of our already desparately overcrowded jails?
    Even if the pre-existing drug laws *Were* morally or ethically justified enough to justify doing either of those things to people just because they use drugs (Which, in my humble opinion, they're not), enforcing them through the welfare system would be a logistical disaster of epic proportions.

    Comments

    • Excellent answer Flagg!!

      Nathan Explosion

      by Nathan Explosion on November 12th, 2007

    • Thank you.
      I was considering adding that I myself know quite a few people who use drugs, and only one of them is on welfare *Or* foodstamps.
      And even with them, it's for a completely unrelated reason.

      Mr. Meaulnes

      by Mr. Meaulnes on November 12th, 2007

    • yeah.. the two issues are and should be totally separate.. If we want to solve the drup problems we should address it regardless of a persons financial situation and we should treat the poverty issue without adding insult to injury..

      Nathan Explosion

      by Nathan Explosion on November 12th, 2007

    • "That government is best which governs least." --Thomas Paine

      In general, I think that the government should stay out of what we put into our bodies -- be it drugs or food funded by taxpayers.

      veronica

      by veronica on January 5th, 2008

    • Veronica, I agree wholeheartedly.

      Mr. Meaulnes

      by Mr. Meaulnes on January 5th, 2008

    • *applauds* great answer!

      mistje

      by mistje on August 25th, 2008

    • Gov could stay out however, when people put drugs in their body they lots of times the gov ends up paying for medical service for these people.

      my2cents--Vote for Paul

      by my2cents--Vote for Paul on January 16th, 2009

    • If the government doesn't want the job of paying for some of its people's bad decisions, then it shouldn't try to claim authority over them.
      At the genesis of the United States, the government was essentially intended as an institution for protecting people's rights. Spending some money on things like education and health care to protect people's rights to choice is part of the government's job; what is NOT the government's job is stripping people of their rights for the "Common Good" (or whatever the argument for banning drugs allegedly is).

      Mr. Meaulnes

      by Mr. Meaulnes on January 16th, 2009

    • While some drugs are no more harmful then cigerettes they are illegal. And if you are asking the gov't to supplement you family in any way whether it be financially or nutritionally then you need to be following the laws the gov't has set. I do not feel that I should pay taxes to help those who spend what money they have on drugs instead of providing for their family. Urine is free. If you arent doing anything illegal what have you lost. If you are then I hope it makes you step back and see where youre priorities are.

      marla88

      by marla88 on January 26th, 2011

    • Like
    • Report

    9 comments | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Do you believe people receiving welfare/foodstamps should have to pass random urine screens to get those benefits? Many people have to pass one to be able to have their job and pay the taxes to provide those services. I think it would be a good idea.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

Answerbag

a Demand Media company