Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i think its just as likely a handout to the companies making/performing the drug tests, and possibly a mildly unconstitutional invasion of privacy, but your take on it being people not caring about their families enough is interesting.
It's either unconstitutional or it isn't. Either way it's morally wrong and a gross invasion of privacy.
There should be very limited cases in which drug testing is allowed, by government or private entities.
My family was on food stamps for a couple of months when my husband was unemployed - if we were asked to take a drug test - I'd do so willingly. We don't do drugs - don't have anything to worry about and it's a somple pee test. If you can't do that to secure your benefits and feed your kids - maybe you shouldn't have kids.
This.
This is exactly who FS were created for...hard working people that need help TEMPORARILY. These are the people who should get them.
I'd say invasion of a persons body or sampling of their fluids should never occur without consent. Now if you agree to taking the states stolen redistributive money, you must voluntarily consent to its terms, but along with that, no one should be robbed to pay someone else, which nullifies the existance of any welfare scheme in the first place.
I'd say invasion of a persons body or sampling of their fluids should never occur without consent. Now if you agree to taking the states stolen redistributive money, you must voluntarily consent to its terms, but along with that, no one should be robbed to pay someone else, which nullifies the existance of any welfare scheme in the first place.
No you don't. The courts have consistently stated otherwise.
Works for me, if I have to take a drug test for my income (employment) then they should be required to test for their income. Food stamps, is a form of income.
If you did or you do have to be drug tested for your income?
How about lets not require anyone to be drug tested in order to do their job or get assistance.
Why should someone that works every day and makes that $50k per year have to pass a drug test in order to work...but people receiving the results of his efforts don't? Or looking at it another way-why should he have to work and have the results of his efforts go to enable druggies? If they have the discretionary income to afford drugs-they don't need welfare.
It has been my understanding employees are drug tested because using drugs on the job could could create an unsafe working environment and endanger others.
What is the purpose for drug testing recipients of food stamps.
If you did or you do have to be drug tested for your income?
How about lets not require anyone to be drug tested in order to do their job or get assistance.
I get drug tested where I work. I'm perfectly fine with that because I understand why it's done. Someone high (we get checked for alcohol also) could really do some damage.
It has been my understanding employees are drug tested because using drugs on the job could could create an unsafe working environment and endanger others.
What is the purpose for drug testing recipients of food stamps.
One reason is the argument that if you are constantly high you are less likely to find meaningful employment. All irrelevant where the government is concerned. With the government you are never guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
I find it odd that is seems that those who argue "original intent" where the Constitution is concerned seem among the most willing to overlook that here.
The Constitution is about as clear as can be here.
They tried this in Florida where the contract for lab work was awarded to a company owned by a relative of then-governor Rick Scott. They spent more in lab costs than they did "saving" money by denying benefits.
The fiscal argument is a failure.
Still, if it's a moral argument then anyone receiving government funds must be tested, not just the poor. That includes judges, law enforcement, elected officials and entities receiving corporate welfare (looking at you, auto/bank bailouts).
This proposal is just another way to demonize and criminalize poverty and line the pockets of wealthy politicians.
"just another way to demonize and criminalize poverty" ?? Geez are people so blind that they don't see that there is rampant fraud in the welfare systems?
There is nothing wrong with being poor except it sucks, and there is nothing wrong with having to be on welfare as long as the system is not abused but there are limits or at least there should be.
I don't think we should allow people that are on public assistance to support their drug habit with it.
I remember seeing a post on social media years ago from a friend of a friend. The guy was attending college where he played football and he had a job on the weekends being a bouncer at a bar. He posted that his EBT card just got loaded and he "was gonna eat good tonight". He wasn't on drugs and I don't know his background beyond he was a black guy from the hood BUT I think there are probably more deserving people out there that are denied welfare for one reason or another.
I think drug testing is a good idea but implementing it is costly and of course if an adult is penalized when their test comes back positive for illegal drugs then it will be other people in their family like the kids that really suffer when the welfare is yanked.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.