Requirement? Pass a Urine Test Before Getting Public Assistance?

The only fair way is for everyone to to be tested, or no one.
 
Reba said:
If they are applying for welfare benefits, they would be tested, too. If they fail the test, they don't get the benefits.
Click to expand...

But the point is, there is just as much drug abuse going on in this segment as there is in people seeking public assistance. And, as far as I'm concerned, they are living off my tax money, too, as long as they are driving on the roads, sending their kids to school, etc.
 
Reba said:
On the contrary. If the public knew that welfare beneficiaries had to pass drug screening in order to collect those benefits, then they would be reassured that they are NOT junkies.
Click to expand...

But the policy assumes they are. Otherwise, no testing would be necessary without a reason to believe that one is abusing substances. Just the fact that they have applied for public assistance is not an indication of a substance abuse issue.

Should we also start testing senior citizens before they can receive their SS benefits? The drug abuse amoung senior citizens who abuse prescription meds is astounding. In fact, substance abuse services and the Dept. of Mental Health have a specialty for senior citizens who are addicted or abuse meds.

How about vets receiving benefits? Lots of substance abuse going on in that population.
 
Reba said:
They reason they would be tested is because they applied for welfare benefits. If they weren't living off public assistance, they wouldn't need to be tested.

Supposing that the well-to-do money makers use the most drugs, then they aren't getting welfare benefits either, so why would they be tested?
Click to expand...

And that is the point. Applying for public assistance is not an indication of substance abuse.
 
jillio said:
But the point is, there is just as much drug abuse going on in this segment as there is in people seeking public assistance. And, as far as I'm concerned, they are living off my tax money, too, as long as they are driving on the roads, sending their kids to school, etc.
Click to expand...
Are they not paying gas taxes, property taxes, etc., for those services?
 
I might be mistaken, but I think that every time a tested person challenges this in court, it rules in the person's favor. All it takes is for one person to stand up.
 
Beowulf said:
I might be mistaken, but I think that every time a tested person challenges this in court, it rules in the person's favor. All it takes is for one person to stand up.
Click to expand...

I don't know about every time, but it certainly happens a lot. Our judicial system at least still upholds a right to privacy.
 
jillio said:
But the policy assumes they are. Otherwise, no testing would be necessary without a reason to believe that one is abusing substances. Just the fact that they have applied for public assistance is not an indication of a substance abuse issue.
Click to expand...
It assumes that some do.

Should we also start testing senior citizens before they can receive their SS benefits?
Click to expand...
SS retirement benefits are not the same as welfare benefits. Senior citizens have earned those benefits. They aren't using someone else's money.

How about vets receiving benefits? Lots of substance abuse going on in that population.
Click to expand...
Their benefits were earned; they aren't getting welfare from VA.
 
Reba said:
It assumes that some do.

Then test the some that there is a valid reason to suspect substance abuse in.


SS retirement benefits are not the same as welfare benefits. Senior citizens have earned those benefits. They aren't using someone else's money.
Yes, they are. People paying in today are financing the benefits paid out currently. What about SSI recipients or SSDI recipients? Should they be subjected to testing? SSI recipients can draw benefits without ever having paid a dime into the system.
Their benefits were earned; they aren't getting welfare from VA.
Click to expand...

They are still benefits for which they are not working currently.
 
Reba said:
Use of roads and schools by taxpayers is not welfare.
Click to expand...

It is still my tax money being spent. Suppose I disapprove of drug abusers using my tax money for any reason? Is that a valid reason to test?
 
jillio said:
Then test the some that there is a valid reason to suspect substance abuse in.
Click to expand...
That wouldn't be equitable.

Yes, they are. People paying in today are financing the benefits paid out currently.
Click to expand...
SS retirement benefits are earned by people who worked and paid into the system. That is NOT the same as welfare benefits.

What about SSI recipients or SSDI recipients? Should they be subjected to testing? SSI recipients can draw benefits without ever having paid a dime into the system.
Click to expand...
Why not?

They are still benefits for which they are not working currently.
Click to expand...
They earned them.

How is it you don't understand the difference between working for compensation, and receiving money without having ever had to do anything in exchange?

Taxpayers get back money because they worked and put money in.

Welfare recipients get money because the government gives them money that taxpayers put in.
 
Reba said:
That wouldn't be equitable.


SS retirement benefits are earned by people who worked and paid into the system. That is NOT the same as welfare benefits.


Why not?


They earned them.

How is it you don't understand the difference between working for compensation, and receiving money without having ever had to do anything in exchange?

Taxpayers get back money because they worked and put money in.

Welfare recipients get money because the government gives them money that taxpayers put in.
Click to expand...

Many welfare recipients have paid into the system, as well. :cool2: Some are still paying in. The working poor, you know.

This type of testing still assumes guilt, and is directed at the poor and disadvantaged population. And adds another obstacle in their path by requiring them to pay for testing. If they could afford to pay for testing, they would not be applying for benefits.
 
sallylou said:
I don't believe that anyone should have to take a drug test unless the person drives as part of her job, cares for a child, or has another responsibility to others that drug use would effect. I don't see the point in policing average weekend recreational drug users.
Click to expand...
So that would include parents because they care for children. "Has another responsibility to others that drug use would effect," is pretty broad. That would include anyone working in nursing homes, hospitals, schools, public safety, operating machinery, law, aviation, food service....
 
jillio said:
My agency reserves the right to test in cases where drug use is suspected based on behaviors, work performance, etc.
Click to expand...
So, they behavior profiling? What if an addict doesn't have blatant symptoms, or others are afraid to report them?

But they don't do randoms. And then, they offer treatment instead of dismissal.
Click to expand...
Until the treatment is completed, are they put on suspension with pay? Certainly they aren't allowed to continue working with the public.
 
Reba said:
So that would include parents because they care for children. "Has another responsibility to others that drug use would effect," is pretty broad. That would include anyone working in nursing homes, hospitals, schools, public safety, operating machinery, law, aviation, food service....
Click to expand...

...and the military, and those who carry guns? :P
 
Back
Top