Test all government employees, law enforcement (for roids!) and public company officers too.

Aren’t there plenty of things that need to be accomplished in neighborhoods with large amounts of welfare recipients that the welfare recipients can actually DO for the money… such as cleaning the dirty streets, or enforcing a neighborhood watch, or building parks, or fixing up schools? Money should never be free.

Someone would need to check they don’t switch samples. That would probably be the worst job ever.

wow
thats an unbelivable point that i’ve never thought about.
i read something on drug dealing that the days when welfare checks come are the busiest days of the month.

Are alcoholics and addicts not worthy of help? Are they somehow less human than others in dire situations?

Would this expanded government oversight include better treatment options for those who suffer from addiction? Do you really believe that welfare is the reason they stay addicted?

What will we do with them after they have no support? Let them die, imprison them after they commit larceny to stay alive–there’s something that costs the taxpayers a lot of money–or euthanize them?

It might seem like an absurd leap from what you’re suggesting, but human rights erode in just this way. And what we consider basic human rights can depend upon which side of genetic luck and circumstance we stand.

Wow
i voted yet and looks like mostly everyone else thought yes apart from the odd hippy or 2.

that’s a great idea.

Only if the testers test clean

We’re not where we are from poor people on drugs. We’re where we are because rich Harvard MBAs and Yale PHDs working on Wall St. exploited loopholes and used poor America to line their pockets with money. I say take the bonus’s away from the rich and use it to buy the poor peoples drugs.

Drug testing is not meant to catch anyone, it’s just meant to prevent drug-takers from entering positions of authority or responsibility where drug dependency would be a risk. A drug-taking welfare recipient is only a risk to themselves. Testing welfare recipients smacks of punishing people for being poor. Being poor is punishment enough.

I disagree – people on welfare tend to be marginalised groups, and have a much higher predisposition to substance abuse. This is the result of socio-economic exclusion. FOcus on programmes to bring people into the economic mainstream, rather than marginalising them even more with urine testing. It would be yet another tool used to drive a wedge between the poorest and wealthiest segments of society.

The purpose of welfare is to make sure that the nation’s innocent children have food, clothing, and shelter even if their parents are incapable or unwilling to be self-sufficient. I am in favor of drug testing them, but I don’t think a blanket policy of cutting off people who test positive would be beneficial. Perhaps the testing results could be used in some other, more useful way.

Sure, test them! Afterall they’re responsible for the financial mess we’re in! Maybe we can take a few dollars away from some poor crack heads! Rehab and treatment really doesn’t work, but religion does! We should get evangelical groups to take care of the problem!

Uh-oh, I might have to stop reading NY Nerd. Way to fascist for my tastes.

take it easy ellen, there are 3500 leftist postings on here to the 1 fascist. for the record, i am not in favor of this after thinking it over – the primary purpose of welfare is to make sure the children are supported.

THIS REDICIOUSE WE AL REDY IN A RECESSION

welfare recipients smoking weed are not the problem. it’s the ivy league educated financial overlords that gamed the system to steal our retirements our homes and now our credit. we are broke because of them. they should be forced to drink the tests of welfare recipients.

I would agree to this if every federal, state and municiple employee was tested before they received their cheque

Like a lot of folks in this state, I am retired. When I was working, I had to pay taxes to the government and distribute my taxes as they see fit. In order to get my paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test. Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check? I have to pass one to earn it for them.
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on his a** and collecting a welfare check.
Could you imagine how much money the state of Oklahoma would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?