Drug test to get Welfare?

No, its a violation of privacy.

 

I don't think people should be tested at work either, in fact I will extend my thoughts further, I think drugs should not be illegal.

 

Those are two different things.

While people are committing crimes, they shouldn't get welfare. Simultaneously drugs should be abolished as a crime.

However, while they're currently a crime, committing crimes should be grounds for refusing welfare.

 

In my country it is illegal to do drug tests at work or for welfare, it is against the privacy law. I never had to do such a test. I only have to do a blood test for HIV, HCV because I work with those bugs at work. It is not to discriminate me but for my own safety and the results are not shared with my company.

people with drug problems should be helped not left to there faith. How else can you do something about the problem. Cutting there income will only increase violence because they have no other options left. I don't say you have to just spread the money around. It can come with some restrictions like they have to go in rehab or there expenses are controled to make sure they spend the money on food, clothes and rent.

 

I do not believe in drug tests for working citizens. With our current system, though, I think recipients of welfare should absolutely receive drug tests. The taxes that come out of my paycheck are paying for their food (and, ironically enough, the drug test). If they're getting free money, they'd better not be using it to get high.

It's bad enough some women can pop a few babies out and live off of foodstamps for years to come. I see this WAY too much at the grocery store.

 

There are several sides to this. On one hand, it's a violation of rights to refuse someone the right to take drugs simply because they need social assistance. In particular, I'm speaking about recreational drug use here. It's demoralizing to have one's lifestyle rights stripped away only because you fall into a given class category.

For persons with an active addiction, I don't see what the point would be. Most people who are addicted would probably end up being denied welfare if they needed to stay clean to receive the income. I think this would create greater problems than good, unless other adequate supports (not that welfare is adequate) existed. Punishing someone for having an addiction is not going to help. On the other hand, enabling them doesn't either.

 

How about an IQ test?

 

It makes perfect sense why they would have people do that... The loopwhole to welfare is that people find that they can use the system, in this case to feed their habit. It is horrible that things have to be CONTROLLED like that but at the same time I see why.

 

denying help to people in need is a crime against humanity. I don't say that we have to give money to every one who abuses the system, but we have to help people in need.

It is unfair to say "you have a drug problem so you are out of the system and have to sort it out for yourself". Whose fault is it anyway that they are in this position. Mostly these are people that come from poor families with little prospections to begin with.

We are a social being and need to help others in need. I don't say that the social system in Belgium is that good, it is hardly afordable. I live in a country with one of the highest taxes in the world. But there are not so many people who are left out the system. Almost no one has the live on the street or as no money to buy food or give there childeren a good upbringing. And everybody can go to the hospital, even the homeless. I'm relieved to know that when times are bad for me, when I have no job anymore, when I get sick or handicaped or to old to work, that I will be supported by the gouvernement like I'm supporting others now. I'm happy to pay my taxes.

 

Simply put; no. I do not think that welfare recipients should be drug tested, nor do I think that previous crimes like DUIs (or anything at all) should keep someone from getting welfare.

 

This is true enough, but wouldn't giving them well fare in some cases enable them? So maybe having well fare would be worse than not in some cases.

 

I think drug test should be used so we can be sure we're not funding some crackhead.
It's kinda stupidarse to bank off the government to live in a shitty house and shoot up all day.

In fact, welfare is a stupid idea to a certain extent.

 

Explain further, my friend, explain.

 

When welfare was established in the 1930's it was in the middle of the great depression. Millions of people were out of work and starving- so it made sense to give out food stamps and help the people, because if they didn't then shit would get out of hand.

When the economy boomed again, the standards of welfare didn't change. People were still on it, and I happen to believe in this modern day and age, Welfare overall, is a bad thing.

Unless it's redrawn and the requirements are adjusted to modern day society, we're going to continue to see people who don't exactly need to be on welfare being on it anyway. There are entire families who exist where, generation after generation has been on welfare and they haven't made an effort to get out of it- simply because these particular people have found it 'the easy way out'.

Sometimes being on welfare is unavoidable, but most people who aren't disabled, even single parent women with kids, can pull themselves out of the poverty to a level where they can support themselves without leeching from the government. I've known plenty of people who did this- and then, I've also known people who have decided not to.

Welfare needs to be correct or completely gotten rid of. It isn't helping like the way it was intended to- instead of feeding the starving and out of work like it did in the 1930's it is encouraging people to sit on their lazy arses instead of doing something.

 

Lotta ignorance in this thread.

 

Well, as far as I'm aware the other alternative to welfare is homelessness and an increase in property/theft-related crimes. Besides, im sure that jails are willing to care for people who want to 'sit on their asses all day'. All you have to do is commit a crime or two and then bam, you got a roof over your head and 3 square meals a day.

It's true that some people will abuse the system and feed their habit, and welfare might encourage dependence, but how are you gonna get a job if you're homeless and try apply for even a place like walmart reeking of filth?

In an economy where it's normal to 'downsize' and outsource in order to counter the negative effects of government induced inflation, people need something to fall back on when things get tough -- after all, things such as the cost of the Iraq war doesnt come from nowhere. It comes from the government printing a lot of money and then giving it to the military-industrial complex who recirculate it back into the economy (and thus lowering the value of all money in circulation -- causing prices to go up).