Should welfare recipients be subjected to drug tests?

[Mao]

Saw the law to drug test welfare recipients was passed in Kansas today, mainly supported by Republicans, but opposed somewhat by Democrats:
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/02/28/4092105/kansas-senate-passes-bill-to-require.html

But sometimes, Democrats support it:
http://bangordailynews.com/2013/02/28/politics/state-house/maine-democrat-submits-bill-to-drug-test-welfare-recipients/

But then, the high court rejects it on the grounds of violation of the Constitution:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/26/court-nix-fla-law-drug-testing-welfare-applicants/

Meanwhile, LNP wants to introduce something similar:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/drug-test-the-unemployed-before-dole-says-coalition-mp-george-christiansen/story-fn59niix-1226376268042
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/14525851/drug-tests-for-welfare-on-lib-agenda/

[mark_alec]

Lots of the drugs they wish to test for should be legal. If they tested any profession: doctors, lawyers, engineers, politicians, musicians... they would also find lots of people taking drugs.

[nubs]

I think that is somewhat irrelevant, though

Doctors, lawyers etc all make significant contributions to society, and they would pay for the drugs with the money they have earnt themselves

I think the issue is that the money received through welfare could be spent on drugs. It would not be their own money, but it would be the money the Government has given them (taxpayer's money) to help pay for food, gas, electricity, education or health care, but instead it's being spent on drugs.

If they can't support their drug habits on their own, some might think that it's unfair that they should be able to use the tax payer's dollar to support it.

Of course if they believe that, then they should also be against using welfare money to gamble or buy alcohol - but that would probably be near impossible to test for.

On the other hand, only a very small percentage of people on welfare use drugs, I think it's something like 8%
So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a chance that more money would be spent trying to test everyone before putting them on welfare than the amount saved from the reduction in welfare payments?

[slothpomba]

All from an Australian perspective anyway.

I think part of it is based on the perception that those icky poor people just sit around all day ripping bongs or everyone on welfare is a bogan.

As far as i know, it's fairly hard to just stay on welfare for no good reason and sit around all day watching TV. They try make you work and they progressively cut down your money over time if you don't (as far as i know).

It also must be remembered that whilst living on welfare is indeed living in the sense you can eat, its far from living the good life. It's meant to be deliberately unpleasant, it's enough to keep you alive and reasonably healthy but it's not enough to live a proper life off, like enjoying the rare pleasure like going to a restaurant or seeing a movie.

So, i think a lot of this springs from some very warped idea that we have welfare queens (usually tinged with racial or class undertones as well) living it up off our money. We don't. If you're spending your money on any significant amount of drugs, then, you're probably even skimping on things like food, you have bigger problems than mismanaged spending then.

Most of us receive government money in one way or another. A lot of families get family tax benefits, people get the baby bonus, a lot of families with school aged children got some kind of educational bonus from the government. I'm not convinced why, if you say we shouldn't drug test these people, why we should drug test people on the dole, rather than the perception that everyone who is poor is an icky, deadbeat, non-motivated loser. Not to mention, under this regime, they can still spend it on perfectly legal drugs if they like but i'm sure it's patriotic to support the goon industry after-all.

I've also seen some arguments that suggest it would cost more to enforce this (not to mention the liberty cost) than you would reap by totally cutting drug users off from welfare, which, i don't think is consistent with values in a society like Australia. I'm not happy they're using drugs, they need help but doesn't mean we should cut them off from welfare and let them die on the street either.

[abeybaby]

i think perhaps having the tests, and then those who fail the tests can be given the option of having a job assigned to them from the government which they have to carry out in order to receive payments?

[Professor Polonsky]

Absolutely not. People should have access to welfare regardless of whether they are struggling with a drug addiction - which they should receive help for.

[abeybaby]

Absolutely not. People should have access to welfare regardless of whether they are struggling with a drug addiction - which they should receive help for.

I certainly agree that failing a drug test shouldnt disqualify a person from receiving welfare - but maybe it should mean that a different approach than just handing out money should be implemented?

[nacho]

Absolutely not. People should have access to welfare regardless of whether they are struggling with a drug addiction - which they should receive help for.

My sentiments exactly. These people haven't broken the law so why should they be subjected to drug tests? Does being poor automatically make you a suspect?

Is essence drug testing your citizens to see if they're fit for help is another way of saying 'get your shitty habits together and clean yourself up.'
May as well screen people for things like smoking, alcohol addictions, depression, being a lazy person who doesn't apply for jobs etc.

Also a great way of boosting the parent's ego when they have to get tested to provide food for their kids. If i recall, a very small population of people on welfare are drug users.

 

[Mao]

The relationship between taxpayers and welfare receivers, perceived by taxpayers, is somewhere between a donation and giving money to a beggar, depending on the taxpayer's world view. I believe it is reasonable for taxpayers to ask for some kind of quality assurance that their 'donations' are being put to good use and their kindness is not abused. This, however, depends on whether or not taxpayers would like to see this kind of quality assurance.

I don't think the question comes down to if it is morally right or wrong to deny aid to someone due to a drug addiction. It comes down to a public consensus on what the taxpayers want.

But if we want to talk about the morality of denying welfare due to a drug addiction, we need to talk about how a drug addiction is developed. Environmental circumstances do play a part, but Australia is one of the few countries that has a lot of drug-related education. Welfare or not, people shouldn't be excused for a drug addiction unless for exceptional circumstances.

[Professor Polonsky]

Never received any proper drug education, so there.

And I never liked intersubjectivity.

[nacho]

The relationship between taxpayers and welfare receivers, perceived by taxpayers, is somewhere between a donation and giving money to a beggar, depending on the taxpayer's world view. I believe it is reasonable for taxpayers to ask for some kind of quality assurance that their 'donations' are being put to good use and their kindness is not abused. This, however, depends on whether or not taxpayers would like to see this kind of quality assurance.

it's reasonable enough for a taxpayer to expect their taxes to be put to use, and in that case I'd be much more supportive of a system of exchanging the welfare cheques for food stamps. this guarantees that taxpayers aren't funding someone's cigarettes/alcohol/drugs.

Additionally, if taxpayers and the government feel the need for a drug test to screen suitable applicants to receive welfare, then it's clear that drug rehab and support groups need more funding. The answer is not to turn a blind eye to individuals afflicted with drug addictions. That's pretty much excluding those who need the most help, which makes no sense.

[Mao]

Never received any proper drug education, so there.

Bullocks. The number of times I had to sit through a school announcement on the matter, or Mr so-and-so speaking about it at an assembly, or the millions of ads on TV and radio, or billboards. You may not have had detailed education on the precise nature of drugs, but the sentiment is definitely well communicated: smoking is bad, drugs are bad, binge drinking is bad. The onus is on the citizen to do the research and make an informed decision.

And I never liked intersubjectivity.

And what happens when other taxpayers disagree with you?

[mark_alec]

Bullocks. The number of times I had to sit through a school announcement on the matter, or Mr so-and-so speaking about it at an assembly, or the millions of ads on TV and radio, or billboards.

That might have been at your school. At mine we did not receive much in the way of drug education (besides the usual "drugs are bad m'kay" line every now and then). And the government TV ads and brochures hardly constitute education, they are propaganda.

[spectroscopy]

they should be drug tested BUT if positive, they shouldnt get their money taken from them, they should still get it, but they should be subject to mandatory (free) counselling from social workers and the like, im sure tonnes of people would love to get the volunteering experience, taxpayers are more content that their money is going to good use, peoples habits help get kicked, everyone wins
boom

[Professor Polonsky]

Bullocks. The number of times I had to sit through a school announcement on the matter, or Mr so-and-so speaking about it at an assembly, or the millions of ads on TV and radio, or billboards. You may not have had detailed education on the precise nature of drugs, but the sentiment is definitely well communicated: smoking is bad, drugs are bad, binge drinking is bad. The onus is on the citizen to do the research and make an informed decision.

I've never had drug education, and I'd say that messages regarding drug usage are extremely mixed in our society. Drinking is still very positively portrayed, for example, and is entirely entrenched into our culture.

And what happens when other taxpayers disagree with you?

They're wrong.