I was forwarded a chain email message and asked, “What do you think, Laurie?”
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. 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 because 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 sitting on their BUTT, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
I guess we could title that program Urine or You’re Out.
Just a thought.
I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB… SO I AGREE 100%
Whoa. Do you really want to know what I think? I think Urine or You’re Out is kind of catchy.
Otherwise, the idea of compulsory drug testing for a welfare check is stupid & shortsighted.
- I think drug use is different than drug abuse and addiction.
- I think a urine test is a reactive, ineffective tool that’s plugged into a failed system that never elevates Americans out of poverty.
- I would rather compel welfare recipients to work or achieve a certain level of education in exchange for public assistance. You can’t hold a job or learn new information if you’re stoned.
The marketplace addresses drug abuse better than a urine test. That’s what I think. What about you? What do you think?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
I think that email does miss the point. All it would do would keep people who need help from getting it and would probably increase crime instead. The threat of not getting a welfare check won’t keep people from doing drugs if they are addicted.
Of course the e-mail is simplified and dumbed down, but it might be interesting to have some sort of dual program one for drug users and one for non-drug users/abusers/addicts. I think we can all agree that the person who has been laid off and needs retraining etc is a very different case than the mentally ill or drug abuser who is homeless. Honestly I think the premise is to start making distinctions between the poor and personalize the governments treatment of them for each individual case rather than using a cookie cutter solution.
just my thoughts anyway.
I totally agree with you on the drug test blog, why should I be stuck working MY butt off for people who sit on THEIR butt all day. the economy would be so much better if we could just monitor what were doing with our money instead of giving it away to people who just need a push. America is in a tough spot now, and the government does NOT need to be going around handing out OUR hardworking money to people who need to just put the drugs, alcohol and excuses down and pick up their own, hard working pay check like the rest of the country. Not being able to stop an addiction is NOT a disability, its an excuse and now a days most americans are FILLED with those.
While I see many downfalls to the email there is some intial satisfaction I felt thinking of people having to do some work to get their financial aid. Thankfully I have been lucky enough to stay rather ignorant of the public aid process so I speak from someone with no first hand experience of what it takes to get public aid.
To relate to HR, when someone comes in looking for work but neither has the time or motivation to fill out an application or answer interview questions. People need to work to get what they want or it turns into a sense of entitlement.
Just my thoughts.
I’m not so sure that approach would actually save much money. I cringe at the thought of trying to administer such a program. The cost of the testing, the oversight, administration, keeping the records (which I’m assuming would be considered medical) – just the thought of the bureaucracy involved gives me a headache.
And perhaps I’m making a leap here, but it also reminds me of the mentality that believes single mothers on welfare should be sterilized. That’ll keep ‘em in their place.
@HR Minion I agree. You run the risk of driving addicts further underground and out of the system if you refuse public assistance. I believe in conditional assistance, not public abandonment.
@Dan You’re right that a dual program might be interesting; however, what about the person who has been laid off and is an alcoholic and spends money on alcohol? Or cigarettes? Do we say, “No, you can’t have public assistance because you smoke”? I think the delineation between drugs (alcohol/prescription/tobacco/meth/etc.) is a failed way to look at addiction and drug use in America.
@Tali Thanks for the comment.
@Nick I think everyone should have to work unless you’re smart enough to buck the system.
@Renee It also reminds me of the mentality that believes single mothers on welfare should be sterilized. That
The other thing to remember is that people (say the clients my company services) use government money to get/stay clean. A percentage of our fees are paid for by the government in order to assist individuals in overcoming their addiction.
One more note…that money also goes towards getting these individuals jobs, volunteer work, education, etc.
I agree that the marketplace tends to regulate drug use better than the government has. I have seen examples of people who have gotten clean out of the necessity of having to have a job. I don’t really care how they get clean as long as they get clean. In CA, even though it seems like it takes a very long time, people do have their aid cut off. I suspect that as our budget issues get worse, that time period will get shorter. For the drug addicted that is a blessing and a curse. A blessing because they get aid, but a curse because the necessity of being clean, or at least hitting a financial bottom, is delayed.
Bottom line – forcing drug tests is not going to keep people off of welfare. And as a tax payer, you will be funding them whether through assistance programs or not. I think the better answer is a dual program that seeks to get the addicted employed and clean.
Jackbuilt
@RachL I would never be able to work with addicts. That daily battle is so tough.
@jackbuilt I like the employed & clean approach.
I am a 5mo. + member of the unemployed class…..The paperwork to get assistance-is daunting to say the least…I am thinking about not accepting the Turkey dinner that my rather well-heeled town is offering-i feel undeserving due to not being in so much need as to …er… need that plate of well-meaning guilt.
–Public drug testing….hmmmm. sounds like a way to drum out the import and distribution and sale of poppy-seeds to the bagel eating public. hehe…..
@chuck Hang in there and skip the free turkey. It’s too dry.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
Yes, drug use is different than addiction. Booze is legal, but can also be an addiction.
Legalize and tax, instead of fighting a failed “war” policy. Use the taxes for education…beter positive cycle, than jails and bullets.
Would you make them pass a criminal background check before offering assistance? I wouldn
I’m not sure if people have more of a problem with drug use or public assistance. It’s like two controversial issues rolled into one.