Drug tests for Welfare?

Do you think there should be mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients and if so, do you think alcoholics should be on the "No Go" list as well?

Yes and they should be tested periodically for drugs, because addicts don't deserve welfare...

Yes there should be a drug test. Also how will you prove someone is alcoholic?

Yes, and if they are addicted to drugs they should be given help, rather than ignored.

[QUOTE="pis3rch"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]I could only agree to this on one condition.. those who test positive are allowed to enter a quality rehabilitation program paid for by the Government. To do anything less would be.. not only unconstitutional but cruel. A drug addict is a person.. with a problem. They should have every opportunity, every resource to fix that problem.. especially if our society is capable of offering that.LJS9502_basic

What do you mean?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="pis3rch"] This, and as it says in the OP i think alcoholics should be a part of this as well. SgtKevali

What do you mean?

I could only agree to this on one condition.. those who test positive are allowed to enter a quality rehabilitation program paid for by the Government. To do anything less would be.. not only unconstitutional but cruel. A drug addict is a person.. with a problem. They should have every opportunity, every resource to fix that problem.. especially if our society is capable of offering that.EMOEVOLUTION

How would it be unconstitutional? And why should the get drug rehabilitation paid for? Why should one group be given something that another group isn't? THAT is unconstitutional...

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]I could only agree to this on one condition.. those who test positive are allowed to enter a quality rehabilitation program paid for by the Government. To do anything less would be.. not only unconstitutional but cruel. A drug addict is a person.. with a problem. They should have every opportunity, every resource to fix that problem.. especially if our society is capable of offering that.SpartanMSU

How would it be unconstitutional? And why should the get drug rehabilitation paid for? Why should one group be given something that another group isn't? THAT is unconstitutional...

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]I could only agree to this on one condition.. those who test positive are allowed to enter a quality rehabilitation program paid for by the Government. To do anything less would be.. not only unconstitutional but cruel. A drug addict is a person.. with a problem. They should have every opportunity, every resource to fix that problem.. especially if our society is capable of offering that.SpartanMSU

How would it be unconstitutional? And why should the get drug rehabilitation paid for? Why should one group be given something that another group isn't? THAT is unconstitutional...

Because one group has a drug problem, the other doesn't. It's like asking why the sick should get more medicine than the healthy.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]I could only agree to this on one condition.. those who test positive are allowed to enter a quality rehabilitation program paid for by the Government. To do anything less would be.. not only unconstitutional but cruel. A drug addict is a person.. with a problem. They should have every opportunity, every resource to fix that problem.. especially if our society is capable of offering that.SgtKevali

How would it be unconstitutional? And why should the get drug rehabilitation paid for? Why should one group be given something that another group isn't? THAT is unconstitutional...

Because one group has a drug problem, the other doesn't. It's like asking why the sick should get more medicine than the healthy.

Sounds good but who's gonna pay for it?

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

How would it be unconstitutional? And why should the get drug rehabilitation paid for? Why should one group be given something that another group isn't? THAT is unconstitutional...

LJS9502_basic

Because one group has a drug problem, the other doesn't. It's like asking why the sick should get more medicine than the healthy.

Well, group A has the drug problem (combined with lack of $$ usually) while group B doesn't, to that extent. My point is that it's best if we give people an opportunity to get back on their feet (if they're willing to). In the end it helps almost all of society in one way or another.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Because one group has a drug problem, the other doesn't. It's like asking why the sick should get more medicine than the healthy.

SgtKevali

Well, group A has the drug problem (combined with lack of $$ usually) while group B doesn't, to that extent. My point is that it's best if we give people an opportunity to get back on their feet (if they're willing to). In the end it helps almost all of society in one way or another.

Yes, I think that's an excellent idea. People who test positive should be given a chance to get clean, and preferably some help to get them off in the right direction. Obviously, the purpose of welfare money is not to enable these sorts of habits, but rather to help a person become self-sufficient. Unfortunately, many people just can't do that on their own and need assistance getting their lives on track - assistance they won't seek on their own, oftentimes out of embarrassment or simply not knowing where to start.

Yes, I think that's an excellent idea. People who test positive should be given a chance to get clean, and preferably some help to get them off in the right direction. Obviously, the purpose of welfare money is not to enable these sorts of habits, but rather to help a person become self-sufficient. Unfortunately, many people just can't do that on their own and need assistance getting their lives on track - assistance they won't seek on their own, oftentimes out of embarrassment or simply not knowing where to start.

pianist

I'll hear you play when you dedicate a Cure song to me....:P

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well no. It's like asking why group A gets free medicine while group B doesn't.LJS9502_basic

Well, group A has the drug problem (combined with lack of $$ usually) while group B doesn't, to that extent. My point is that it's best if we give people an opportunity to get back on their feet (if they're willing to). In the end it helps almost all of society in one way or another.

Often those who are addicted to drugs didn't have a lot of money in the first place. It's a complicated issue.

Often those who are addicted to drugs didn't have a lot of money in the first place. It's a complicated issue.

SgtKevali

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Often those who are addicted to drugs didn't have a lot of money in the first place. It's a complicated issue.

LJS9502_basic

I don't see how that's relevant to what I said.

I think it is a good idea. I'm not sure about the details of implementation though. I certainly wouldn't want tax-payer money to fund someone's drug addiction, but I don't feel very comfortable with a "strike policy" (i.e. one strike and you're out, type of deal). I say this because unfortunately relapse occurs with high probability for many drug addicts. I'd like a program which rewards someone who is proactive in fighting their addiction and making strides, so that if they do relapse but are seeking help for it they can still get financial aid. Obviously, there needs to be good communication with the welfare agency and the doctor and social worker of the individual.

As someone also stated before, I'm all for cracking down on welfare fraud as well.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Often those who are addicted to drugs didn't have a lot of money in the first place. It's a complicated issue.

SgtKevali

I don't see how that's relevant to what I said.

I think it is a good idea. I'm not sure about the details of implementation though. I certainly wouldn't want tax-payer money to fund someone's drug addiction, but I don't feel very comfortable with a "strike policy" (i.e. one strike and you're out, type of deal). I say this because unfortunately relapse occurs with high probability for many drug addicts. I'd like a program which rewards someone who is proactive in fighting their addiction and making strides, so that if they do relapse but are seeking help for it they can still get financial aid. Obviously, there needs to be good communication with the welfare agency and the doctor and social worker of the individual.

As someone also stated before, I'm all for cracking down on welfare fraud as well.

entropyecho

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]They steal. I lived with an addict and knew several others. And many times rehab is not a choice they want to make....

LJS9502_basic

I don't see how that's relevant to what I said.

Why do drug addicts often steal? To get more drugs. Helping them with their addiction seems like the best way to counter that, doesn'it it? And if they don't want to do rehab/get other help, then we can't help them. However, we should help those who are willing to help themselves and be helped.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

I don't see how that's relevant to what I said.

SgtKevali

Why do drug addicts often steal? To get more drugs. Helping them with their addiction seems like the best way to counter that, doesn'it it? And if they don't want to do rehab/get other help, then we can't help them. However, we should help those who are willing to help themselves and be helped.

Si, I agree, even a one time test can easily wad out the druggies and normal up-right citizens.

Approve on my book.

Yes and they should be tested periodically for drugs, because addicts don't deserve welfare...

CHOASXIII

Yes there should be. In addition, they should crack down on welfare fraud.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You mentioned the money situation did you not? And the second part of my post was in regard to the idea that getting addicts to complete and continue rehab is all it takes. Not true.LJS9502_basic

Why do drug addicts often steal? To get more drugs. Helping them with their addiction seems like the best way to counter that, doesn'it it? And if they don't want to do rehab/get other help, then we can't help them. However, we should help those who are willing to help themselves and be helped.

Yes, but this is one of those things that I think taxes should be spent on. It helps society as a whole if there are less addicts.

I could only agree to this on one condition.. those who test positive are allowed to enter a quality rehabilitation program paid for by the Government. To do anything less would be.. not only unconstitutional but cruel. A drug addict is a person.. with a problem. They should have every opportunity, every resource to fix that problem.. especially if our society is capable of offering that.EMOEVOLUTION

I agree

but if I had to chose, I'd say no welfare for drug addicts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Why do drug addicts often steal? To get more drugs. Helping them with their addiction seems like the best way to counter that, doesn'it it? And if they don't want to do rehab/get other help, then we can't help them. However, we should help those who are willing to help themselves and be helped.

SgtKevali

Yes, but this is one of those things that I think taxes should be spent on. It helps society as a whole if there are less addicts.

If someone had a puff of their neighbors spliff you would take away all of their benefits? Seems a bit harsh. Hell why not ban alcohol altogether, and while you're at it pop an 8pm curfew on them as well to make sure all they can possibly do with there lives is look for a job.

So no, being unemployed is stressful, and with stress we need our props and vices whatever they may be.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]There is only so much money you can take from people in the form of taxes. However, I'd be willing to cut out the perks for politicians to pay for the program.LJS9502_basic

Yes, but this is one of those things that I think taxes should be spent on. It helps society as a whole if there are less addicts.

Of course you can't get rid of all addicts. But less of them would certainly help.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]I could only agree to this on one condition.. those who test positive are allowed to enter a quality rehabilitation program paid for by the Government. To do anything less would be.. not only unconstitutional but cruel. A drug addict is a person.. with a problem. They should have every opportunity, every resource to fix that problem.. especially if our society is capable of offering that.SgtKevali

How would it be unconstitutional? And why should the get drug rehabilitation paid for? Why should one group be given something that another group isn't? THAT is unconstitutional...

Because one group has a drug problem, the other doesn't. It's like asking why the sick should get more medicine than the healthy.

I'm talking about people who AREN'T on welfare and have a drug problem...

Yes but just throwing money at them doesn't help them become self sufficient. I think job training and placement would be beneficial....

LJS9502_basic

It would - but not until they're clean. The last thing an employer wants is a worker with an active drug addiction. The big problem with a lot of welfare recipients is that their lives are really off track, and it's not simply a matter of getting them working. They have very limited education and skills, and in many cases they had an awful upbringing and have no sense of self esteem or motivation, nor any understanding of the basic things a person needs to know to be self-sufficient in modern society. There's a lot of work that must be done with the individual before he or she is ready for even a menial job, and that's difficult work to accomplish.

Simply cutting them off and leaving them to starve on the streets is something I could never personally support, but ideally, no able bodied person should be left in that sort of rut. At least by working they may get some sense of satisfaction out of their existence. Doing nothing at all becomes an incredibly dull experience after a short while.

And none of that modern stuff for me. CIassical or bust. :P