Government Assistance Programs Should Require Drug Tests
Treat Government Assistance Program Recipients the Same as Wage-earners
There are many workplaces where either periodic or no-notice drug screening is a basic condition for continued employment. Many other work environments, have, as a basic prerequisite of employment either a ban on smoking or drinking. While these aren't very popular employer-imposed restrictions, nonetheless they are well tolerated by millions of workers who earn incomes, and pay taxes. Their earnings create the funds that are routinely handed out each month to those receiving public assistance of one kind or another from various state and federal agencies.
Why have we never imposed similar screening restrictions upon those who seek and accept government assistance? Wouldn't it be a "good" thing if we encouraged that portion of our population who accept the monetary assistance of wage-earners to also be drug-free, non-smoking, alcohol-free citizens? Doesn't it seem that the benefit derived from government assistance would be multiplied if large portions (any portion) of the government assistance dollar were not spent on drugs, tobacco and alcohol?
Why would it be insulting to those who receive government assistance for them to be required to demonstrate that they are staying drug-free, through urine testing? Is it too much meddling in a welfare recipient's life to provide monetary assistance that specifically excludes its use for payment for alcohol and tobacco products?
I think the answer to these queries is: it cannot be more onerous for the "receivers" than it is for the "givers". All disbursements of government assistance should be dependent on the recipients having successfully demonstrated that they are drug-free. All benefits should be encoded with specific ban mechanisms against their being used for purchase of alcohol or tobacco products. Further, the penalty for failure to be drug-free or for being caught violating the ban on the use of benefit payments for the purchase of alcohol or tobacco should be, as a final penalty for blatant violations, ejection from the particular assistance program.
Disadvantaged citizens may not be able to do anything about the circumstances in which they find themselves, but they can choose not to indulge drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. There is more than a little-bit of evidence available, from practical research, which demonstrates that persons who do not suffer the effects of drugs, alcohol, or tobacco are more attitudinally oriented to seek ways in which they might improve their circumstances. And, in the long-run, a decrease in illnesses, which typically accompany drug, alcohol and tobacco usage, will create a decreased demand for medical services - the cost of which must also be provided by wage-earners.
Any undocumented alien who violates the restrictions should be immediately deported. Children (under 16 years of age) who fail a drug test, or who violates restrictions, should be immediately institutionalized, detoxified if necessary, and placed under state supervision. Adults found in violation, should immediately cease receiving any benefits and be required to undergo a 30-day surveillance program in which one failure would result in a one-year suspension from benefits programs - and any subsequent infraction would result in permanent expulsion from all benefits programs.
What this country needs is a drug-free "Non-work" place as well as a drug-free workplace.
As to the use of tobacco and alcohol products, that is a personal decision that can be made by individuals - AFTER they have become productive wage earners and can afford to support a debilitating habit, or 'legal" addiction. Working tax-payers ought not be required to support the unnecessary personal habits or addictions of those citizens who exist with the aid of government assistance!
Published by Larry Dean
25+ yrs writing & publishing technical, educational, and general business documents. 20+ yrs experience proof-reading & editing. 3+ yrs, Public Info Off for large Vet�s Services Org. View profile
- Should Defendants Be Forced to Take a Drug Test?The issue of pre-trial drug testing is under fire. There are of course some advocates who feel strongly that forced drug testing is important to our judicial system.
10 Unnamed American Cities Drug Tested - How Much Can it Tell Us?Is it possible to test a whole city for drug use? Yes. Is it possible to learn something new? Maybe.- Prescription Drug Options for the UninsuredIn response to the concerns over the high out of pocket cost of prescription drugs for the uninsured most states have devised a number of ways to make discount purchasing programs more available to persons who are uni...
- The Drug Testing Debate and the Security ProfessionThe ongoing debate over whether drug testing should be legal in the workplace has many different views. In this report I will show the merits of the arguments for and against drug testing by the views of Tamara Rolef...
- Drug Testing StudentsShould drug testing our student be alright?
- Seattle Biomedical Research Institute's Decision to Give Patients Malaria and Our...
- Poppy Seed: Failed Drug Tests and Lost Job Opportunities
- Home Drug Testing: Positive or Negative?
- Should Drug Tests Be Carried Out in Welfare Recipients?
- New Survey Shows Workplace Drug Addiction Remains Major Issue
- How to Pass a Drug Test
- Ricky Williams Reportedly Fails Another Drug Test
Heavy alcohol use is higher among persons aged 35 to 49 who draw assistance.
Illicit drug use is higher in assisted families than in unassisted families.
22 Comments
Post a Commenti do not completely believe in having to drug test for assistance. some people have jobs and just cant make ends meat! at the same time disorders like anxiety certian depression issues and so on are better treated with natural erbs like marijana and thats hard for some states to accept! i personaly suffer from bi polar disorder, anxiety, ptsd, ans have sever panic attacs, i have been on more than 10 medications that do not work some even made my conditions worse! I can smoke a little marijana each day and funcion better without panic attacs my depression seems to stay under controll! in fact ive actually held down a job for 2 years doing so where before i was lucky to keep a job a couple months. and yes i do get food stamps for my son and state medical but i do not recieve child support from his biolgical father to help cover aditional cost in his life! now i do agree on testing for things like coke and meth becouse i do not see any benifits from them!
By the Grace of God i have never been on assisted living but I have paid more than my share of taxes in the last 34years and if I was to get laid off and had to use unemployment, it is My money set aside for me to use until I find another job so it is none of the Govt. business what I do while i'm looking for another job!!!
Politicians drug testing those on Government Aid:
Only a communist or someone who is getting a kick-back from the drug testing companies would drug test those in need of assistance. I will never vote for someone with this agenda. Who do you think will be picking up the tab for this one? That’s right, Taxpayers. We will not only pay for the assisted living but we will be paying for the drug testing of millions. It is not hard to tell if a person is impaired, and there are ways to deal with this other than outright invasion of privacy.
If we allow the government to control what people are allowed to put in their bodies just because some people don’t approve, what is next? Will natural health supplements be banned? Will it be illegal to grow food in our own gardens because the methods used to grow it may not be to the FDA’s liking? Will we be forced to eat genetically modified and irradiated food because the government deems it to be “safer?” Our federal government already asserts it knows better regarding marijuana, despite scientific evidence of its amazing medicinal properties for treating chronic pain, along with other ailments. Marijuana’s cousin hemp is a well known superfood. Americans are forbidden to grow it, in spite of its nutritional value, multiple industrial applications, and anti-cancer properties.
We walk along a slippery slope.
Once we as a people relinquish our right to control what we can put into our bodies, we not only put good men and women serving in law enforcement at risk, we put ourselves at risk as well. As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it, “If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”
God Bless America!!!
I for one think that they should drug test for government assistance. If you want to buy drugs, cigarettes and liquor then you should be able to purchase it with your own money and not my tax money. I don't want to support another ADULT's habit, I have children and I put up with theirs and I don't want to have to put up with someone elses. I don't care if there are alot of people who would lose out on gov't assistance,but I don't care about that because they should go out there and find a job and support their own habits.....
absolutly i belive that drug testing is a good way to allow families who are truely trying to care for thier families to receive assistace and unallowing those to continue to get assistance who abuse drugs i know for a fact drug users will sell their benifits for their habits instead of caring for their children these are also dead beats and shouldnt receive benifits.
Shelly, sorry, but you're wrong. People can buy whatever they want with their food stamps. When I was sixteen my mom sent me to the store at the end of the road to buy cigerettes and the people behind the counter let me put it on her food stamp card because in little backwoods stores they can just say it was a grocery purchase. And she was on drugs. So there was a problem.
The cost of drug testing my mother would have been WAY LESS than all the government aid she recieved for having me live with her for 18 years, plus an older brother for a year before me, and a younger sister that she'll still have for two years. Still doing drugs. Still using your money to buy them.
Drug testing should happen.
number 1you cant buy beer and smokes with food stamps.number 2 people out here in the real world are trying to earn an honest living,and still need goverment assistance ,medical coverage,do you know how much meds cost?they are exspensive.lol oh by the way smokes are legal oh yeh beer is to..this country is going to hell in a hand bag..every body wanted a change dang they getting it..but me i would like to live a decent life not have these probs throwed in my face i dont use drugs but i do smoke i dont drink but ...i like to eat...you get the drift...
As a person who works for a living and has taxes taken out of my check i believe i have the right to impose a drug test for ILLEGAL drugs. This measure would cut benefits to the lazy and undeserving, and continue benefits for the people that actually need it. Do we really think that a person who knows they would pop positive on a drug test would even show up to take it? If we continue to take this pansy approach we are asking for future problems such as social security benefits not being there for the deserving. In my experience the vast majority of people on benefits are young able bodied people who are just lazy and dont care about their lives or their many kiids lives.
the forms that the federal government has that the people has to fill out to receive public assistance of any kind does it have on it that they are subject to a drug test
An immediate resutls drug test only costs $7. Free shipping, no tax. Compared to, say, $200 for a TANF check.