Posted by: MorningGlory | January 9, 2007 - 5:59 am

Opposing viewpoint

Seems that one of my readers has posted a link to my “drug test for welfare checks” post. Readers over there think that this isn’t such a good idea. In the interest of full disclosure, read what they have to say.

I disagree completely.

Guilty until proven innocent? Well, asking ANYONE to take a urine test to get work is “guilty until proven innocent”. So is being asked to walk through a metal detector at the airport or the courthouse, but I’m damned glad that they do it!

The jobs they apply for don’t require a urine test? If they’d apply for (and keep) a job, they wouldn’t need welfare. In my experience, the prevailing reason these folks can’t keep a job is poor attendance/poor performance, which in many, many cases can be directly linked to substance abuse. I realize that many “users” hold jobs — some of them good paying jobs. They’re the exception, not the rule. The folks I’m trying to weed out here are the ones who are spending their welfare check (my hard-earned money) to support a drug habit, while their kids are going hungry.

Posted in Current Events, Health

« Guard the Borders Blogburst 01-08-07
Who SAYS it can’t be done? »

Responses

Guilty until proven innocent? I think not. Employers have a right to hire employees that are not dopers (thus protecting their investment). WE, taxpayers, should have the same right. If we’re going to offer “help,” we should be able to ensure that it is indeed help, and not feeding a drug habit. If an applicant has the money to buy dope, they shouldn’t be in need of welfare.

As far as the deportation, that’s a simple given. Round ‘em up, and send them back to their cesspool before they turn any more of our nation into a reflection of it.

By: jarhead john on January 10, 2007 - 7:41 am
at 7:41 am

Here is what I commented about this issue over on my blog:

I think it is also acceptable to be on welfare for the short term due to a tragedy of some sort…if you have to totally start from scratch, no matter how much you work, you will need help.

Anyway…I don’t think that it would hurt for this to at least be part of the program. I would look at it as another way to help people out of poverty. Perhaps it could be mandatory to get help but to not have your former addiction disclosed as long as you accepted treatment.

I don’t think that true help can be given without addressing “why?” the person(s) are having a problem to make enough money to live.

I know that there are people who are on welfare through no fault of their own. Unless there is blatant evidence (through income checks & the like) that one is committing fraud,perhaps the best option is to just assume everyone is innocent. Let peoples’ consciences deal with if they are lying….and still get them help to stop being a part of “the system.”

If the person(s) refused to accept help & they were fully capable adults, then they could be banned from the welfare system until they accepted it. This of course would require a urine test at the beginning. I would suspect that, knowing a urine test would be required & treatment/other progress would have to be made….a lot of people wouldn’t even bother applying.

By: thebluestbutterfly on January 11, 2007 - 11:55 am
at 11:55 am

Where does my solution leave children who need assistance? In a much better place actually. In the best-case-scenario, there parents would get help.

In conjunction with this, I really think that there should be programs to monitor that childrens’ nutritional needs are being met…not just the once-a-month or whatever appointment for nutritional items like milk….not just the once-a-year physical. Too many children are going hungry.

By: thebluestbutterfly on January 11, 2007 - 11:59 am
at 11:59 am

Look up Goldberg v. Kelley and you’ll see why this is infeasible.

By: Bree on January 12, 2007 - 5:30 pm
at 5:30 pm

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories