Do you think that welfare recipients should be drug tested?

Should welfare recipients get tested for drugs?

  • Yes

  • No

  • PItbull the rapper

Results are only viewable after voting.
By my experience with welfare recipients (and this may be just my experience), the welfare recipients who don't have jobs are perfectly fine not working, but the ones I know who do want work are motivated to do so to buy drugs.

If I really wanted work, what's a drug test and why would it be a big deal if I had nothing to hide?
 
Already proven to be financially unhelpful. Welfare abuse takes up less tax payer money each year than admin overhead waste at the pentagon .
 
Last edited:
UFC Truck said:
This is a terrible idea and I hope you're said it in jest.
Click to expand...
Nope! If they have to have be taken care of by their fellow citizens, they are not contributing to society, therefore no voting or doing anything fun! WANNA FIGHT?!
 
John Wang said:
Or put their welfare on specialized cards that they cannot convert to cash. and these cards limit the things they can buy. They should only be able to buy the fackin essentials. Call me dominant, but they shouldn't have access to anything money can buy until they start makin their own money. If they're disabled, then build them a fackin customized desk with a pc/phone and make them do call center type work. If they can't talk.. then it's goodnight, sweet prince.
Click to expand...

So you want to send them to India?
 
Drug testing normally ends up costing more than it saves, but I like the idea in principle. I also think that what can be purchased should be really restricted to things like bread, milk, eggs, turkey/chicken/ground beef (but not lobster, steak, sushi, etc), peanut butter, healthy vegetables, and other staples. None of these should things should be the fancy, organic, grass-fed, or whatever versions either. They should be the absolute basics. If you are buying expensive foods, alcohol, or other non-essential items, then you are stealing from the taxpayer.
 
sub_thug said:
Drug testing normally ends up costing more than it saves, but I like the idea in principle. I also think that what can be purchased should be really restricted to things like bread, milk, eggs, turkey/chicken/ground beef (but not lobster, steak, sushi, etc), peanut butter, healthy vegetables, and other staples. None of these should things should be the fancy, organic, grass-fed, or whatever versions either. They should be the absolute basics. If you are buying expensive foods, alcohol, or other non-essential items, then you are stealing from the taxpayer.
Click to expand...
100% agreed
 
John Wang said:
100% agreed
Click to expand...
IMO, beggars can't be choosers. Plenty of people will say that I'm proposing to unfairly limit choice for welfare recipients, but I would suggest that no help is ever unconditional. You're entering into a form of contract when you agree to receive government assistance, and those limitations should be incentive to get off of welfare.
 
sub_thug said:
IMO, beggars can't be choosers. Plenty of people will say that I'm proposing to unfairly limit choice for welfare recipients, but I would suggest that no help is ever unconditional. You're entering into a form of contract when you agree to receive government assistance, and those limitations should be incentive to get off of welfare.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If you're living off of your neighbors, you better not fackin complain. You should get the nutrients you need to survive but it shouldn't be so comfortable that you're content with the situation. It should make you want to get out and get your own.
 
west42 said:
Where is this "too expensive" argument coming from?
A ten pack of urine test strips is under $20
Click to expand...

From multiple real-world implementations it appears.


So you're just going to send those test strips to the welfare recipients and ask them to pee on it and send back the results? No, you need a qualified tester/handler for test. Those people cost money. So now we're at significantly more than 20$.

How often are you going to test the recipients? once a year, once a week? That's going to add up.

As of 2012 52.2 million people were receiving some form of government assistance.

If it cost 1$ per test, per person and you tested each person 3 times a year you would be looking at 150 million per year for this drug testing.

And I guarantee it will cost more than 1$ per test, once you're paying the salaries of the testers, the receptionists, procurement, storage, disposal, data entry and maintenence, office supplies, rental fees, insurance, everything else that goes along with setting up a federally-mandated nation-wide program.

So yeah, it will be fucking expensive. In states that have implement drug-testing for welfare recipients they have caught less than a handful of people using drugs.

You think you are going to catch so many drug-users nation-wide and kick them off welfare that you are going to save hundreds of millions of dollars each year?

That's assuming you go with a one-strike no appeal rule which will never fly in court. There will need to be a challenge/appeal system, B-samples, etc... which will cost even more fucking money.

You don't have a fucking clue, jesus fucking christ.

Let's get government spending under control but the problem isn't poor people taking too much money FFS.
 
John Wang said:
Or put their welfare on specialized cards that they cannot convert to cash. and these cards limit the things they can buy. They should only be able to buy the fackin essentials. Call me dominant, but they shouldn't have access to anything money can buy until they start makin their own money. If they're disabled, then build them a fackin customized desk with a pc/phone and make them do call center type work. If they can't talk.. then it's goodnight, sweet prince.
Click to expand...
Goodnight sweet prince.....
Never stop the misc. references man....shits hilarious
 
Roca said:
From multiple real-world implementations it appears.


So you're just going to send those test strips to the welfare recipients and ask them to pee on it and send back the results? No, you need a qualified tester/handler for test. Those people cost money. So now we're at significantly more than 20$.

How often are you going to test the recipients? once a year, once a week? That's going to add up.

As of 2012 52.2 million people were receiving some form of government assistance.

If it cost 1$ per test, per person and you tested each person 3 times a year you would be looking at 150 million per year for this drug testing.

And I guarantee it will cost more than 1$ per test, once you're paying the salaries of the testers, the receptionists, procurement, storage, disposal, data entry and maintenence, office supplies, rental fees, insurance, everything else that goes along with setting up a federally-mandated nation-wide program.

So yeah, it will be fucking expensive. In states that have implement drug-testing for welfare recipients they have caught less than a handful of people using drugs.

You think you are going to catch so many drug-users nation-wide and kick them off welfare that you are going to save hundreds of millions of dollars each year?

That's assuming you go with a one-strike no appeal rule which will never fly in court. There will need to be a challenge/appeal system, B-samples, etc... which will cost even more fucking money.

You don't have a fucking clue, jesus fucking christ.

Let's get government spending under control but the problem isn't poor people taking too much money FFS.
Click to expand...
<TheWire1>

Oh shit, where this Rico been!? Damn, Rico dropping bombs.
 
Also, welfare recipients should have to have a specialized license plate color on their vehicles
 
John Wang said:
Also, welfare recipients should have to have a specialized license plate color on their vehicles
Click to expand...

And we should tattoo serial numbers on their forearms for easy identification
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ColemanwastheGOAT
Opinion Which mistakes should you get bailed out for and which should you pay for?
2
Replies
20
Views
571
legatoblues
legatoblues

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,109
Messages
55,467,977
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top