Home > Debate Club > Should Welfare Recipients Be Tested for Drugs? > The Result Could Well Be More Drug Addiction

The Result Could Well Be More Drug Addiction

Require drug testing only of welfare applicants with a history of substance abuse

Reader Comments
Back to argument

I agree and also add suspected drug use. There are some individuals that have not yet been diagnosed. They may need to "hit bottom" or be persuaded to go for treatment.

Karen Hess of PA 9:25PM July 26, 2012

Lets just requirer people who drink , people who take prec. drugs( most of them have bad side effects). I wouldn't want to work next to someone hung over from the night before or some being treated for a illness on painkillers! Hell lets just test ALL AMERICANS and we can pay more in taxes to pay for all this testing ! Wake up>... most people who are nofuctionanl on drugs or drinks and prec.drugs DONT WANT TO WORK ANYWAY!!! So why in this FREE COUNTRY do we keep judging everyone to the few????? WE THE PEOPLE....Where ARE YOU???? Lets stop all the goverment in our lifes! Whats next?

Laurie of OH 9:30AM February 16, 2012

Had to give you the down arrow. You drug test them all.

If you're not doing drugs there is nothing to worry about.

I get drug tested for the right to work and earn my money. Those getting my money for free should at the very least be drug tested.

I can't believe people continue to put their head in the sand on this issue.

Oh yeah...if you're on welfare, you shouldn't have a dog in this fight. You shouldn't be allowed to vote on it or even comment.

Zachary Curtsinger of TX 9:12AM February 16, 2012

This is all we need, more government agencies to administer something that will require more tax support, not to mention the probability of more corruption.

Cfi2fly of TN 2:56AM January 02, 2012

NO - If drug testing is the new standard for assisting those who receive welfare benefits from the federal/state governments, then executives of companies (and even congresspeople) who receive ANY kind of assistance from the government should be tested each time they receive them. How's that for fair? Of course, people should not be tested to receive assistance. There are far better and sensible ways of reforming welfare - such as denying Republicans in congress "government healthcare" and forcing them to buy the crappy ones they support on the open market for self-employed and other middle class people.

John Bart-Plane of NC 2:23AM December 18, 2011

Relapse rates are very similar across several chronic diseases, including substance abuse disorders, diabetes, and asthma...So should we apply the same logic to other chronic diseases? Diabetics? Those with asthma? So, those whose symptoms of their disease are active should not get welfare? Most chronic diseases have a behavioral component that impact if the disease is active or in remission. Diet, exercise, medication adherance, support... are all behavioral factors that impact the cost of that disease to society, including those that rely on welfare. Should we deny welfare to those who have a disease that is not currently in "remission"? Or just those that have the disease of chemical dependency? What about people with mental health disorders? Should they be denied welfare if they are not taking their medications or seeking therapy? Its a slippery slope... where does it end? And what about the children of those with substance use disorders? If there is no welfare what happens to them? Would those that test positive have a chance to get treatment? Good treatment? Quality treatment? Who will pay for it? There are a lot more unanswered questions that answered ones. This is NOT a simple issue of "don't let people on welfare buy drugs with "our" money"... Its a complex societal issue with many shades of grey...

Jan Jones of MN 12:30PM December 16, 2011

And how, Prof. Mead, would we know their history? Through drug testing, perhaps. Following your line of reasoning, we arrive at a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" system of approving or rejecting applications for assistance. So long as we don't concretely know a person is using -- even if they are -- we can give them benefits. But if we do know they're using, we will withhold them. In both scenarios, they are using. How about we stop being hypocrites and legalize/control/tax the drugs and stop punishing or imprisoning our citizens because of their addictions. How about we admit that NOTHING we have done or are doing has had any success at all in this so-called war on drugs. The inability of our leaders to understand the problem was exhibited so clearly in Ronald Reagan's unbelievably simplistic suggestion to "Just say No to drugs." I'm embarrassed just thinking about that one.

John of CT 11:30PM December 15, 2011