Hornius Seems like a dumb idea to me. Further marginalize the poor. Does drug testing tell you if there is an addict involved? How about who paid for the drugs in the person's system? Will alcohol and cigarettes be included? Is the problem what they are doing is illegal or that it makes them less productive? How can we tell it makes them less productive? Etc. Bottom line: if you want to push people further into the abyss, where drugs and crime abound, this is a good way to do it.
Maybe I need to clarify. I made the assumption that most people on welfare (versus unemployment) are going to be looking at entry level, blue collar jobs. As your stats (which are from 2000 and it is much more prevalent today) show, the high majotiry of these jobs require drug testing. I am not advocating this practice one way or the other. Just pointing out that drug users are going to have a much, much harder time finding a job than non drug users. Welfare is designed (as mentioned) to assist someone back on their feet. I do not thin it is unreasonable, at all, to expect the recipient to make the best effort they can at getting off of welfare, which means getting a job and getting a job is very difficult if you can not pass a drug test. For the record, many hospitals do now drug test docs and nurses. It is done quietly, but done.
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't subsidies for companies not individuals? It is not the lifestyle choices, habits or possibly even the desires of the individuals that make up the employees of the company that choose to take the subsidies. An individual makes the choice to receive welfare. And Yo and House, Are y'all trying to claim that drug use does not reduce job opportunities for individuals on welfare? Let's say only 20% of employers drug test. That's 1 out of every 5 jobs the welfare recipient can't qualify for because of their drug use.
Yo- I think you make great points and I agree that the cost benefit analysis may favor not doing this (it is why I said I don't have a strong opinion either way in my first post). But, to follow your logic means that the Governor is exacly right when he says that welfare is paying for drug habits. I totally get your point about it might be cheaper in the long run to do that, but it doesnt make his point wrong and it certainly doesnt do what welfare is intended to do. To your other point, every single medium size city and up has FREE treatment centers, counciling centers etc for drug addicts. Everyone of them. You can not force someone to go who doesnt want to. But don't act like the programs are not out there and available. They are. manmy do choose to use them. I think the centers are an excellent use of public funds too. Truthfully, I am not sure how big a problem this really is. But, the avenues are already in place for someone to be denied welfare due to a failed drug test and then sent to a clinic where they will receive treatment/counseling/food etc until they are clean and acan resume welfare payments.
a. the drug user turns to crime and is incarcerated for 5 years of course the flipside is a drug user might get off drugs and become a productive member of society. b. the actual cost of the testing is exorberant and actually costs more than what we are saving by denying welfare. The drug testing is $45 and could come out of the first check. c. thousands of desperate people on the streets makes life unbearable for the rest of us. Do we enact a government program to help these people we have turned away now get off drugs? There are drug awareness programs and charity groups. What would you like to see? Should the rich pay for their healthcare? What about their housing, clothing, food, cell phones, cars, and booze? Do we all pay for the drug users or just the top 50% of us?
