Drug Testing for Government benefits?

[cbrown25]

Against it !

[dwiley11]

we are going to pay more if the state takes the kids

[sarabtrayior]

Yes, I agree and I'll be one of them that needs testing to get benefits, then so be it... folks getting Government Benefits should not be taking drugs or using the Government Benefits to get drugs???

[kords21]

If the criteria is "getting gov't benefits" then drug test the politicians as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's way past time to start holding these people in office more accountable.

[falcon9]

If the criteria is "getting gov't benefits" then drug test the politicians as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's way past time to start holding these people in office more accountable.

I wonder how many politicians would pass even their state's DUI minimums for alcohol if random, unannounced testing were implemented, (let alone testing for other drug use)?

[handllucas]

If they have $ to buy drugs, why do they need government benefits?


I think staying off drugs is a reasonable requirement.

[lgemini]

I am for it, but then there will be a market for selling your urine.  There is always a way around it.

[DeliriousKris]

I think that people should have to be drug tested for government benefits.
Anywhere I have ever worked, I either had to take a drug test in order to get hired and/or there was the possibility of random drug testing days.

Why should it be any different for those on government benefits?

[springsgardner]

I think that everyone has the right to make bad choices for themselves, including their bodies. However, I don't want my hard earned tax money to imply support of those bad choices. On the flip side, I know that a lot of people who receive help from the gov't aren't aren't taking drugs. I believe that they should be free of the risk that they could get HIV or other diseases because other recipients are taking drugs. I know you're going to say that needle safety is higher than it's ever been, but there is still a risk. There was a lady in CO a couple of years ago who had TB and she was a nurse who administered meds to patients in a few cities and infected them. Plus, giving them a shot means tax payers are paying money for those supplies.

So, you could say that I am conflicted. I don't want to support people who are taking drugs, I don't want to pay for mindless drug testing for those who are obviously not taking drugs, and I don't want to increase people's odds of getting a disease if there's some creep using dirty needles.

[DeliriousKris]

I think that everyone has the right to make bad choices for themselves, including their bodies. However, I don't want my hard earned tax money to imply support of those bad choices. On the flip side, I know that a lot of people who receive help from the gov't aren't aren't taking drugs. I believe that they should be free of the risk that they could get HIV or other diseases because other recipients are taking drugs. I know you're going to say that needle safety is higher than it's ever been, but there is still a risk. There was a lady in CO a couple of years ago who had TB and she was a nurse who administered meds to patients in a few cities and infected them. Plus, giving them a shot means tax payers are paying money for those supplies.

So, you could say that I am conflicted. I don't want to support people who are taking drugs, I don't want to pay for mindless drug testing for those who are obviously not taking drugs, and I don't want to increase people's odds of getting a disease if there's some creep using dirty needles.

I'm a little unclear on where the needles and shots come in to play...