Should There Be Drug Testing for Welfare?
Many taxpayers are in favor of drug testing for welfare recipients and for a hodgepodge of reasons. There is a commonly held belief that people who receive public assistance should be forced to undergo drug testing on a regular basis. This is in large part because of the perception that a high percentage of such individuals take drugs recreationally.
Some states have already passed laws which require that welfare recipients be administered a drug test sometime during the application process, though not necessarily throughout their stint on welfare.
According to a recent Rasmussen Report survey, a little more than 50% of voters believe that welfare recipients should be tested for drugs as a condition of receiving any Federal or state benefits, at least initially. Thirteen percent believe that applicants should be randomly tested and nearly thirty-percent think that such tests should be given if drug use is suspected.
In 2011 Florida’s Governor, Rick Scott, signed into law legislation that would require anyone applying for welfare assistance to take a drug test. Scott’s reasoning? He publicly stated that the state of Florida is not required to subsidize drug use or addiction.
Voters are a little more diverse in their views regarding individuals who are already receiving welfare benefits when it comes to drug testing. Thirty-five percent of voters (in the same study) believe that only people who are under suspicion of drug use should be tested. Thirty-one percent believe that random drug testing is a good idea and nearly thirty-percent thought that anyone who accepts benefits should be screened on a regular basis.
A whopping 70 % of people polled felt that individuals found to be taken drugs while receiving benefits should have their benefits rescinded. Just 15% were against the revocation of benefits for such an offense. Fifteen percent weren’t sure how they felt about it. Nearly 60% of the individuals who stated that people caught taking drugs while receiving welfare benefits should lose them, felt that the offender should be kicked off after the first offense. Forty-percent thought that some type of warning should be given first.
A urine drug test would be sufficient for the testing of welfare recipients for drug use. There are some people, many in fact, who believe that doing so would save the government a substantial amount of money. If those individuals who test positive for drug use are no longer able to receive Federal monies, there is the belief (amongst some) that a significant amount of money would be saved. Instead of millions of dollars being sent out to drug-using recipients, it could remain in government coffers where it is sorely needed.
There is, however, a flip side to the revocation of welfare benefits from those who test positive for drug use. Crime, homelessness and violence may in fact, increase. Individuals who are kicked out of Federally-subsidized homes would have no where to go. Individuals who are no longer able to receive food stamps may resort to theft or violence to obtain food. While simply kicking drug users off of welfare rolls seems to be the right answer at first blush, it is important for voters and those in charge of making such decisions, to carefully weigh both the advantages and disadvantages of doing so.
Some states have already passed laws which require that welfare recipients be administered a drug test sometime during the application process, though not necessarily throughout their stint on welfare.
According to a recent Rasmussen Report survey, a little more than 50% of voters believe that welfare recipients should be tested for drugs as a condition of receiving any Federal or state benefits, at least initially. Thirteen percent believe that applicants should be randomly tested and nearly thirty-percent think that such tests should be given if drug use is suspected.
In 2011 Florida’s Governor, Rick Scott, signed into law legislation that would require anyone applying for welfare assistance to take a drug test. Scott’s reasoning? He publicly stated that the state of Florida is not required to subsidize drug use or addiction.
Voters are a little more diverse in their views regarding individuals who are already receiving welfare benefits when it comes to drug testing. Thirty-five percent of voters (in the same study) believe that only people who are under suspicion of drug use should be tested. Thirty-one percent believe that random drug testing is a good idea and nearly thirty-percent thought that anyone who accepts benefits should be screened on a regular basis.
A whopping 70 % of people polled felt that individuals found to be taken drugs while receiving benefits should have their benefits rescinded. Just 15% were against the revocation of benefits for such an offense. Fifteen percent weren’t sure how they felt about it. Nearly 60% of the individuals who stated that people caught taking drugs while receiving welfare benefits should lose them, felt that the offender should be kicked off after the first offense. Forty-percent thought that some type of warning should be given first.
A urine drug test would be sufficient for the testing of welfare recipients for drug use. There are some people, many in fact, who believe that doing so would save the government a substantial amount of money. If those individuals who test positive for drug use are no longer able to receive Federal monies, there is the belief (amongst some) that a significant amount of money would be saved. Instead of millions of dollars being sent out to drug-using recipients, it could remain in government coffers where it is sorely needed.
There is, however, a flip side to the revocation of welfare benefits from those who test positive for drug use. Crime, homelessness and violence may in fact, increase. Individuals who are kicked out of Federally-subsidized homes would have no where to go. Individuals who are no longer able to receive food stamps may resort to theft or violence to obtain food. While simply kicking drug users off of welfare rolls seems to be the right answer at first blush, it is important for voters and those in charge of making such decisions, to carefully weigh both the advantages and disadvantages of doing so.
Categories
:
Drug Testing
0 comments :
Post a Comment