Why rely on half assed methods? People on drugs are tortured by their addiction and preventing them from getting some source of money to stay alive only prolongs and increases their torture. All citizens should be tested for drugs and those who fail should be shot, thereby peforming a mercy killing and preventing drug addiction from forcing people into criminal activities which are dangerous to good citizens. Once drug addicts are discovered, there should be running of the addicts like the running of the bulls in Spain and people who love to shoot innocent animals should be permitted to shoot the addicts. The gun people could be issued a license thereby providing a further source of money for the government. Since torture is now popular in the USA, a special more expensive license should be issued to permit the many sadists in the USA to enjoy their hobby. Why let the kids merely play at killing in computer games? Give them the opportunity to enjoy the real thing. The religious right should be encouraged since it certainly will increase prayer amongst the addicts. Families that kill together stay together.

You know this isn't a half bad idea but there is the back lash. Folks that are put into a corner usually resort to extreme measures to keep their habits. I am not sure what effect this would have on the crime rate but a start has got to begin somewhere and your idea is not half baked. Perhaps if you enlisted a warning system similair to the three strikes laws you might get some users off the crap. If you come in using three times you are out of the program. The money they didn't get could go to some sort of program to help them kick their habit.

As long as we're in a punitive mood, let's deny welfare from smokers, people who get more than three traffic tickets, overweight people who will be expensive to the health system, people who blaspheme, people who do not dress well and appear in public with improper haircuts, people who under tip, people with bad breath, and anybody who farts in an elevator. Additions for improving social behavior are welcome.

Much of the drug and alcohol addiction of today is due to Attention Deficit Disorders (ADD). The body is deficient of certain chemicals that allow a person to focus. Alcohol is a depressant, it slows down the mind functions; as do other drugs. If you ever hear a person say they drive better when they have a drink before driving, they are a prime candidate for ADD rehab. I dated a woman who was an alcoholic from when she was 13 years old. Even so, she put herself through college; around a C grade point average. In her final year, a classmate told her she might have a learning disorder, so she went to get checked out. Sure enough, she had ADD. They put her on Ridlin and within 2 weeks she stopped drinking. She didn't try to stop, she just didn't have a desire to drink anymore. She drank because it helped her mind focus. Ridlin allowed her to focus so she stopped drinking.

I agree though, anyone on welfare should be tested for drugs. But they should be medically treated for their addiction and the should have to provide some form of productive effort to compensate society for the welfare they are paid.

Types of work might include:

Keeping trash picked up within 500 feet of where they live

Cleaning tools used by the local public works department

Answering phones for suicide hotlines

Passing courses at a community college

Helping the elderly

Landscaping public lands

...

Do you really think a person doing drugs is going to use the money they recieve on welfare to benefit their children in any way? More likely, they will prostitute their children or have them beg for money and food to help support their drug habit.

Your one experience with someone self-medicating a legitimate medical problem does not reflect the majority of drug use. The conclusions you've drawn off your one stated experience are very far removed from reality, and I suggest you consult an addiction specialist if you'd like a more realistic view.

While a truly appreciate the sentiment of the idea, it simply wouldn't work. Not only would this set a horrific precident, in which people could be denied welfare for whatever the government felt people shouldn't do This is essentially creating a creepy form of cruel and unusual punishment that is only applicable to poor people, letting legislators to use welfare as a system to control what the poor should and shouldn't do on a social and cultural level, and not an economic one. Welfare is relief, and you can't be so picky. In addition, what kinds of drugs would you intend to deny? Obviously, not all drugs are created equal.

This is the kind of idea that would open up the floodgates. Sure, people who have problems with drugs need to be convinced to stop, but it isn't merely a matter of willpower. Slapping them upside the head is obviously not an answer, especially when people become addicts for incredibly varied reasons. Applying it through economic wrist-slapping is one-sided and callous. It would not provide an incentive to get clean. The truly addicted would forego food (which is easy enough to find for free in any majorcity) and others would simply choose not to apply for medicare, instead opting for some other easy (and thus illegal) form of money. People who are addicts obviously care more about drugs than money, as evidenced by the fact that they willingly pay for them, and denying them some basic life-support such as welfare, even in the form of vouchers, would merely accelerate their addiction, not give them enlightenment and incentive to overcome it.

This is a great issue and a good idea... but I have to take a step back & really think.

Maybe the welfare folks should get free drugs, as the drugs are cheap enough. Can we deny the parents welfare, and then, I suppose, take the kids? If they had kids then, I suppose, we should sterlize the parents? How about free drugs if they volunteer for sterilization? But then... would we work to "encourage" sterilization by methods fair and foul?

My point is we are approaching big-brother & nazi territory.

If we had a good alternative for the kids we'd have more to talk about, but the US does not have a respectable orphanage/foster care system. In fact, it really sucks!

And, since you essentially have to take the kids if you stop the welfare, we are stuck.

It would work okay for people without kids... but then we just gave them a reason to have a kid. Swell.

A quick google search shows that this isn't a new idea. The Welfare Reform Act looks to have allowed states to require testing to receive Welfare benefits but when Michigan gave it a go, they got slapped by the ACLU. I, personally, am for the drug testing. If someone is holding an honest job and is enjoying a private little drug habit with their own money, leave them be. If someone is not working (for whatever reason) and are depending upon benefits funded by those that do work, by all means, test them! If they test positive, restrict their benefits and toss them into programs to help them get clean. If they refuse, they don't get the benefits.

I think that if I to take a drug test to work and pay taxes which is paying for those on welfare. Then those on welfare need to take a drug test to ensure that those who arent doing drugs and work hard for their money know that their money isnt going into the hands of a crack dealer! Its just not Fair!

Great Idea, I hate the thought of me working over 60 hrs a week paying taxes on them , and people sitting on the streets on drugs all day and supported by my tax money which I worked so hard for.