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.

I TOTALLY AGREE! If you want to get welfare, you most certainly should have to have a drug test. ALL RULES SHOULD APPLY TO ALL CITIZENS! If you aren't "drug free" you don't qualify for anything.If you want to use drugs, then take your problem elsewhere. Not only would this cut down on those obtaining welfare, but it should cut down the addicts in this country and the dealers that live off of them.JUST THINK!!!..It could be a whole change in our country...get back to a cleaner AMERICA!!!

Sands,Your not helping this conversation. There are some really great comments made by the users here and your communist views whether sarchasm or serious are in no way contributing to the post.

I agree with the drug test suggestion. If you work and pay taxes you should be free to do what you wish with your money. No work, no paying of taxes equals no civil liberties legal or not.

I totally agree these people need to be stopped!!!! Like many of you; I just thought my taxes went to social security the federal government, unemployment and whatever else was taking got split up between whatever was left. I’m not sure how many of you have looked at your W2’s; and noticed the amount going to the welfare program. The initials vary by state so just ask your payroll department rep to specify. But last year they took a little over $3,000 for this. I don’t know about you but I could have used that money.

Yes, I feel it’s unfair to see drug addicts getting these apartment rental vouchers for years on end. People who work hard every day cant even maintain a mortgage let alone affordable housing. I’m clipping coupons and waiting for double coupon day and their buying all the snow crab legs and shrimp in the store. Yes the program is supposed to help these people. But they first have to help themselves. A lot of people use the excuse that they can’t successfully attend or complete these training programs because they have these sickly babies to take care of. No money for transportation this excuse or that excuse.

Well lets start off by saying if you didn’t get high while you were pregnant then you wouldn’t have a sickly baby. If you didn’t sell your bus card then you could get to class and if you weren’t high you could get up get there and focus on trying to make a life for yourself. I believe effectively planning to test recipients for welfare would have a multi faceted beneficial response.

1. The working class would no longer be abused by this. We would see more of our money which in turn would cause us to spend more and that would help the economy2. It cause’s a lot of people to get the help they need because the help they are getting will no longer enable their lifestyle3. There aren’t a lot of jobs out there so make them volunteer/ internships with real life employment opportunities.4. Crime would go down reasonably for one there will be a lot more working class and we all need to get our rest. They’ll be too tired to be stealing radios5. The family relationship will tighten and there will be more home training and less teenage pregnancyI mean I could think of a few more but I don’t want to ramble on. The point is we all need to be responsible for our self and the choices we make in our life. We as a people need to think about how we affect each other’s lives.

Just think you’re a manager at a store and you don’t hire the young girl because she didn’t seem mature enough to handle the job, speak well. Now she’s home nothing to do and has sex, gets pregnant and hides it from her parents until it’s too late to do anything about it. Now, she’s on welfare with a baby leaving it with the parents who will now raise it. Were taking it care of it with our tax dollars. She’s feeling stressed and like a failure so while she’s out she gets high and BAM just that quick she’s a bi-level statistic.

No it’s not entirely our fault but we do play an indirect roll in it happening. At least with this kind of testing they will receive the type of monitoring that will ensure self suffieceny

EOCANDY, there is nothing on the W2 form about welfare tax. Maybe you are confusing Social Security tax or Medicare tax with welfare.

I don't think denying welfare to drug users would be helpful. That would just increase the likelyhood that they would turn to crime for money. Maybe we could test them and, if positive, require them to go through some kind of rehab program. I realize this might not work either, but it's better than just cutting them loose.

I think drug testing for welfare recipients is a great idea. I do volunteer work with several welfare recipients who are single mothers with multiple children. These women can barely feed themselves, much less their children. It is heartbreaking to think that welfare money coming in may be going toward buying drugs rather than food and necessities for their children. Several of the women smoke, which makes me crazy - another huge waste of money.

I agree with this they should do drug testing.

It would be great if welfare recipients could get the money on a form of a debit card that they can buy things they need with, from cloths to food to paying bills and everything necessary but drugs. These cards cannot be used to get cash back or cash in anyway and if they bought something and want to return it to the store the refund money would go back to the card directly not as cash. At first i thought that drung testing would be a good idea, but it will cost more money and no body wants to pay higher taxes fees anyway with the economy crisis it would great to instead of wasting our money paying for somebodies drugs and helping them continue ruin their life and society, we will use it to get them into rehabilitation or get our troops back or pay less taxes.

Sands first comment sums it up perfectly. just wanted to add a little fact: I have had to apply for emergency cash and food stamp benefits while disabled but awaiting the (currently 2 year) social security disability application process. My county and state (NJ) checked for previous drug felonies and would not provide either food stamps or cash assistance if an individual had one on their record.

This bothered me in three respects: A - if an addict is now sober, and maybe has been for 10 or 20 or 30 years, be punished for something that may have occurred in the 1970s. B - double jeopardy; the individual has already been found guilty, served their jail time and been to any court ordered rehab and community service... they have already paid their debt to society. C - at the risk of being labeled a mushy gushy bleeding heart I must mention the increasing number of studies that indicate that addiction is a disease. If everyone who ever tried heroine in the 1970s, cocaine in the 1990s or Meth/ecstacy/whatever in the 2000s or ever had a beer in their life had become an addict society as we know it would not exist. I believe that there are people who are pre-disposed to certain addictions and if they should happen to "try" their future drug of choice their willpower alone will have little to do with the outcome. Go to any AA or NA meeting and they will tell you it is not an issue of willpower or moral fortitude. One of the first steps is to admit you are powerless. If you are powerless why should you recieve punitive sanctions? (yes, i know there is an anti AA/NA contingent out there - best to save that argument for another new post on ideas for how to remain sober as an addict.)

A very short sighted solution- it has widely been proving that depression alone is the single largest contributor to the work force. They use drugs as a coping mechanism for stress, some are degenerative and some do actually cure it slowly over time. "Ridlin" is almost the same as amphetamine, which is most certainly not a depressant like alcohol and there are treatments for it that are also neither a stimulant nor a depressant by the way. The department of labor and many- many institutions have scrutinized the effects of drugs and work mostly started by people with your conclusion and it does not pan out.

It has also been proven that free housing/food for homeless works more efficiently (they actually get and KEEP jobs) when they do not enforce any sort of rules against alcohol or utilize drug testing.