Should those on social assistance be subject to drug tests?

What do you think? Do you think it matters if one does drugs whilst on assistance or not? Hopefully this can make a discussion ^^

Yes. At random and with regularity if any drugs are found in the random samples.

This is surely to be cheaper than enduring abuse of social assistance.

I see no reason why government should subsidize anyone who is addicted to a dangerous and illegal substance and do not stop abusing it.

It's silly to expect addicted people to benefit from the aid in any constructive way unless a doctor has medically cleared their usage of a drug, or confirmed that they are in the active process of recovering from their addiction in a safe way.

My immediate reaction is "yes, absolutely". Then I think more on it and I realise two things

1. Nobody is stopping people on welfare from using that money on booze, cigarettes or legal weed in most places. Why should people with other addictions really be treated differently?

2. A lot of people on welfare have legitimate medical conditions liable to turn up false positives.

So I guess I'm not that sure in the end.

I'm not about punishing addicts based on one's own merciless convictions of who deserves help. So on that point alone, no. It is not an abuse of the system to be an addict in need of assistance - if anything, it is a failure of the system to not have more accessible ways to rid one of addiction. Exacting further hardship onto those suffering addictions just to fuel your own prejudices is barbaric. Not to mention a willing participation in the demonisation of those on welfare.

By logical extension, I see no reason to deny assistance to those who use drugs recreationally either, since not everyone caught in the hypothetical net is going to be an addict.

That being said, if someone is known to be an addict while on welfare, I would expect there to be an incentive or push that involves being offered treatment or something to that effect. There are ways to be stern and authoritative without resorting to cruelty. Outright cutting them off from a secure lifeline because of a previous failure of society is not something I can support.

Ok here is my opinion, as someone who is on social assistance myself, I would not mind if addict was being helped too. Gimme said this, but there's nothing stopping people from buy alcohol so why this? You might as well do random breathalyzers if you're going to test for things like THC

It would be costly too no? Why not offer them the proper help along with it?

Businesses who receive subsidies from the government don't have their board members and shareholders drug tested. If the whole idea behind testing is to find people who will waste the money and stop giving them assistance then I think there should be a broader conversation about what should be considered a waste of money.

Me, personally, I don't like the idea of people using assistance for drugs and alcohol because it doesn't help them. I also don't like the idea of rich people hoarding money and insulating themselves from economic earthquakes while the rest of us get poorer and more vulnerable.

Zafira said:

Ok here is my opinion, as someone who is on social assistance myself, I would not mind if addict was being helped too. Gimme said this, but there's nothing stopping people from buy alcohol so why this?

Click to expand...

In the US, food stamps can't be used to buy lots of things, alcohol included. But then, in the US we are more draconian about assistance than many other places.

I think we should drug test only so we can find if someone is suffering from an addiction to hard drugs like heroin, and if they are, we should be helping them get the medical assistance they need to overcome that addiction. I don't think any form of social assistance should be restricted to anyone that needs it to survive.

Florida passed a mandatory drug test regulation to receive SNAP/HUD/medicaid a while ago, promising to save the state big money because so many undeserving people were abusing the program. But in reality, their numbers have changed marginally at best. It was all just talk from conservative politicians trying to get/keep themselves elected.

So, no. I don't think so. It ends up creating a bigger hassle for the state than it's worth, and makes poor people's lives harder than they have to be (and already are).

Esper said:

In the US, food stamps can't be used to buy lots of things, alcohol included. But then, in the US we are more draconian about assistance than many other places.

Click to expand...

I do not know what is a food stamp, here you are given money for live off of. In this province specifically, unless you're disabled (me) you have to be looking for work to get it.
So I was mainly talking, if they give you the actual money?

Zafira said:

I do not know what is a food stamp, here you are given money for live off of.

Click to expand...

In the US, food stamps are basically a form of welfare where if you apply for it and are accepted (generally you have to be below a certain income relative to your family size to get them iirc), you'll be given a booklet of "stamps" that are each worth so much money. They're only usable to buy food and food-related items, as you might've guessed.

That's the rough idea anyway, I'm not terribly familiar with them.

They should require testing.

Welfare and assistance are things that are meant to do two things:

1. Assist those going through a period of hardship (lost their job, spouse, health issues)
2. Create Stability. Those with disabilities, mental or physical, or senior citizen, that CANNOT work and do not qualify for social security or social security is not meeting their needs.

An addiction to drugs is a money hole of a habit. Yes, addiction is considered a diagnosis, but the thing is, few ever get clean. You know how hard it is to get and stay clean? Most do not. Let me tell you. Daily. Daily, I see people, dozens, come to the hospital for drug use. Most are homeless. The ones that end up in treatment? They'll be gone for a few weeks and then back again when they get out, high already. Some people live in the ED, going from hospital to hospital kicked out of every one. The ones that aren't homeless most are on welfare, or some sort of fiscal assistance. They are never going to get sober. Most don't even want to try. I do not want to pay taxes to support people that waste their money on drugs instead of food, water, and shelter.

I once had a patient that had overdosed on heroin that was dead for nearly a minute. They got them back to life, because narcan is amazing. And guess what? Three hours after their discharge I found in the bathroom, high as fuck and are kicked out of the hospital because while they were there we discovered they had stolen an IV start up kit. They were dead. They were given a second chance. And what did they do? They can't think of anything but getting the drug. They stole from the people that just save their life from the drug, and stole stuff so they could take the drug. In the place that just saved their life. This was about a month or so after my cousin died from a fucking heroin overdose. He was one of six that overdosed in one county in less than twelve hours. He was one of the two of them that didn't make it.

The ones that aren't homeless most are on welfare, or some sort of fiscal assistance. They are never going to get sober. Most don't even want to try. I do not want to pay taxes to support people that waste their money on drugs instead of food, water, and shelter.

As for the casual marijuana user, if it's legal, who cares if it shows up in a piss test, and illegal, shouldn't be doing it anyways. Pretty easy math to me.

And don't get me started on people who abuse the system or cheat it.

Welfare is either meant to help those who can't be helped. Or to help people have the chance to better themselves.

If you're going to generalize addiction as "I don't want to try to get clean," then yeah, I can see why you'd have such a strong opposition to it.

But if you aren't aware, addiction is a disease that literally rewires your brain and creates extreme dopamine deficiencies that result in compulsive behavior that can literally drain the life out of someone and force them to lose self-control. They will feel lifeless, depressed, etc. and that shit is difficult to overcome when your brain is literally telling you that you basically need the drug to feel emotion. As for symptoms of withdrawal, when your body is literally saying that it needs the drug to function, to not vomit everywhere, to not feel suicidal, etc., yeah, you're gonna seek it out to get rid of those feelings. So, no, people aren't not trying to not be addicted - their bodies are literally not letting them try because the pain they feel, physically and mentally, is too overwhelming.

It sucks that people get addicted to it, yeah, and it sucks that addiction can only happen if you choose to use drugs, but addicts are still people and they still deserve treatment. We don't get to choose whether or not someone is worthy of medical treatment, because all humans inherently deserve good physical and mental health. If you believe that welfare is supposed to be able to help people better themselves, why would you then say that addicts who need to better themselves aren't deserving?

gimmepie said:

My immediate reaction is "yes, absolutely". Then I think more on it and I realise two things

1. Nobody is stopping people on welfare from using that money on booze, cigarettes or legal weed in most places. Why should people with other addictions really be treated differently?

2. A lot of people on welfare have legitimate medical conditions liable to turn up false positives.

So I guess I'm not that sure in the end.

Click to expand...

In the first case, I think those things are restricted in a lot of food stamp programs in the US, and I think that's how it should be. The tax money used for these programs comes from everyone; if you're taking everyone's money because you need assistance to survive, then I think you should be limited to using it on things you need to survive.

In the second case, I think those exceptions can or should probably be documented and excluded on an individual bases.

Adore said:

Florida passed a mandatory drug test regulation to receive SNAP/HUD/medicaid a while ago, promising to save the state big money because so many undeserving people were abusing the program. But in reality, their numbers have changed marginally at best. It was all just talk from conservative politicians trying to get/keep themselves elected.

So, no. I don't think so. It ends up creating a bigger hassle for the state than it's worth, and makes poor people's lives harder than they have to be (and already are).

Click to expand...

Maybe the numbers haven't changed much, but it's not just about the money. Welfare is supposed to be a tool used to help people survive and get back on their feet, not a permanent crutch to live off of. The end goal of most welfare programs is to encourage people to get back into the workforce and start living on their own again.

Living on welfare should be moderately painful; you should be restricted to using it only on the absolute essentials. It's not intended to support peoples' lifestyles. Now, should we maybe come up with better ways to get addicts help? Absolutely, and I think those kinds of programs are already a requirement for many welfare programs. But even if it's a wash money-wise, I think it's good that the money we're spending isn't going toward paying for peoples' drug habits. And maybe it's about the same short-term, but I think in the long term, getting more people off of welfare programs and back into the workforce and helping them kick their addiction rather than feed it is going to cost us significantly less.

twocows said:

Maybe the numbers haven't changed much, but it's not just about the money. Welfare is supposed to be a tool used to help people survive and get back on their feet, not a permanent crutch to live off of. The end goal of most welfare programs is to encourage people to get back into the workforce and start living on their own again.

Click to expand...

This is a grey line. I can't imagine that most people would be able to live entirely off of welfare when it's designed to be supplemental and not provide a comfortable lifestyle, or any lifestyle at all.

Living on welfare should be moderately painful; you should be restricted to using it only on the absolute essentials.

Click to expand...

Living on welfare alone would be painful. As low as the payouts are, it'd be economically unsound to try and own a house, a car, pay for the food of whomever you live with/yourself, and still maintain a comfortable lifestyle on just that small source of income.

It's not intended to support peoples' lifestyles.

Click to expand...

Actually that's exactly what it's designed to do. It supplements income for people below the poverty line.

Now, should we maybe come up with better ways to get addicts help? Absolutely, and I think those kinds of programs are already a requirement for many welfare programs. But even if it's a wash money-wise, I think it's good that the money we're spending isn't going toward paying for peoples' drug habits.

Click to expand...

First of all, I know that most programs already have restrictions about using the money for drugs (most being "don't fucking do that"). But secondly, as stated above, drug testing is not showing that drug users are/would be receiving welfare at a rate that should cause concern. Quite frankly, increased drug testing does nothing.

And maybe it's about the same short-term, but I think in the long term, getting more people off of welfare programs and back into the workforce and helping them kick their addiction rather than feed it is going to cost us significantly less.

Click to expand...

I don't understand this statement. The U.S. already requires you to search for work and places a 5 year limit on receiving benefits, so it's not exactly easily abuseable. Secondly, I don't understand how not providing medical benefits would help a person suffering from addiction get off their addiction, nor do I understamd how we'd be feeding it by providing them medical benefits.

Trev said:

snip

Click to expand...

Most of what I'm saying is that the status quo is fine, but that I support screening as a measure to prevent abuse. As you said, the status quo already enforces most of what I think is the right way to handle things.

Actually that's exactly what it's designed to do. It supplements income for people below the poverty line.

Click to expand...

When I say it's not designed to "support their lifestyle," I mean it's not designed to allow them to buy unnecessary luxuries or indulge in costly vices.

Secondly, I don't understand how not providing medical benefits would help a person suffering from addiction get off their addiction, nor do I understamd how we'd be feeding it by providing them medical benefits.

Click to expand...

I don't believe I ever suggested they shouldn't receive medical benefits, nor would I since I think they should (as long as those benefits are contingent on enrolling in a program to treat their addiction and working on getting a job).

This upsets me because it ignores the opioid crisis in the US, most addicts have a script to what they're taking already. What good would a test do then? Everyone is so preoccupied with crack and heroin. Not to mention the way rehab programs and such at actually run. If you aren't already financially well off, you're just screwed.

Also people don't "live" on welfare. They get by. My mom gets $15 of food stamps a month, she's disabled and needs a cane to walk. She gets less then $800 a month to live on and is broke and miserable just like everyone else.

Lucid said:

This upsets me because it ignores the opioid crisis in the US, most addicts have a script to what they're taking already. What good would a test do then? Everyone is so preoccupied with crack and heroin. Not to mention the way rehab programs and such at actually run. If you aren't already financially well off, you're just screwed.

Also people don't "live" on welfare. They get by. My mom gets $15 of food stamps a month, she's disabled and needs a cane to walk. She gets less then $800 a month to live on and is broke and miserable just like everyone else.

Click to expand...

And yet, people abuse it.

I worked at a grocery store some time ago as loss prevention. The store was in a bad neighborhood and had been robbed at gunpoint twice. They wanted a security guard just on site. I was armed (carrying a gun, taser, mace, baton, wearing body armor). My main goal was as a deterrent from people attempting to rob the place. Did manage to do just that, but story for another time.

I'm standing near the checkout one night at about three in the morning. A man near my age was attempting to use a mix of food stamps and EBT to pay for his food, though, sadly, the EBT wouldn't allow him to purchase the fruit he'd chosen. So he went back to pick something else, but that was rejected. He did this two or three times more before giving up.

As I sat and watched him I felt my wallet burning. I wanted to just say, "Fuck it, I could buy it for him." But for some reason, I held back. I nodded a goodbye at him as he left. I sauntered after him, going for a smoke break. And I watched him get to his car.

His car, a brand new Dodge Charger, cherry red, racing stripe, custom rims, and I definitely caught a glimpse of a leather interior. Parked in handicapped parking, with no sign or plate for it.

Here I was, working 70+ hours a week to get by, doing random armed gigs, bodyguard work, bond work, and I was driving, at the time, a vehicle that broke down constantly, had nearly 240,000 miles on it, and was starting college.

Another time, working that same store (I was there for a week), I watched a family get out of a van, at least five people. Each of them grabbed a cart and started shopping. Their carts were overflowing with items when they lined up, at different registers, and paid, all of them using food stamps and EBT. They then left and got back into their van and left. It was a husband and wife, one adult kid, an uncle, and one grandmother. (or at least that was what I could understand.)

Phantom said:

And yet, people abuse it.

I worked at a grocery store some time ago as loss prevention. The store was in a bad neighborhood and had been robbed at gunpoint twice. They wanted a security guard just on site. I was armed (carrying a gun, taser, mace, baton, wearing body armor). My main goal was as a deterrent from people attempting to rob the place. Did manage to do just that, but story for another time.

I'm standing near the checkout one night at about three in the morning. A man near my age was attempting to use a mix of food stamps and EBT to pay for his food, though, sadly, the EBT wouldn't allow him to purchase the fruit he'd chosen. So he went back to pick something else, but that was rejected. He did this two or three times more before giving up.

As I sat and watched him I felt my wallet burning. I wanted to just say, "Fuck it, I could buy it for him." But for some reason, I held back. I nodded a goodbye at him as he left. I sauntered after him, going for a smoke break. And I watched him get to his car.

His car, a brand new Dodge Charger, cherry red, racing stripe, custom rims, and I definitely caught a glimpse of a leather interior. Parked in handicapped parking, with no sign or plate for it.

Here I was, working 70+ hours a week to get by, doing random armed gigs, bodyguard work, bond work, and I was driving, at the time, a vehicle that broke down constantly, had nearly 240,000 miles on it, and was starting college.

Another time, working that same store (I was there for a week), I watched a family get out of a van, at least five people. Each of them grabbed a cart and started shopping. Their carts were overflowing with items when they lined up, at different registers, and paid, all of them using food stamps and EBT. They then left and got back into their van and left. It was a husband and wife, one adult kid, an uncle, and one grandmother. (or at least that was what I could understand.)

Click to expand...

I'm going to ask you to stop with your anecdotes. They do not apply across the board and you're generalizing an entire group of people based on the actions of a few people you've met. You have no idea WHEN that person got that car, so you have no right to say that he was abusing his payments. You have no idea what that family's financial situation is, so stop acting like they're cheating the system just because they're trying to feed themselves. Your anecdotes are entirely subjective and don't reflect the reality of how much abuse actually exists.

Your anecdotes are the equivalent of the time Fox News said that 99% of poor people own fridges.

twocows, I'll add a proper response after work.

Poor people are allowed luxuries.
We don't have to be miserable all the time, we are allowed new things.