Poll: Drug test for welfare recipients?
Poll Options
View poll results: Drug test for welfare recipients?
Yes
179 52%
No
146 42%
Other
19 6%
Voters: 344.
Page 1 of 9
#1
This is one of the polls going around on Facebook right now. The results are overwhelmingly "yes", not to anyone's surprise. I want to know what liburl socialist Pit thinks, as well as the resident ethan_hanuses. (You can only be one or the other.) Discuss.
Quote by Ian_the_fox
You're not girly enough of a boy for me, and you're not man enough to take the top. So like, sorry bitch but you ain't mine! Sorry.
#3
Hell to the nope.

You're essentially blackmailing the poor and desperate into giving up their privacy rights by threatening to withhold their only means of subsistence. It's repugnant.
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
Last edited by ErikLensherr at Nov 10, 2011,
#4
I do. If people are on welfare in the first place they have better things to be spending their money on. Especially when the government is giving it to them
#5
Yes, but i'm mostly indifferent.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#7
I understand that the government doesn't want to hand over money. Especially to someone who's going to spend said money on untaxed goods such as drugs.

It makes sense to me, honestly.
Quote by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.

~ A Rolling Potato Gathers No Moss ~
#8
Quote by Adisturbedone
I do. If people are on welfare in the first place they have better things to be spending their money on. Especially when the government is giving it to them

If that's a problem, give them credit cards. Drug dealers don't take credit cards.

Of course, that's dickbiting moralizing bullshit anyway.
#10
Because using drugs once in a while guarantees it's everything you spend your money on...

You can't just do that. What if they're alcoholics? You'd have to test that as well, and while you're at it you'd have to check if they didn't spend it on expensive clothing. Just get a profile on wellfare recipients or something like that.
#12
Quote by The_Casinator
Because using drugs once in a while guarantees it's everything you spend your money on...

You can't just do that. What if they're alcoholics? You'd have to test that as well, and while you're at it you'd have to check if they didn't spend it on expensive clothing. Just get a profile on wellfare recipients or something like that.

Or accept that you'll have some losses and inefficiencies in any endeavor involving humans and do your best to help people without ****ing them over.
#13
Quote by MakinLattes
I'm guessing people who say yes don't know how welfare works.


Damn, you got me
#14
Quote by captaincrunk
Or accept that you'll have some losses and inefficiencies in any endeavor involving humans and do your best to help people without ****ing them over.

The dutch way to do things. Now, I don't particulary like the idea of lazy foreigners and criminals living on government money, but your point is exactly the reason why the system should stay as it is. It's better to help a few people who don't deserve it, than to abondon some people who actually do.
#15
I voted no when I saw it an hour or so ago and my answer remains no.

First off, there's the issue of paying for it. If the state does it, I think it's a huge waste of money. If we force the individual to pay for it, we're not exactly helping their financial situation (which is why they need welfare to begin with hurrdurr). Secondly, it's essentially accusing poor people of being drug-fiend losers, which is wildly generalizing an entire segment of the population. Sure, there are welfare recipients that use the money to buy drugs, but I don't think it's anywhere near enough to warrant this kind of policy.

Another big issue I have with it is the fact that many welfare recipients are parents, and you'd be denying funds to help feed their children. Sins of the father, eh? Last but not least, it's just another kind of class warfare. Why don't we drug test business owners who get tax breaks or subsidies?

A guy I know answered 'yes' on the FB poll, but he's a moron anyway that struggles with the word "you're" so I guess it's no surprise he'd have the same knee-jerk reaction that everyone else does.
PM me for newts
#16
Yes. I don't think that's asking too much for free money. Is it damning the junkies? Maybe. But maybe it will help them realize how low they've gotten before they do irreparable damage to themselves.

idk, my compassion for junkies is pretty low.
#17
Drugs is food, okay. It counts as fucking groceries. Are you gonna take away some poor guy's groceries?

Quote by denizenz
I'll logic you right in the thyroid.

Art & Lutherie
#18
You know what's funny, I hear stories of people on welfare and shit blowing their money off on fancy stuff they most likely can't afford all the time.

In fact my friend met some guy who had like food stamps or something and said something along the lines of "I'll sell you guys 100 dollars in these food whatevers if you give me 20 dollars so I can buy some booze"

Honestly drug tests wouldn't even be enough really because you still wouldn't know if they blew off their money on some retarded shit they don't need, they'd need it to work like some sort of checking account that they can monitor the transactions on or something but a lot of people will flip out about this violating some 'privacy' crap (aka the privacy to waste money) and hold both the store and the person buying crap responsible for wasting their welfare on shit they don't need so that stores also have to take part in it.
Last edited by zomgguitarz1234 at Nov 10, 2011,
#19
Quote by StewieSwan
I voted no when I saw it an hour or so ago and my answer remains no.

First off, there's the issue of paying for it. If the state does it, I think it's a huge waste of money. If we force the individual to pay for it, we're not exactly helping their financial situation (which is why they need welfare to begin with hurrdurr). Secondly, it's essentially accusing poor people of being drug-fiend losers, which is wildly generalizing an entire segment of the population. Sure, there are welfare recipients that use the money to buy drugs, but I don't think it's anywhere near enough to warrant this kind of policy.

Another big issue I have with it is the fact that many welfare recipients are parents, and you'd be denying funds to help feed their children. Sins of the father, eh? Last but not least, it's just another kind of class warfare. Why don't we drug test business owners who get tax breaks or subsidies?

A guy I know answered 'yes' on the FB poll, but he's a moron anyway that struggles with the word "you're" so I guess it's no surprise he'd have the same knee-jerk reaction that everyone else does.

God damn those are all good points.

I change my vote to no, though not officially, since I don't think there's a way to do that.
#20
Quote by W4RP1G
Yes. I don't think that's asking too much for free money. Is it damning the junkies? Maybe. But maybe it will help them realize how low they've gotten before they do irreparable damage to themselves.

idk, my compassion for junkies is pretty low.

Yeah, but what about

Quote by StewieSwan
Why don't we drug test business owners who get tax breaks or subsidies?

This?
#21
^ That's assuming that the testing is to attempt to stop them from "wasting money" as opposed to attempting to stop them from supporting a lucrative, illegal business system.
My God, it's full of stars!
#22
Quote by Dreadnought
^ That's assuming that the testing is to attempt to stop them from "wasting money" as opposed to attempting to stop them from supporting a lucrative, illegal business system.

Money is money. It doesn't matter if they already had some. If they spend any on drugs, it was the same money.
#25
Quote by captaincrunk
Money is money. It doesn't matter if they already had some. If they spend any on drugs, it was the same money.


Tell that to the people concerned about welfare money going directly into a currently still illegal trade.

Not my argument
My God, it's full of stars!
#26
Quote by Vitor_vdp

Ever heard of a joke, cuntface?
Quote by Dreadnought
Tell that to the people concerned about welfare money going directly into a currently still illegal trade.

Not my argument

I thought you were talking about businessmen, actually.
#28
Quote by captaincrunk
Ever heard of a joke, cuntface?


Apparently you haven't lol, that picture was funny
My God, it's full of stars!
#29
If someone requires welfare, the money ought to be going to better things than drug use.
#30
Quote by Vitor_vdp
Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?

Ever been to open mic night?

And piss off.
Quote by Mudmen190
If someone requires welfare, the money ought to be going to better things than drug use.

And I really ought to stop eating so much red meat. Should the government piss test me for cow blood?
Last edited by captaincrunk at Nov 10, 2011,
#31
If they're stupid enough to spend their food/rent money on drugs then it's their own damn fault, I mean, we tried to help...
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.
#35
Some workplaces demands that you take a drug test, why shouldn't the government? Until the drugs they would test them for are actually legal, I'm for it.
#36
Quote by captaincrunk

And I really ought to stop eating so much red meat. Should the government piss test me for cow blood?


Food is a necessity. Drugs are not. If you require welfare, money will be taken from things that are actually important like food, rent, clothing, etc and put towards drugs. I'm not certain I'd take any legal action for their drug use, but it's not right to hand these people money when their priorities are so out of order.
#37
Quote by intothe
Some workplaces demands that you take a drug test, why shouldn't the government? Until the drugs they would test them for are actually legal, I'm for it.



Workplaces testing for it is bullshit, too.


Quote by Mudmen190
Food is a necessity. Drugs are not. If you require welfare, money will be taken from things that are actually important like food, rent, clothing, etc and put towards drugs. I'm not certain I'd take any legal action for their drug use, but it's not right to hand these people money when their priorities are so out of order.



Food may be a necessity, but you can still choose 'bad' food. Should we start testing them for doritos and milkshakes, too? I mean....basic necessities are all they should be buying, right? Bread and water.
PM me for newts
Last edited by StewieSwan at Nov 10, 2011,
#38
Quote by intothe
Some workplaces demands that you take a drug test, why shouldn't the government? Until the drugs they would test them for are actually legal, I'm for it.

In the workplace, you interact with customers. They have an interest in you doing a good job. The government is giving you money because you haven't been successful. There are no parallels.
#39
Quote by Mudmen190
Food is a necessity.

It is necessary that I eat some food. Junk food is not a necessity.

Quote by Mudmen190
Drugs are not.

Neither is well kept clothing.
Quote by Mudmen190
If you require welfare, money will be taken from things that are actually important like food, rent, clothing, etc and put towards drugs.

As is your right, of course.
Quote by Mudmen190
I'm not certain I'd take any legal action for their drug use, but it's not right to hand these people money when their priorities are so out of order.

Yes, let's that the most vulnerable, poor drug users, and fuck them in the head.
#40
I said other. However i don't think the yes vote understands how welfare works. And i say other, and not no for this reason. I don't believe that anyone should have there privacy invaded for the reason of being poor. However that being said neither should we be completely care free of how we give our welfare out. I personally like the current system. I would like to see expanded services to people victims of drug abuse (real drugs, including those over the counter, prescribed by doctors) that they could attend "vacations" from their day to day life to isolated group environment where they could help one another with guidance for a short time before returning to their lives. They can re-enrol as they see fit to benefit themselves.

TL;DR i said other because i believe we should offer help to victims of drug abuse, not abuse them ourselves