Why do you disagree with drug testing to receive gov't assistance? Most people who have jobs that pay the taxes that support these programs have to pass one to earn the money to pay those taxes, why shouldn't those who receive those benefits be subject to the same processes? Also if you have money to spend on illegal drugs, you certainly don't need to be on gov't assistance.Originally Posted by bu villain
Although I respect your point of view, I disagree with it for several reasons.
Most importantly of all, I think it is an unnecessary infringement on personal freedom. We shouldn't require that people never do drugs to get help than we should require people to not smoke, drink, or eat fatty food, watch too much TV, or any other such harmful activity. I do however, support a company's right to perform drug testing (especially "for cause") but it shouldn't result in disciplinary action if it was determined that the person was not under the influence while on the job.
Second, many people on government assistance already have jobs (as stated in the original article).
Third, not all jobs have drug testing. It may be a requirement for many jobs but so is a bachelor's degree. I wouldn't propose you must get a BA before you get assistance either.
Finally, I personally know many productive members of society who occassionaly partake in some form of drugs. Obviously this is not true for every drug user but we can't categorically say, drug user = unproductive person.
A final note in regards to your final statement about having enough money for drugs means they shouldn't need assistance... A drug test doesn't show who spends money on drugs. For example, a person may be at a party and their friend gives them some.
How is it an unnecessary infringement on personal freedom? Being on gov't assistance, for the majority, is by choice. Yes, that's right, I said it's a choice. It's not a direct choice that one makes when they wake up in the morning, but more so a lack of choices that lead up to it. Don't want to end up on gov't assistance? Stay in school, work hard to qualify for scholarships and grants if you don't have the money to afford college. If you can't do that, learn a skilled trade, there are many ways to go about this through internships or apprenticeships, even during high school. Don't have children when you're 15 and have no means to support them. There are many choices made everyday that lead up to one being a ward of the state, it doesn't just happen overnight, nor is it hereditary. Yes, there is a cycle that has to be broken when someone comes from such a home, and that's partly to blame on parents and partly to blame on our abysmal gov't school system in this country, but that's a whole other conversation.
Yes, and two of the people who are cited in the article are both single parents, one of which had a child at 15. Would she be working a minimum wage job at 21 and relying on gov't assistance if she had made the choice to either not be sexually active at such a young age, or had used contraceptives? No way to know for sure, but her chances would be significantly lower had she made better choices. There's that choices word again. I also think it's somewhat a failure on societies part in general for not providing better environments for young people to learn in, just take a look at tv, movies, music and video games now. The promotion of sex, alcohol, drugs, violence and living the "hollywood" lifestyle is pervasive, and it's hard to expect young people to make clear decisions that affect the rest of their life when those kinds of situations are presented to them at every turn. At some point it sort of becomes "the norm", this is where parents should step in, but sadly there are a lot of them who are wrapped up in those things themselves.
This analogy doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, a Bachelors degree isn't illegal, it's an education. You are also correct that not all jobs require drug testing and if one doesn't want to be subject to such testing they can choose not to work for that company, just as someone can choose to better themselves and not rely on gov't assistance. Yes, I understand that people fall on hard times and need help, and I'm not categorically putting everyone that is on gov't assistance as riding the system, but those who held a job and had to pass drug screenings should have no problem passing one to receive temporary assistance. The drug screenings are designed to weed out fraud and abuse from those who do continually ride the system, not prevent someone from receiving assistance in times of need.
I, too, know many people who occasionally do the same. I'm not lumping every person who may occasionally partake into the "unproductive person" category, but like it or not it is illegal and until that changes then one should not be able to receive gov't benefits while engaging in illegal activity.
If someone partakes that rarely the chances of them getting caught are going to be very slim, the person who uses regularly and has to spend money on it is far more likely to be caught, either way they made a choice to engage in an illegal activity knowing what it may cost them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote