?
Lv 6
? asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 6 years ago

Politics: Do you think people should get a drug test before applying for welfare or is that unconstitutional?

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 6 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I do not believe that this is an unreasonable requirement. Even if you ignore the matter of expenses that the taxpayers incur as a result, the fact of the matter is that if you provide welfare to someone who has a drug habit you are enabling that very habit in the name of helping that person. In other words, you aren't really helping that particular person, even if on the surface it might look that way (at least before the drug habit is known about).

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    It is unconstitutional and the costs to run such a program is astronomical. (unfortunately).

    Last year Florida became the first state to pass and fully implement a bill mandating suspicionless drug testing of all applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The law mandated that all applicants pay for the cost of the drug test themselves, and that they be reimbursed if their test came back negative. The law was in effect for a mere four months before the ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit and a federal court blocked the law, saying it was unconstitutional.

    it cost the state of Florida to run this program. The data released today shows that Florida spent $118,140 reimbursing the overwhelming number of Florida TANF applicants — 3,938 to be exact — who tested negative for drugs. That is far more than any money saved by the program, at a net cost to the State of over $45,000. And that's only part of the cost to the state to run this program. There are also the administrative costs, staff costs, and, of course, the litigation costs. Furthermore, the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help — an internal document about TANF caseloads revealed that, at least from July through September, the policy did not lead to fewer cases.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    I don't think there is anything unconstitutional about it.

    Now, NOT the way My state Florida did it, which is make THEM paty FIRST.most people who apply for government benefits are already BROKE! They can't afford to fork up fifty bucks for a test FIRST and wait six weeks to get it back in their first welfare check.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    People should get drug tested to become a congressman or a senator too.

    But then GOP congressman Trey Radel would have never served, would he?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 6 years ago

    No.

    It violates the fourth ammendment.

    It is too costly.

    It was tried and the number of users who collected welfare was next to nil.

    In Utah of over 400 people tested, they found 12 users. That cost them $30,000.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    only if the same condition applies to anybody getting money from the government, all the government employees and all those company directors in receipt of corporate welfare should be checked as well.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    I have no problem with it in theory. However, it has been tried and it always costs much more than it saves. I'd prefer to keep welfare as cheap as possible for me and my fellow taxpayers.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • ME
    Lv 5
    6 years ago

    Yes, I am on food stamps and every time I go to the office it is full of junkies. Would be nice to be in and out rather than sit around for 3 hours.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    hell yes they should

    if they are going to government moochers

    then they need to be clean

    I get drug tested all the time in my line of work

    and since libs consider welfare as a way of life

    then they should too

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    Keep up, ok?? Florida already tried that...already got shot down in court. Ruling, there is no proof that being in poverty means someone is on drugs.

    But hey...why take away a favorite Conservative fantasy??

    and...

    true to form...someone post SPECIFIC FACTS ON THIS.. AND HE GETS THUMBED DOWN.

    Facts are not fun for some persons to swallow.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.