5 U.S. states have passed laws requiring welfare recipients to be tested for drugs. Proponents argue that testing will prevent public funds from being used to subsidize drugs habits and help get treatment for those that are addicted to drugs. Opponents argue that it is a waste of money since the tests will cost more money than they save.
@9FCFHRF8mos8MO
Yes - test all receiving money from the government, including employees, beneficiaries and politicians and arrange treatment if required.
Only if they have a criminal history relating to drug abuse, then treatment should be provided for those testing positive
@8GF5LQV4yrs4Y
Allow tolerance for cannabis, test and enforce a ban of hard drugs.
@8CN4QNP4yrs4Y
Not if your including cannabis as a drug.
@9HK9YD6 5mos5MO
Medical drugs and fruads with accountable of actions by legal privilege by legend former US president Donald Trump and former UK prime minister Boris Johnson hoping straight wings body's protection
Yes everyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians also random testing. If positive then be terminated after a month
@9G6RT93New Zealand Loyal7mos7MO
Yes, but only for opioids and more problematic drugs. Cannabis and psychedelics are not so bad and shouldnt be illegal.
@9G6PC5G 7mos7MO
Yes, only if they have history or speculations by others or some source of evidence regarding drug usage. Provide treatment if tested positive. Otherwise no, it is a waste of time and money
@9G6NCR67mos7MO
Yes test. Also have a start date and an end date for their welfare period. Discourage this as a way of life!
@9G6BNFG7mos7MO
Food, rent etc directly paid for so that their kids do not miss out, but so they can’t buy drugs etc
@9G5QQST7mos7MO
Use is ok if it's Dr validated reasons, reduce payment if addicts are not willing to receive help offered
@9G5QMNK7mos7MO
Be more strict on the conditions of benefits, eg if they're using the money for drugs, reduce the amount they're paid and if they keep using then stop the payments.
Yes, positive results would trigger a process that covers addiction treatments, parenting assessments and education, employment opportunities and training, social support and comuselling and ends in receiving less or no welfare b depending on the results of this process. marijuana should not be considered necessary for this full process if there is an addiction noticed, high thc levels or high consumption that is impacting ability to contribute to the economy
@9G3XLKF7mos7MO
Only those deemed both physically and mentally capable of working (but might be unemployed) and above the age of 16
@9G2VHHM7mos7MO
Absolutely - I have to be drug tested in my place of employment. If you are on a benefit then don't sit around taking drugs on my money. However, it could be replaced with your rent and amenites are paid for, and food grants given to ensure children are not impacted. If you have no dependents, a positive test is end of entitlements to welfare support.
@9G256777mos7MO
No, but screening/background family checks could help with finding people who are abusing the welfare system for drug money
@8CJWZZG4yrs4Y
Yes but with a three strikes and you're out for a certain amount of time, also when tested positive give them lots of advice and options on ways to get clean
@8CJWZCQ4yrs4Y
yes, and if tested positive, the money they are given shouldn't be taken away, rather things should be bought for them such as food.
@8CGF47L4yrs4Y
Yes, with the precautions that they will take their money and use it on drugs. This would usually occur because of addictions.
@8C7Y7T44yrs4Y
Income from benefits should have a compulsory food portion.
@8C7XT4V4yrs4Y
yes, and terminate their allowance but provide treatment
@8C7VCW64yrs4Y
Yes but only if they have not been actively seeking work for more than 6 months while being able to work
@8C6GSQP4yrs4Y
Yes and provide treatment and rehab for those testing positive. Test employees, employers and politicians and remove from office and sort out their own treatment.
@8C6BF334yrs4Y
Yes, but only for destructive drugs.
@9FZVQD57mos7MO
Only test if there is history of the person using drugs or if they have been on welfare for longer than 6 months and are not attempting to find work.
@9FZTYGS7mos7MO
Yes but only if there are kids involved. If testing positive, encourage rehabilitation, education and support for those involved rather than just decreasing or removing the benefit.
@9FZ5VNK7mos7MO
Yes but provide treatment if tested positive but if they fail to maintain it they lose their benefits
@9FYZ2NN7mos7MO
Yes, not terminate, but to pause benefits for those who are not willingly to attend to drug rehab programs where it should be monitored on a weekly basis.
@9FYV7MN 7mos7MO
Why would we punish the whanau that do drugs, when we should be helping them to control and end the use. More programs are needed to support the whole nation. VERY ANGRY AT THIS QUESTION!!!
@9FYSTRW7mos7MO
Yes, provide treatment for those testing positive and if bad enough include charges and criminal consequences
@9FXYNDR7mos7MO
Circumstantial ie. medical or potentially medical marijuana use should be allowed based on individual Class a excluding medicinal Marijuana oils from dispensary should be tested
@9FWZHQLTe Pāti Māori 7mos7MO
How about putting more money into community services who can help and support families they suffer from addiction, drug and alcohol use. Majority of these people suffer from a number of complex issues, trauma from childhood or even adulthood, domestic violence, being disconnected from family and society. If someone uses drugs there is always a reason ! Find the reason and pump resources into places whi can provide supports and make it that if you receive a benefit and meet criteria to get further support on some areas then they have to engage in those supports !! The outcomes will be far better and will help future generations to come !!
@9FVR5SL7mos7MO
No, only if they have a criminal history related to drug abuse (especially class A drugs) (Should NOT include the use of cannabis)
@9FVR2K77mos7MO
Yes test everyone receiving money from government including employees and politicians. And if they test positive terminate any benifits for those testing positive.
@9FVDXDS7mos7MO
No, but welfare for single parents should be reduced. Instead, childcare should be free or heavily subsidised, and the minimum wage increased.
No, just offer it as a service alongside free counseling and addiction services but don't force it on people as a requirement of having a benefit as that will negatively effect children of beneficiaries.
yes, provide treatment on those testing positive, and there benefit becomes a voucher system, food/rent/power,
Yes, and use testing as an incentive to reduce the use of recreational drugs.
@9FLSK2C7mos7MO
Yes, and there should be a support system and help put in place to provide resources to help them with their situation
@9FCVR2V8mos8MO
Depends on the drugs and what welfare they are on. Ie a sickness benefit, and smoking weed MAY be okay. Never having worked and smoking weed- absolutely no
@9FCTL378mos8MO
No. Drug use, so says the science, is best treated as a health issue. Addiction needs to be treated yes, but making life harder for people will not remove their dependency or its effects on them and their families. If "drugs are a crutch", who are you to take a person's crutch? Such questions are too often left to public opinion - what does the general public know or care about such things?
@9FCBXHR8mos8MO
Depends on why they’re on welfare. If they seem to only be on it to avoid work and do drugs instead then yes test them but if they genuinely can’t work for whatever reason then don’t test them. Because the only reason for testing would be to see if they’re exploiting welfare
@9FC3JPQ8mos8MO
Yes and manage their funding if positive
No, only if we are helping them quit.
@9FB6LMF8mos8MO
yes, but provide treatment options and education to positive tests and require a certain time frame for them to test negative depending amount of drugs consumed, otherwise terminate their welfare.
Yes, all persons receiving taxpayer money should be tested and treatment compulsory for those testing positive.
Yes. Should be randomised testing
@9F8BYFN8mos8MO
Yes to provide treatment
No, people should not be singled out.. but health and education should be offered.
@9F7KCB88mos8MO
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...