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.
Yes, but provide treatment for those testing positive
Yes, and immediately terminate benefits for anyone testing positive
No, this is a waste of time and money
Yes, test anyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians
Regardless, we should end all social welfare programs
No, only if they have a criminal history related to drug abuse
No, but only if they are doing very bad drugs like heroin.
I believe there should be system in place of rehabilitation for those who test positive as opposed to completely taking away all benefits.
No, Welfare should be eliminated.
And replaced with what..?
This doesn’t affect me
If you pay taxes, it affects you. A person on welfare is living off you, as they sit home collecting your hard earnings, and doing drugs…..while you work……. Does it affect you now?
yes and no depends but also that would tick people off so probably no
Yes but test for illegal drugs depending on the state that they live in - not federal laws
Yes, but allow recipients to provide medical documentation for any drugs used including psilocybin and marijuana in order to not loose benefits, and for those who test positive without documentation to be offered treatment options
Yes, provide treatment for those testing positive, for those choosing not not accept treatment then end the welfare for that individual
Yes, for drugs and alcohol
Yes but exempt for medical reasons
Only if they have a criminal history with drugs, but shouldn't include marijuana
No welfare should be provided in the first place
They should, but they should also be given welfare regardless. If they are found to be addicted to a substance, they should be given government funded help. If the substance in non-harmful (ie. marijuana) it should not be tested for and should be decriminalized.
yes but marijuana should be okay for medical but not if you can work.
No and eliminate public welfare
yes and immediately terminate benefits for anyone testing positive. test anyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians.
Yes, but not for marijuana, and provide options for treatment to those who test positive for other drugs. Allow a grace period for the recipient to get clean.
Yes, test anyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians, but provide treatment for those who test positive.
Yes, in some instances because in some cases we are feeding into peoples addictions and things that make them regress instead of progress.
no, except those with drug abuse history, and offer the them rehab
Either or doesn't matter depends.
Yes but not for harmful drugs like weed and shrooms
Yes, and if positive offer assistance to get off of the drugs - do not criminalize.
Depends on the drugs being tested for.
I believe that the people who are tested for drugs and come back positive should be helped.
Yes but only for the illegal drugs in each state, if marijuana is legalized for medical and/or recreational it should not be held against the recipient.
No, unless it is obviously impacting their ability to take care of themselves and family
Yes and No,test anyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians and immediately terminate benefits for anyone testing positive but provide treatment for those testing positive but this is a waste of time and money and this would be too costly to police, and ineffective to handle. The only true way to fix welfare is to completely remove the government handouts.
No, but offer help to those who volunteer the information that they struggle with drug use
No, only if they have a criminal history of felonies related to abuse of lethal street drugs. Provide treatment for those testing positive
Yes, test anyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians but provide treatment options for those testing positive
Yes, but their children or dependents should not be affected.
Yes, but only for hard drugs, and anyone receiving money from the government (employees & politicians as well) need to take it. These people will recieve treatment for drugs, but if they fail to stay negative or relapse too frequently their benefits need to be terminated.
I do not understand this
No, but they should all have to work if they’re capable.
No, but I would rather replace our current welfare system with a universal basic income program.
Yes, if they have a criminal history. However, I would rather replace the current welfare system with a universal basic income program.
Yes, and terminate assistance to anyone testing positive with exceptions for prescription drugs from a doctor
No too much money, but drugs/alcohol are not a necessity to live so if caught then take away benefits
Yes, but only do anything if A. It seems to be causing them difficulty in life, or B. they test positive for hard drugs
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion