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.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
@alibecks4yrs4Y
Only test if their employer has reason to believe the worker is an addict
@8SDF8MB4yrs4Y
No, as long as they don’t spend it on drugs.
Yes, at random occurrences.
@8NWY3LH5yrs5Y
Should government employees be drug tested?
@8NN3XTT5yrs5Y
To expensive. And the children of people. Ok drugs still need food.
@8N2Q8NW5yrs5Y
Taxation ia theft. No welfare. Help the neighbors ourselves.
@8F6FTVD5yrs5Y
Yes, but it’s only test for anything harder than weed
@99NDNBFLibertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, but we should be ending all social welfare programs
@98QLVD82yrs2Y
No, if someone is needs welfare, there should be as few limitations on them getting that welfare as possible
@98P6ZVXRepublican2yrs2Y
I don't believe in welfare, to me it's a money in pocket w=gig without having to work but I also don't want people to suffer. So here is my standing, if they test positive for drug use, have them sign a paper telling them they will go clean, if they decline the paper, cut welfare payments to that person til clean.
@8MPVJP45yrs5Y
Yes, and refuse payment for positive of certain substances
@97NQGYJ3yrs3Y
yes, initial testing with application, random testing, and 3 strike policy including increased testing after a positive test result.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
