Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should States Require Mandatory Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients?
States should require a mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients.
Testing would keep recipients on their toes, forcing them to use the money on what they’re supposed to.
Drug usage would decrease in families and individuals with lower incomes nationwide.
States would spend taxpayer money on helping recipients and other opportunities rather than all on welfare.
Mandatory drug testing encourages recipients to be ready for employment and ensures people are being the best parents possible when applicable. Many employers, including most government agencies have drug testing regulations for workers.
Allows for recipients that are found to be users the chance to get clean and eventually get back on the program.
This unreasonably suggests that the majority - or at least, a significant quantity - of welfare recipients are drug users.
It is not the job of the state to interfere in an individual's choices.
It would be
Taking welfare away from addicts would not stop them from being addicts. It would just turn them into poorer addicts which would encourage more to turn to crime in order to fuel their addiction.
The welfare recipient also receives funds for their dependents. Drug testing could unjustly penalize children.
Mandatory drug testing would place dependence on the state, who may be able to corrupt the results or otherwise adversely effect those being tested (e.g. with contaminants on the syringes that then endanger the individual's health).
Should States Provide A Clean Needle Program for IV Drug Users?
There should be no welfare state.
What Is the Best Drug Regulation System?