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.
It does not affect me.
Only if there name is Joe Biden
There's too much discrimination involved in this issue. If they are gonna do it, then all people receiving tax payer funded benefits/public officials should get tested.
No, welfare can be used to prevent drug users from committing crimes to get money for dugs.
Yes, test anyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians. Also provide treatment to those who test positive
No, only if they have a criminal history related to drugs and provide treatments
Yes, but only if it is to have treatment provided to those testing positive.
Why? If they are not behaving appropriately, not doing their job, there are others means of action
It’s dependant on their situation. Those not actively seeking a job and relying on welfare should.
Yes, and terminate benefits, but provide treatment for anyone testing positive
Situational, and even if tested positive still provide treatment
Yes, provide treatment for those who tested positive, however, those who refuse should be terminated from the benefits (Abusing the welfare benefits). This includes employees and politicians.
No, unless they have children and/or have a criminal history relating to drug abuse
I think it depends on what cheque they are getting
Where do we draw the line. How do they get the right support and care needed.
Depending if this drug use may cause harm on others.
Depends on family history etc
Yes, test anyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians, and provide treatment for those testing positive
Yes, but only if they are committing crimes whilst on welfare.
No, everyone has a right to live a basic quality of life regardless of circumstances
it depends if it effects their work
Yes, but only by court order
Yes, and if they are tested positive the money that is being given should be taken away because that money could be used on many other things instead of somebody's drug use.
Yes, but give a grace period of a month to get clean if positive and reapply the test, if positive again, cut benefits. If not positive, add a mandatory once monthly testing for a year to keep benefits, if positive in that time, benefits are terminated.
Yes, but must provide counseling, rehabilitation and psychological services.
Yes, but only with reason
Yes they should be tested. But they should be provided free care and help instead of their funds being removed and they should not be charged with criminal activity.
only if the person agrees, or for public safety.
it should be mandatory for any welfare recipient who tests positive be given assistance in a manor they agree with
No, they should probably be tested on things in the syllabus, such as the parts of a cell or when the french revolution was.
Yes, they should be supported to safely become sober or take these drugs if there is not another solution
Yes, test anyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians and if positive, provide treatment.
Yes but not for old aged pensioner, disabled etc
In certain circumstances, yes, however if positive, it should be followed up with mandatory supports and rehabilitation services, and if refused, welfare benefits stripped.
In certain circumstances, yes, however if positive, it should be followed up with supports and rehabilitation services,
This needs to be dealt with in a case by case basis. Either way these people need support.
Yes, if tested positive perhaps they should have a doctors note in case they are on medication thar can give a possitive test result.
if they want to, and if they do they should get paid
No people are going to find ways around it and mostly those people need it the most.
No, but do a check on bank transactions to see where the money is being spent.
No, a child of a drug abuser still deserves to eat.
No, this would create fear in relation to applying to welfare and those who need help may not seek it and end up in a worse situation
No, Only if they have a violent criminal history, and exempt marijuana
yes but only if there is a suspicion on drugs being used.
@9S6HWX8Arts Party11mos
Yes, test anyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians, and provide treatment for those testing positive
Everyone should be tested not just people with welfare.
Yes, if they test positive they have a stricter monitoring budget that can only be used for essentials
Yes, but it should not be reported to the police and should be used to help give people the resources to either get sober (if they so choose) or to stay safe if they are going to do them.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
