Should people be drug tested before getting welfare payments?

[-Moniquee.]

I see a lot of people around who receive large welfare payments and it seems to go to things that are definitely not essential.

I see this a lot with younger parents who don't even look after their kids properly (kids have extremely dirty hygiene, clothes and have poor education.) Instead these parents are spending the welfare payments on naughty things..

So should people be drug tested before receiving welfare payments?

Lets face it in most jobs these days we have to get drug tested (in Australia anyway) so why shouldn't they?

[scottish]

They should get tested every 1 or 2 weeks imho but it would probably cost way too much.

[buttons]

what if well off people spend most their money on drugs and alcohol instead of their kids
is this ok because they earned the money themselves? whilst people who can't get a job for whatever reason should be penalised for it? it's not really going to help them by taking away money is it?

dont really have a take on it just wondering what u think of that

[scottish]

what if well off people spend most their money on drugs and alcohol instead of their kids
is this ok because they earned the money themselves? whilst people who can't get a job for whatever reason should be penalised for it? it's not really going to help them by taking away money is it?

dont really have a take on it just wondering what u think of that

That's different as they've earned their own money to spend.

The drug test would put people off wasting money on drugs and more likely to spend it on kids or something better (or else they'll get none).

It's awkward when it comes to kids (if they get drug tested and found to be on drugs, then should probably get child services involved) as it could negatively impact the kids life which wouldn't be good as it's only the parent who should be 'suffering' or punished.

But when it comes to things like people living alone or with O/H and they're clearly junkies, then should definitely be enforced upon them.

[Kyle]

We can't eliminate unnecessary expenditure through over regulation of drug use.

Don't think this is a very fair outlook at all. Rich and poor alike develop dependencies on things (drugs and otherwise) and so to penalise those that can't afford to fund their habit (or, often, their recreational escape from their troubles) is slightly unfair. What about those that have been laid off from high-paying jobs and have already become reliant on their bottle of wine and spliff every weekend to wind down?

These habits develop largely to deal with stress. Taking away their means to continue the habit => more stress => more complications => more poverty => more drugs => harder drugs => more utilitarian crime to fund drug addiction.

It's a big leap from heroin addicts and individuals who take a few recreational drugs @scottish (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=53890);. Would hardly say a man living alone smoking a doobie or 2 is a junky lol.

[-:Undertaker:-]

An easier solution would be to cease welfare payments and convert them into food stamps/heating stamps/clothing stamps.

Then again I suppose the losers on drugs could still trade the stamps for drugs... but it'd make it harder I would think.