Should persons and familes that receive government benfits be compelled to submit to drug testing?
J.T. asked:
So-called “Conservatives” are again calling for drug testing of people who receive government assistance. Their premise is that everyone who needs assistance is probably a drug using degenerate, including pregnant women and seniors. But they don’t think that business owners or its executives and officers who receive government assistance via grants, tax credits, loans, contracts, etc., should be subject to any such scrutiny. Their reasoning is that business owners and business executives and officers are honest, play by all the rules, and are above reproach. Should a woman who is newly divorced with children, a senior whose pension doesn’t cover their living costs, or someone with a debilitating medical condition in need of government assistance be categorized as a potential drug user and forced to submit to drug testing?
Related posts:
- The public supports limiting the salaries of those institutions that receive government money? imaxkr asked: and that should be done. But now the...
- what is another example of indirect assistance from the federal government? Shell.B asked: The federal government gives aid to business in...
- What is another example of indirect assistance from the federal government? Belle asked: The federal government gives aid to business in...
- How do people who live in the Ghetto’s across america afford cable tv yet still receive government assistance? Foxx Mulder to you asked: I’ve worked for a major...
- I need to know how and where to go to get a government grant? John A asked: Im a 36 year old man who...
Filed Under Government |
Tagged With Business Executives, Loans, Scrutiny
Comments
7 Responses to “Should persons and familes that receive government benfits be compelled to submit to drug testing?”
Yup, every month. Cut everything off if they test positive.
And no, it isn’t that they play by the rules it is the fact that even if they are cut off they would still have the financial means to continue their habits. Cutting them off wouldn’t help. Tax cuts are not benefits the same way hand outs are BTW
They’re not criminals, so no.
Not unless all the recipients of corporate welfare do too, of course.
Your premise is false.
The premise is: Why should the American public pay to support drug abusers, while at the same time spending billions on the war against drugs?
Wouldn’t weeding them out leave much more money available for everyone else?
Do you really think Seniors and pregnant women would have any trouble passing a screening?
Relax, nobody’s saying you can’t get high. They’re just saying they don’t think everyone else should pay for it.
I fully understand where the conservatives are coming from—and to some extent I agree with them. We can all come up with anecdotal stories of how governmental assistance is abused and I think we all agree we want to eliminate that abuse.
But suggesting that anyone receiving any governmental assistance should be subject to mandatory drug testing is just ludicrous. Almost every person in this country would be compelled. We receive government backing for our mortgages and our bank accounts are guaranteed by the government.
Sorry cons. Gotta come up with some other way unless you want to stand in line with every one else to get tested (Who knows. You might be surprised at how many of your fellow neo-cons get busted).
WTF? What the hell is that incoherent spew about? Yeah, if you’re getting a government check, pee in teh cup. And yes, I agree that that ought to apply to everyone at General Motors and anyone else who got a so-called “stimulus” payoff.
You want to add another layer of bureaucracy.
The “explanation” sounds more like a rant than anything else.
How about the CEOs who get subsidies and don’t pay American taxes get drug-tested before the Congress gives them more tax breaks.