Deseret News | Drug testing for welfare recipients?

Reader comments
Drug testing for welfare recipients?

WendyLu | 7:22 p.m. June 17, 2009

Even though I don't live in Utah--I'm on the East Coast--I like the idea presented here. Almost all working taxpayers have to take and pass a drug test in order to gain (and keep) employment. Since government assistance comes out of taxpayer's money, why shouldn't the recipients of it be required to take and pass a drug test? Sounds like a good idea to me. Might even save us lots of $$$!

Finally! | 7:31 p.m. June 17, 2009

I've always said that it didn't seem fair that my welfare receiving neighbors should be able to sit up and smoke marijuana. I feel like I am supporting their drug habit. Push for the random drug testing.

Barrier Schmarrier | 8:28 p.m. June 17, 2009

Another barrier for people trying to get back on their feet? Are you nuts? People trying to get back on their feet are working and not abusing drugs. People leeching off the system are very definitely in need of drug testing. The only way to sort between the two is to do drug testing. I would actually go one step farther and require drug testing every 3 months.

Comments continue below

uncannygunman | 9:47 p.m. June 17, 2009

How about achieving "fairness" by phasing drug testing out of the workplace rather than trying to expand it into other areas?

Unfortunately | 11:21 p.m. June 17, 2009

drug use hinders people from getting out of bad situations--both the user and those involved in a relationship with the user.
While on one side, I don't like the idea of forcing people to submit to drug testing, on the other hand, I've seen too many examples of the results of having drug users in the work force. Had to pull a framer off a roof once because he was so high on meth that he was a danger to EVERYBODY involved, not just himself. In addition, we had to pull down the entire gable he had framed. Cost the homeowner a bundle.
So much crime can be traced to drug use, including embezzlement from employers. I can see why drug testing has become a standard in our society.
And certainly, if employees have to be tested, welfare beneficiaries should be, too. I've also seen too many of them using their money for drugs and the taxpayers' money for the necessities. Maybe if they had to face paying for the necessities, they'd be a bit smarter--I'm afraid not. But why should the rest of us pay for their habit?

Make it required | 5:54 a.m. June 18, 2009

Instead of random, make it a requirement when application is made. Random testing is after the fact, so drug testing should be done before receiving any money as well.

As for workplace drug testing, that should be required on every employee, including management and owners. There's nothing worse than having to work beside a pot head that can't carry his load and is a danger to others. Their brains are fried and they are unreliable people that can't comprehend and process instructions and information. It even inhibits the ability to read and perform safely, this is a major issue. Drug use has become too rampant and uncontrolled and testing must be done to insure the safety of others. Not only in government but in all work places, even in an office environment. All employees have the right to a safe work place including from other brain dead employee's.

David Forde | 7:12 a.m. June 18, 2009

Drug testing should be a mandatory mandate issued by the Federal Government for all Welfare Recipients

whydoucare | 10:52 a.m. June 18, 2009

Who's going to pay for all these drug tests? If you believe the statistic cited, 95.1% of them will turn up negative. That's a lot of wasted money to make sure than 4.9% of people don't get welfare money.

Also, how many jobs actually are drug tested? I've had eight jobs in my life -- from paperboy on up to professional positions -- and I've never once undergone a drug test.

Silva | 12:22 p.m. June 18, 2009

Punishing the poor? Just as much drug abuse comes from those that work. Probably a lot more, as they have disposable income.

Mandate Government testing of all employees, including contractors and sub contractors. Not just the workers, but company owners. This would include any company receiving Government money. Small business owners? Yes, Those applying for help after a natural disaster? Yes.

Leave no stone unturned, not even legislatures and Governors.

Make it fair.

Reality Check | 2:59 p.m. June 18, 2009

I work with people who are drug users, and not sure how you get 4.9% using but I think you should reverse those statistics. Some states that are already doing this have saved Millions. I am tired of paying for their habits through my hard earned money. It needs to be done in every state. It is hard seeing people who abuse the system due to drugs, but then they keep having more and more babies to collect even more money.

Re: Reality Check | 3:20 p.m. June 18, 2009

"Some states that are already doing this have saved Millions."

Do you mean that some states are already doing random drug testing of welfare recipients? That's explicitly contrary to what the article states. Or do you mean that some states are "reversing those statistics" (whatever that means) and thereby saving Millions (capitalized for good measure, I assume)?

Show us the evidence that anybody has saved millions by testing welfare recipients for drug abuse. Someone using the moniker "Reality Check" should do a fact check before posting.

Access to Food for Everyone | 10:08 p.m. June 18, 2009

As a former employee for Workforce Services, I would like to go on record that any barrier to access to the basic necessities of life, like shelter, clothing, food, and transportation are already big enough problems for those that have the unfortunate luck to land temporarily on the fringes of society. Anyone who would want to create an additional bureaucratic, government expanding, barrier to someone who is down on their luck are themeselves someone who may soon be experiencing the need to apply for Food Stamps, or AFDC, or any type of government or charitable non-profit assistance. May you get poked and prodded and then denied a measley 400 something bucks a month because you ate the remnant of a half eaten poppy muffin out of a garbage can.

fair treatment | 11:27 p.m. June 18, 2009

Are we also going to test all the business executives that are receving bailout money? How about all the farmers getting subsidies? heck how about all government employees? Test everyone who receives money from FEMA? How about everyoe who is on social security and medicare?
The point is there are a whole lot of people on welfare, and government bailout-subsidies.
Why do we only pick on poor people?

Re:fair treatment | 12:02 a.m. June 19, 2009

Because businessmen and farmers aren't as likely to use welfare to subsidize a coke habit. That's why they're businessmen and farmers. They have JOBS.

Anonymous | 12:20 a.m. June 19, 2009

Oh yeah, farmers getting subsidies is JUST like welfare. Just don't tell them that.

And we all know what a drug addict reputation those business execs, farmers, and government employees have.

Putter | 8:04 a.m. June 19, 2009

If it wasn't for the farmers you all would not have much to eat now would you. Oh I forgot you can always get rice from Japan..... Without farmers your all going to go hungry think about that now...

Jack | 10:01 p.m. June 20, 2009

I think that New York State should do the drug and alcohol testing for people receiveing money or food stamps. I have heard about that Texas may do this. I feel sorry for children of the ones that get taken off of it for 6 months and then they have to get drug tested again before getting on it and then if they pass, they will be put on the random pool for the duration that they are getting public assistance. This may clean up the families needing to get off the drugs and take care of their family.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.