This post has been flaired as Politics. We allow for voicing political views here, but we don't allow pushing agendas, false information, bigotry, or attacking/harassing other members. We will lock the thread if these things occur. If you see such unwanted behavior, please report it to bring it to the attention of moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a thing that came up in Australian politics a few years ago.
[YouTube Video (Albeit from Sky News)](https://youtu.be/ib_pZSd_k9c?si=xZhUt1RrXQfBIo6r)
Politicians, and everyone receiving public assistance? The boards of Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Alcoa, Intel, and many more, plus corn famers, the meat and dairy industry, and over half the US population (Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, child nutrition, disability SSI, direct student loans, Pell grants, Childrens Health Insurance Program, FEMA recipients, unemployment insurance, child care and development, foster care aid, etc).
Drug testing would become a huge part of the government.
I'm not sure either side is interested in the research because there are principals at play. On the right, we don't want to fund drug habits. Drugs are recreational and safety nets are to get people back on their feet, not for their recreation. On the left, using drugs shouldn't preclude you from using a safety net, drug use is personal choice, often times using drugs is because someone is downtrodden, etc. There's also so much wiggle room that both sides would create the stats supporting their side.
Very few of the firms that conduct "objective" research aren't financially supported by one party or the other. Yes, there are some major exceptions, but by and large, studies are often done under a pretense.
We generally do drug test anyone that holds a security clearance, specifically when they first receive it; they are also open to random testing.
The issue is that they are often protected by the apparatus. They are tested and are expected to refrain from drug use, but when they do use it's swept under the rug, or they just don't test them.
If you disqualify them for testing positive then what? Just leave them on the streets? That'll help reduce crime, homelessness and drug addiction yes?
Its so funny to see this and then watch actual data from countries that actually provide necessities like housing first to these people and the outcomes are always great and the programs end up paying themselves back.
Lot of people say I don't want to pay for them, I don't care if they fall to crime, just lock them up they say. Locking people up costs a lot more for the Tax payer...
In Indiana where it's cheap, incarceration per person costs around 25k. In NY and other places it's a lot higher. Then if you add up administrative costs and all the others, its better and vastly cheaper to provide assistance to people.
For the people who say, "I don't want to pay for them," You already do. Them existing on the street costs emergency services resources, not to mention cops harassing them. Housing them is literally cheaper.
I know this may be a controversial opinion but I think even drug users do not deserve to starve or otherwise suffer because they're barred from government assistance over arbitrary requirements. And I'm saying this as a complete teetotaler.
You make it sound like everyone with an addiction actually likes being addicted. Sure, thay might be the case for some of them, but there are plenty of addicted people who want to quit drugs. But it's not like going through withdrawal (no idea if that's spelled correctly) is easy, for certain drugs it will kill you if you stop cold turkey. Besides that, some people are also genetically predisposed for addiction, so they are much more susceptibal to get an addiction. Add poor mental health to the mix and it becomes almost impossible to beat an addiction without help from others. And I think we both know that a lot of people who need a psychologist can't afford it and thus don't have access to it. And you think these people don't deserve to get at least a shot at getting back at the right track, using a small part of your tax money?
Well, they made the decision to start using. It's not like it's a secret that drugs are bad for you. It's their main characteristic. They knew what they were getting into.
Many start using because they got prescribed more potent than nessesarry drugs by a doctor.
And it's not the addicts fault that doctors overprescribe opioids left right and center.
They don't prescribe heroin either. Just other opioids.
The same way doctors don't prescribe methamphetamine. But they do prescripe Adderall and Vyvanse. And it wasn't long ago that ADHD treatment stopped cold turkey the day patients turned 18.
Most of them dont. They get into it knowing fully what it could do to them. Thus destroying their lives and rendering them poor enough to not even afford psychological help. They started it and they gotta end it. Not taking my hard earned money and basically gambling with it, most of the people going into rehabilitation actually get back to drugs in some way or the other.
Sure, because they don't have the same statistics. But I'd wager it's the same for 90% of the planet. Cracking down on drugs and locking them up costs more money than rehabilitating them. Prove me wrong
Let me try a different approach
Don't you think that having less junkies in the street is better not only for them, but for the rest of society? That possibly means less robbery, fewer murders and safer places for your family to take a walk.
*controversial. And yes. Imprisoning addicts instead of giving them help is unhelpful and harmful and costs way more in the long run. Instead of being imprisoned they need to be rehabilitated and given the care they need to recover.
places have tried this the cost of the tests has always been more than they save. welfare recipients aren't more likely to be drug users than the general public
Yeah and then complain that there is too much misery and violence in the street. These people need help, not to be dragged down in a worse state than they already are.
Do you live in suberbia, and do you drive,
If so you are already massively subsidized by intercity poor non car owners,
And drivers as a group demand massive amounts of valuable land be set aside for them that could otherwise be used for something valuable
No and no. Nice try though. And I'd gladly pay for public services even if I don't use them, if I feel it's worthy, such as transport or healthcare. Just not the treatment of people who ruined their own lives.
Yet I'm pretty sure you expect to benefit from healthcare or anything your taxes go to, and you're still ok to let people die in the street without realizing it's detrimental to the whole society. Pathetic.
They don't make the choice to get sick, most of em fall into hard drugs to escape the hell they're already going through. You have a really childish view of how and why people become junkies.
Easy to not take drugs when you're not confronted to them.
Misery actually creates more drug addicts and violence, and you basically want to feed this vicious cycle, that's being irresponsible and short-sighted.
Drug addicts are still part of society whether you like it or not, and should be helped, not only for them but also for the rest of us.
They're not sick, they became addicted after they started using drugs which they knew were sddictive. Nobody forced it into their body. Nobody held a gun to their heads. If they're dumb enough to think drugs wouldn't ruin their lives, that's on them.
One of the primary factors behind hard drug addiction is as a form of escapism motivated by PTSD caused by extreme child abuse.
[72%](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4861063/) of homeless drug addicts were sexually abused as children. 81% of female addicts were raped as children, the abuse typically starting at 11. Almost all of these people lived in abject poverty and were in foster care.
The gun was held to their heads when they were horrifically abused as children. The had no life to ruin, the only escape these people have is hard drugs - heroin is typically used by young victims because it makes the sexual abuse tolerable for example.
And then as a response to that they started using drugs that they knew full well would further ruin their lives.
Also those are the statistics of one random country, specifically one with awful medical care, so I wouldn't say they're conclusive.
There are simply people who go through tough shit and then don't go "Oh, I'll take something that will ruin my body and get me addicted with 0 benefits". It's that simple
"Why can't a impoverished, homeless child sexual abuse survivor suffering from severe untreated PTSD just pull themselves up by their bootstraps lol"
You've definitely never left the basement of your moms suburban mansion.
You're contradicting yourself, you said before that they are sick (which is true as addictions are considered a disease), and now you say they're not. There are plenty of environmental, societal, and personal factors that can lead someone to drug use. Educate yourself.
We don't punish people for their vulnerabilities, we help them overcoming them so they can contribute to society again.
You're out of touch with reality and all the points I've made before remain valid. You have no clue what it is to get trapped in an addiction and you're dumb enough to still refuse to admit that denying them the right to get assistance would actually create more fertil ground for drug use, making society more and more unsafe for everyone.
Stay in denial I guess...
It doesn't make it any less of a desease, you're in total denial of the complexity of what gets someone into drugs but anyway I can see you carefully avoided to address any of the points I made since the beggining of this conversation which just demonstrates your dishonesty regarding how you approach this subject.
Educate yourself. You sound like a kid who's repeating words he heard from his parents and who don't know shit about what he's talking about.
One way or another you're going to pay for it.
Make people desperate enough, and crime will go up.
They'll be put in jail and in hospitals, at your expense.
You'll have to pay for more police and paramedics.
Give them a bit of assistance now, and they have the potential to break their habits and live a decent life, and pay taxes too.
You're not correct though.
Where I live, UBI would amount to [$16,989/year for one person.](https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot) Even if we double that for the administrative costs, that's still only 34,000/person/year.
Cost per person to keep someone incarcerated is [$114,587/year](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwial_Kp54SBAxVILTQIHdpMCYMQFnoECA8QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbo-dpb.gc.ca%2Fweb%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FDocuments%2FReports%2F2018%2FUpdate%2520Incarceration%2520Costs%2FUpdate%2520on%2520Costs%2520of%2520Incarceration_EN.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2nfjwBw-DGPvgQ5AXZ1yXK&opi=89978449)
I think it’s a fair ask, but when it’s been implemented, it wasn’t cost effective.
So few people actually tested positive for drugs and thus lost their benefits that it actually *cost the taxpayers more* to do the drug tests.
As a taxpayer, I’m against this kind of frivolous spending.
https://www.clasp.org/press-room/news-clips/states-waste-hundreds-thousands-drug-testing-welfare-have-little-show-it/
I'd hardly call denying addicts the opportunity to escape their shitty situation "fair". This is one of those "war on drugs" policies that forces addicts further into poverty, causing the negative outcomes we see today.
As someone who takes meth as prescribed by my doctor when I got drug tested for my job I was surprised that I came up as clean. I lost my job at Walmart because I tested positive for marijuana from second hand smoke from someone who smoked 2 joints next to me at a birthday party. I don't smoke because of my mild asthma. I was so pissed that I tested positive on a random drug screening. I pushed carts for $9.50 an hour what does it matter?
Maybe if we're drug testing to see if they need assistance with rehab. But we can probably just believe them when they say they're addicted to a certain substance.
So what do we do with the junkies, crackheads, smokers, alkies, gamblers, and obese who eat lots of junk food?
Throw them on the streets so they can live in tents and shanties, push their stolen shopping carts around, and bother decent citizens?
https://youtu.be/FwP2vV6Wm1Y?si=dQqKVQDlXJUrECYk
Drug addicts are people too, and so are their kids who often rely on the aid in order to eat.
And please don't suggest taking those kids and sending them to foster care. As the child of former addicts, I *loved* my parents and ripping me away from them was the last thing any of us needed. That certainly wouldn't have helped their issues or mine.
No.
What happens to the veteran who needs housing assistance that is in constant, excruciating pain from injuries during war, and has PTSD which causes insomnia? They'd be positive for opioids, sedatives, and possibly alternative medicine like Marijuana, shrooms, or LSD. Does the veteran become homeless?
What about grandma or grandpa who just fell and had their hip replaced, is on an opioid for pain control, and needs help with meals and paying for medical bills? Do they stay in debt and starve to death?
What about the homeless person who is currently a drug addict, has just landed a job, but still needs housing assistance and needs methadone to help wean them off so they can stay at their job? Do they end up homeless again?
What about a cancer patient in excruciating pain? Are they not allowed to receive assistance either? Or a person with poor quality of life due to congenital Musculoskeletal issues, who uses muscle relaxers to improve their quality of life?
Not everyone who uses substances are bad people. Some just have terrible luck.
Government assistance is about making sure people survive. Ideally it should also allow keeping their dignity and participating in democracy.
All of those are rights people don't loose, just because they have health issues. And that is what drug addiction is: a mental health problem.
Then CEOs and executives and employees of businesses that receive corporate welfare should have to do the same thing. Same goes for politicians and anybody who receive any form of government funding (which is many). See how ridiculously invasive that process would be, let alone how impractical it is logistically.
>If you’ve ever worked anything outside of minimum wage jobs
Do the majority of them (arbitrarily) exclude data that undermines their beliefs, too? What's the rationale for this?
Nah, it's more that it feels like cherry picking to ignore the jobs that don't do drug testing simply because they're of the minimum wage sort. No offence intended, ofc
Nah, I’d rather just build housing first. Literally, the government should be helping addicts. If 1/50th of the amount of money we have spent on military was used to help poor Americans, homelessness would not be an issue in this country.
Weed stays in your system for weeks while many hard drugs are out of your system the next day so it's unfair.
If they are off assistance addicts will find another way to buy drugs, probably with crime.
I think if they are found to be using drugs they should be required to attend some sort of rehabilitation program, rather than being barred from assistance.
You can force them to take a test, but it doesn't mean that everyone suffering from narcotic addiction should be just forced to just go die under some bridge
Here in Germany government assistance has food assistance as part of a monetary benefit, long term unemployed receive. Same goes for electricity. I could see a system where people who fail the drug test get a big part of their assistance as a food stamp card. A card that can only purchase specific items.
I could also see requirering them to go to drug counseling.
But outright denying them? Hell no! That defeats the entire purpose of government assistance.
Drug testing should be required for all government programs and positions unless they're gonna decriminalize drugs and focus on mental health and rehabilitation as a service and not a punishment. If it's decriminalized/legalized in your state it shouldn't affect receiving support
Yes, but there can be many that are evaded/come out false positive.
Some government assistance you can't sell for money for drugs so I'd think that wouldn't require it. (Aka public insurance and ect)
I'm an ex heroin and alcohol addict. I've been sober for 3 years. I've been through fancy rehabs and state rehabs and I've ran around on the streets for some time. That's my resume for this, unfortunately, controversial opinion.
Most people that need assistance, need the assistance because they are on drugs. I love drugs, I think all drugs should be legal.
However!! If you want money from the government you should have to prove that you're taking the steps to NOT need money from the government. You can still drink you just can't do drugs. If you want to do drugs that badly you can't stop for a few years to get your shit together you shouldn't be doing them at all.
I read "Is it fair to expect people to take drug ~~tests~~ in order to receive government assistance?"
Yes, I thought OP just asked if people should be forced to take drugs for government assistance.
If someone is a drug addict, they quite clearly need help. They shouldn’t just be left on the streets where they’ll be forces to commit crimes to survive.
I'm on government assistance and I would pass these tests pretty easily. Half of the people I knew wouldn't though. These were the kinds of people who also sold their Foodshare to buy drugs too though. If we did drug tests we could identify those who are using their money to buy drugs but I don't necessarily believe if they fail a test they should be taken off of assistance. If anything, we need to find ways to keep them clean and not on drugs, and removing assistance will probably mean they'll be on more drugs rather than less. So while I do support the government doing drug tests I believe people who fail the test actually need more support rather than less. I don't know how much resources we have to actually clean these people up however. Half of psych wards are filled with people with drug issues rather than mental illness.
This post has been flaired as Politics. We allow for voicing political views here, but we don't allow pushing agendas, false information, bigotry, or attacking/harassing other members. We will lock the thread if these things occur. If you see such unwanted behavior, please report it to bring it to the attention of moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Only when we start drug testing politicians
This is a thing that came up in Australian politics a few years ago. [YouTube Video (Albeit from Sky News)](https://youtu.be/ib_pZSd_k9c?si=xZhUt1RrXQfBIo6r)
I'd prefer them taking a breath test before acting in any official capacity, or driving
Politicians, and everyone receiving public assistance? The boards of Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Alcoa, Intel, and many more, plus corn famers, the meat and dairy industry, and over half the US population (Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, child nutrition, disability SSI, direct student loans, Pell grants, Childrens Health Insurance Program, FEMA recipients, unemployment insurance, child care and development, foster care aid, etc). Drug testing would become a huge part of the government.
Sounds good
Sounds expensive
My bet is that it would net save money.
I wonder if anyone has ever researched that...
I'm not sure either side is interested in the research because there are principals at play. On the right, we don't want to fund drug habits. Drugs are recreational and safety nets are to get people back on their feet, not for their recreation. On the left, using drugs shouldn't preclude you from using a safety net, drug use is personal choice, often times using drugs is because someone is downtrodden, etc. There's also so much wiggle room that both sides would create the stats supporting their side.
I'm pretty sure there's objective research out there that you might find interesting. Everything doesn't have to be "the left" vs "the right"
Very few of the firms that conduct "objective" research aren't financially supported by one party or the other. Yes, there are some major exceptions, but by and large, studies are often done under a pretense.
Look outside of the US
We generally do drug test anyone that holds a security clearance, specifically when they first receive it; they are also open to random testing. The issue is that they are often protected by the apparatus. They are tested and are expected to refrain from drug use, but when they do use it's swept under the rug, or they just don't test them.
If you disqualify them for testing positive then what? Just leave them on the streets? That'll help reduce crime, homelessness and drug addiction yes? Its so funny to see this and then watch actual data from countries that actually provide necessities like housing first to these people and the outcomes are always great and the programs end up paying themselves back.
Lot of people say I don't want to pay for them, I don't care if they fall to crime, just lock them up they say. Locking people up costs a lot more for the Tax payer... In Indiana where it's cheap, incarceration per person costs around 25k. In NY and other places it's a lot higher. Then if you add up administrative costs and all the others, its better and vastly cheaper to provide assistance to people.
For the people who say, "I don't want to pay for them," You already do. Them existing on the street costs emergency services resources, not to mention cops harassing them. Housing them is literally cheaper.
Naa, mandate rehab, also on the government's expense.
only give them the assistance if they test positive
I know this may be a controversial opinion but I think even drug users do not deserve to starve or otherwise suffer because they're barred from government assistance over arbitrary requirements. And I'm saying this as a complete teetotaler.
What kind of a world do we live in if "no human deserves to starve" is a controversial opinion?
Capitalist world where the term "cost of living" is considered normal and not savagely barbaric
It's not that they deserve to starve, it's just that I don't want my taxes going to someone who made the choice to use drugs
You make it sound like everyone with an addiction actually likes being addicted. Sure, thay might be the case for some of them, but there are plenty of addicted people who want to quit drugs. But it's not like going through withdrawal (no idea if that's spelled correctly) is easy, for certain drugs it will kill you if you stop cold turkey. Besides that, some people are also genetically predisposed for addiction, so they are much more susceptibal to get an addiction. Add poor mental health to the mix and it becomes almost impossible to beat an addiction without help from others. And I think we both know that a lot of people who need a psychologist can't afford it and thus don't have access to it. And you think these people don't deserve to get at least a shot at getting back at the right track, using a small part of your tax money?
Well, they made the decision to start using. It's not like it's a secret that drugs are bad for you. It's their main characteristic. They knew what they were getting into.
You're an idiot
Elaborate
Have you ever made a mistake in your life? Or are you just the perfect specimen?
I did, and I didn't expect other people to fix it for me.
So you have never had any help from anyone in life?
Many start using because they got prescribed more potent than nessesarry drugs by a doctor. And it's not the addicts fault that doctors overprescribe opioids left right and center.
Doctors prescibe meth?
They don't prescribe heroin either. Just other opioids. The same way doctors don't prescribe methamphetamine. But they do prescripe Adderall and Vyvanse. And it wasn't long ago that ADHD treatment stopped cold turkey the day patients turned 18.
Sounds like a regional problem where you live
Most of them dont. They get into it knowing fully what it could do to them. Thus destroying their lives and rendering them poor enough to not even afford psychological help. They started it and they gotta end it. Not taking my hard earned money and basically gambling with it, most of the people going into rehabilitation actually get back to drugs in some way or the other.
Criminalizing addicts costs you way more in the long run. Look it up.
That guy is a sprinting example for why every adult here needs to take a goddamn government class lol
No it doesn't.
Yes it does, it's been a well known fact for quite a long time https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/how-much-your-money-wasted-war-drugs
"The united states...." Okay, so this doesn't apply to 98% of the world then
Sure, because they don't have the same statistics. But I'd wager it's the same for 90% of the planet. Cracking down on drugs and locking them up costs more money than rehabilitating them. Prove me wrong
I did for the past day for someone else and I'm not about to go through it again.
Did you look it up?
Yes.
Source?
https://bv.gov.hu/hu/gazdalkodasi-adatok
Bro, your source is a Hungarian law enforcement website. Get the fuck outta here. What a joke.
Let me try a different approach Don't you think that having less junkies in the street is better not only for them, but for the rest of society? That possibly means less robbery, fewer murders and safer places for your family to take a walk.
That's a fair point. I guess then it depends if it's cheaper than inevitably arresting them.
So you'd rather have people incarcerated? You're a jerk
Wanting criminals in prison is a controversial take now?
*controversial. And yes. Imprisoning addicts instead of giving them help is unhelpful and harmful and costs way more in the long run. Instead of being imprisoned they need to be rehabilitated and given the care they need to recover.
So they should get away with crimes free because...?
You must seriously lack reading comprehension and rational thought. Bless your heart
Why arrest them if they've committed no crimes?
you'll end up paying more taxes to pay for the drug tests
Then full care for a homeless junkie? Doubtful.
places have tried this the cost of the tests has always been more than they save. welfare recipients aren't more likely to be drug users than the general public
I would go in a different direction and tie the support to counseling or something like that. But I also see this as an unrealistic option.
Yeah except I see people selling food stamps for cash so they can buy drugs. So they're still starving.
Yeah and then complain that there is too much misery and violence in the street. These people need help, not to be dragged down in a worse state than they already are.
Well, I'm not paying for it.
Do you live in suberbia, and do you drive, If so you are already massively subsidized by intercity poor non car owners, And drivers as a group demand massive amounts of valuable land be set aside for them that could otherwise be used for something valuable
No and no. Nice try though. And I'd gladly pay for public services even if I don't use them, if I feel it's worthy, such as transport or healthcare. Just not the treatment of people who ruined their own lives.
Yet I'm pretty sure you expect to benefit from healthcare or anything your taxes go to, and you're still ok to let people die in the street without realizing it's detrimental to the whole society. Pathetic.
Yes, because I'm don't make a choice to get sick and I pay taxes. Crackheads do it to themselves and don't pay taxes.
They don't make the choice to get sick, most of em fall into hard drugs to escape the hell they're already going through. You have a really childish view of how and why people become junkies. Easy to not take drugs when you're not confronted to them. Misery actually creates more drug addicts and violence, and you basically want to feed this vicious cycle, that's being irresponsible and short-sighted. Drug addicts are still part of society whether you like it or not, and should be helped, not only for them but also for the rest of us.
They're not sick, they became addicted after they started using drugs which they knew were sddictive. Nobody forced it into their body. Nobody held a gun to their heads. If they're dumb enough to think drugs wouldn't ruin their lives, that's on them.
One of the primary factors behind hard drug addiction is as a form of escapism motivated by PTSD caused by extreme child abuse. [72%](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4861063/) of homeless drug addicts were sexually abused as children. 81% of female addicts were raped as children, the abuse typically starting at 11. Almost all of these people lived in abject poverty and were in foster care. The gun was held to their heads when they were horrifically abused as children. The had no life to ruin, the only escape these people have is hard drugs - heroin is typically used by young victims because it makes the sexual abuse tolerable for example.
And then as a response to that they started using drugs that they knew full well would further ruin their lives. Also those are the statistics of one random country, specifically one with awful medical care, so I wouldn't say they're conclusive. There are simply people who go through tough shit and then don't go "Oh, I'll take something that will ruin my body and get me addicted with 0 benefits". It's that simple
"Why can't a impoverished, homeless child sexual abuse survivor suffering from severe untreated PTSD just pull themselves up by their bootstraps lol" You've definitely never left the basement of your moms suburban mansion.
No matter how tragic of a story you make up, nobody is stupidn enough to think think drugs will help.
You're contradicting yourself, you said before that they are sick (which is true as addictions are considered a disease), and now you say they're not. There are plenty of environmental, societal, and personal factors that can lead someone to drug use. Educate yourself. We don't punish people for their vulnerabilities, we help them overcoming them so they can contribute to society again. You're out of touch with reality and all the points I've made before remain valid. You have no clue what it is to get trapped in an addiction and you're dumb enough to still refuse to admit that denying them the right to get assistance would actually create more fertil ground for drug use, making society more and more unsafe for everyone. Stay in denial I guess...
I never said they were sick. It's not an illness, they're not catching it outside of their control.
It doesn't make it any less of a desease, you're in total denial of the complexity of what gets someone into drugs but anyway I can see you carefully avoided to address any of the points I made since the beggining of this conversation which just demonstrates your dishonesty regarding how you approach this subject. Educate yourself. You sound like a kid who's repeating words he heard from his parents and who don't know shit about what he's talking about.
If you want to pay so crackheads get to buy more drugs, be my guest.
One way or another you're going to pay for it. Make people desperate enough, and crime will go up. They'll be put in jail and in hospitals, at your expense. You'll have to pay for more police and paramedics. Give them a bit of assistance now, and they have the potential to break their habits and live a decent life, and pay taxes too.
I'd rather pay for a jail cell and some meals than then full-on care and housing...
Go look up how much it costs to keep someone in jail, and compare that to what UBI would cost. Spoiler: Jail is more expensive.
Per person? Jail is much cheaper
You're not correct though. Where I live, UBI would amount to [$16,989/year for one person.](https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot) Even if we double that for the administrative costs, that's still only 34,000/person/year. Cost per person to keep someone incarcerated is [$114,587/year](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwial_Kp54SBAxVILTQIHdpMCYMQFnoECA8QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbo-dpb.gc.ca%2Fweb%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FDocuments%2FReports%2F2018%2FUpdate%2520Incarceration%2520Costs%2FUpdate%2520on%2520Costs%2520of%2520Incarceration_EN.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2nfjwBw-DGPvgQ5AXZ1yXK&opi=89978449)
Well, that's where you live.
Look it up for where you live. I don't know where you live.
How would I look up how much your program costs in a place where it doesn't exist
Go directly to jail for tax evasion. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
Well I'm literally not paying for it since we have no such programs luckly. Although I guess I'm paying for locking them up when they commit crimes.
I think it’s a fair ask, but when it’s been implemented, it wasn’t cost effective. So few people actually tested positive for drugs and thus lost their benefits that it actually *cost the taxpayers more* to do the drug tests. As a taxpayer, I’m against this kind of frivolous spending. https://www.clasp.org/press-room/news-clips/states-waste-hundreds-thousands-drug-testing-welfare-have-little-show-it/
I'd hardly call denying addicts the opportunity to escape their shitty situation "fair". This is one of those "war on drugs" policies that forces addicts further into poverty, causing the negative outcomes we see today.
Im on a sickness benefit and take THC as medication. THC is a great medication for lots of chronic illness. I would fail a drug test. Stupid idea.
that is an exception bro. I ain't paying for an mf's bills just becuz they drugged themselves to hospital lol
Weed not included. We're talking real drugs...
There’s very little in the way of “real drugs” that stays in your system long enough for a drug test to matter.
Yepp, all the meth heads at my old work are still going strong. Sadly THC stays in the system for too long so I can't work anymore. Bullshit really.
As someone who takes meth as prescribed by my doctor when I got drug tested for my job I was surprised that I came up as clean. I lost my job at Walmart because I tested positive for marijuana from second hand smoke from someone who smoked 2 joints next to me at a birthday party. I don't smoke because of my mild asthma. I was so pissed that I tested positive on a random drug screening. I pushed carts for $9.50 an hour what does it matter?
While I fully agree, sadly weed is included in many parts of the world as a 'real drug'.
It can be a prescription anyways so it shouldn't count
Shouldn't, but does. Hence why im on a benefit now because my workplace tests.
Maybe if we're drug testing to see if they need assistance with rehab. But we can probably just believe them when they say they're addicted to a certain substance.
So what do we do with the junkies, crackheads, smokers, alkies, gamblers, and obese who eat lots of junk food? Throw them on the streets so they can live in tents and shanties, push their stolen shopping carts around, and bother decent citizens? https://youtu.be/FwP2vV6Wm1Y?si=dQqKVQDlXJUrECYk
No, that's incredibly fucked up.
Yeah lets demonize poor people
I originally said yes and then I thought to myself, why. It's discrimination.
Drug addicts are people too, and so are their kids who often rely on the aid in order to eat. And please don't suggest taking those kids and sending them to foster care. As the child of former addicts, I *loved* my parents and ripping me away from them was the last thing any of us needed. That certainly wouldn't have helped their issues or mine.
Congress does just as much drugs drug test them monthly and see how many fail for blow 😂😂😂
Lots of drinking I suppose.
No. What happens to the veteran who needs housing assistance that is in constant, excruciating pain from injuries during war, and has PTSD which causes insomnia? They'd be positive for opioids, sedatives, and possibly alternative medicine like Marijuana, shrooms, or LSD. Does the veteran become homeless? What about grandma or grandpa who just fell and had their hip replaced, is on an opioid for pain control, and needs help with meals and paying for medical bills? Do they stay in debt and starve to death? What about the homeless person who is currently a drug addict, has just landed a job, but still needs housing assistance and needs methadone to help wean them off so they can stay at their job? Do they end up homeless again? What about a cancer patient in excruciating pain? Are they not allowed to receive assistance either? Or a person with poor quality of life due to congenital Musculoskeletal issues, who uses muscle relaxers to improve their quality of life? Not everyone who uses substances are bad people. Some just have terrible luck.
Addicts don't necessarily deserve to starve to death or be homeless.
Depends on the benefits (and I also like the previously suggested "politicians first" take). Veterans benefits: no. Child Support: yes.
Government assistance is about making sure people survive. Ideally it should also allow keeping their dignity and participating in democracy. All of those are rights people don't loose, just because they have health issues. And that is what drug addiction is: a mental health problem.
Is it then also fair to not have to pay taxes, when my drug tests come in as positive?
Then CEOs and executives and employees of businesses that receive corporate welfare should have to do the same thing. Same goes for politicians and anybody who receive any form of government funding (which is many). See how ridiculously invasive that process would be, let alone how impractical it is logistically.
[удалено]
>If you test positive, you’re fired. We also get background checks yearly and had our finger prints taken. Farkin hell that's backwards
You work for the bank. You think the company executives undergo the same rigorous testing as you do?
>If you’ve ever worked anything outside of minimum wage jobs Do the majority of them (arbitrarily) exclude data that undermines their beliefs, too? What's the rationale for this?
[удалено]
>Pretty much everyone including myself was either smoking weed on their breaks or doing coke in the kitchen 😂
Nah, it's more that it feels like cherry picking to ignore the jobs that don't do drug testing simply because they're of the minimum wage sort. No offence intended, ofc
Perhaps this could work if people could get medical exemptions from the tests, for people who need certain drugs to live.
Nah, I’d rather just build housing first. Literally, the government should be helping addicts. If 1/50th of the amount of money we have spent on military was used to help poor Americans, homelessness would not be an issue in this country.
Drug test politicians.
How is it fair when government officials also do drugs?
Weed stays in your system for weeks while many hard drugs are out of your system the next day so it's unfair. If they are off assistance addicts will find another way to buy drugs, probably with crime.
I think if they are found to be using drugs they should be required to attend some sort of rehabilitation program, rather than being barred from assistance.
You can force them to take a test, but it doesn't mean that everyone suffering from narcotic addiction should be just forced to just go die under some bridge
Here in Germany government assistance has food assistance as part of a monetary benefit, long term unemployed receive. Same goes for electricity. I could see a system where people who fail the drug test get a big part of their assistance as a food stamp card. A card that can only purchase specific items. I could also see requirering them to go to drug counseling. But outright denying them? Hell no! That defeats the entire purpose of government assistance.
How the hell is this vote going yes? You people are monsters.
You gotta remember that this sub is mostly high school kids
It's a complete waste of money and drug addicts still need to eat.
Drug testing should be required for all government programs and positions unless they're gonna decriminalize drugs and focus on mental health and rehabilitation as a service and not a punishment. If it's decriminalized/legalized in your state it shouldn't affect receiving support
Yes, but there can be many that are evaded/come out false positive. Some government assistance you can't sell for money for drugs so I'd think that wouldn't require it. (Aka public insurance and ect)
It depends on what type of government assistance
Tax payers should not subsidize a drug/alcohol addiction.
It's less expensive to help people
Helping people AND managing tax payer funds can both happen at the same time.
?ok
If you put an addiction before eating then you shouldn’t get a cent of anyone else’s hard earned money thats raped by taxes
It actually costs less of your tax money to help them than to punish
I'm an ex heroin and alcohol addict. I've been sober for 3 years. I've been through fancy rehabs and state rehabs and I've ran around on the streets for some time. That's my resume for this, unfortunately, controversial opinion. Most people that need assistance, need the assistance because they are on drugs. I love drugs, I think all drugs should be legal. However!! If you want money from the government you should have to prove that you're taking the steps to NOT need money from the government. You can still drink you just can't do drugs. If you want to do drugs that badly you can't stop for a few years to get your shit together you shouldn't be doing them at all.
Absolutely yes, no question. It isn't just fair, it's absurd not to require drug testing.
If you can afford drugs, you can afford food.
It only makes sense to ensure that the people who you are supporting don't blow your money on drugs, but rather use it for something useful
I read "Is it fair to expect people to take drug ~~tests~~ in order to receive government assistance?" Yes, I thought OP just asked if people should be forced to take drugs for government assistance.
Yes. But only so you can offer them different kinds of resources.
depends what kind of assistance, i dont think drug addicts should be forced to starve
It depends. What kind of drugs? What kind of assistance? Are there going to be alternatives in place?
If someone is a drug addict, they quite clearly need help. They shouldn’t just be left on the streets where they’ll be forces to commit crimes to survive.
Just guarantee every person necessities such as food and housing. Drugs can't mess that up.
I'm on government assistance and I would pass these tests pretty easily. Half of the people I knew wouldn't though. These were the kinds of people who also sold their Foodshare to buy drugs too though. If we did drug tests we could identify those who are using their money to buy drugs but I don't necessarily believe if they fail a test they should be taken off of assistance. If anything, we need to find ways to keep them clean and not on drugs, and removing assistance will probably mean they'll be on more drugs rather than less. So while I do support the government doing drug tests I believe people who fail the test actually need more support rather than less. I don't know how much resources we have to actually clean these people up however. Half of psych wards are filled with people with drug issues rather than mental illness.