Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government?distributes my taxes as they see fit.
In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, and I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass all day doing drugs, while I pay for it.
Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
My friend asked for my thoughts about this. Here is my response:
I think that a larger consideration may be hidden in the question, that is: whether or not social services should be used as a reward to performance that society deems appropriate. In the message [above] that example is: if you don't drink alcohol or use drugs, then you earn social assistance.
Many who work in social services believe that some of the reasons people need assistance in the first place are the problems/challenges/addictions/etc. present in their lives, and that it is illogical to ask of them that they first have their problems resolved before they qualify to receive assistance. In short, this belief is that assistance should be given first so that change may occur, rather than expecting change first and then rewarding with assistance. An example would be when sobering services require persons to be sober before they qualify to enter the program.