What do you think about revoking the social benefits of drug users?

[mrstickball]

famousringo said:

mrstickball said:

famousringo said:
I can understand the principle behind this objection, but I can only see this increasing crime rates and all the costs associated with them. The annual price of incarcerating somebody is huge, probably at least twice as high as keeping a person on welfare. Then you can throw in the cost of regularly testing all recipients for drugs, other justice costs (police, lawyers, etc.), the cost of criminal damages...

I just don't see it paying off. Maybe I'm wrong. The only way to know is for some jurisdiction to try it and track the results.

I don't think you have to jail them if they fail. I mean, you can fail a drug test at an employer, and they don't throw you in jail.

Such drug tests are very cheap, given the amount of welfare money that is usually given to people. Drug tests cost ~$50 in the US (if not less)....That is a fraction of one month's government assistance.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm not suggesting you jail them when their test comes up positive, I'm suggesting that a lot of junkies are going to turn to crime to support themselves and their habit when you revoke welfare benefits and their basic needs aren't being met.

Ah, but their needs aren't being met since they are spending what income they have on drugs.

I suppose you could argue that a lot of them already are, I'm just of the mind that people who are more desperate are capable of commiting fouler crimes. Like I said, hard to know exactly what the consequences will be until somebody tries it and tracks the results responsibly.

It is indeed correct that poverty can cause crime. However, I wonder if the cost of the crime outweighs the cost of (essentially) paying people not to commit crime. I think its horribly unfair to everyone else that we have to subsidize druggies' bad habits because if we make them accountable, they'll commit crime, if we don't make them accountable, they take our money.

A quick google search suggests that the average welfare payout for a single-person household in the US is ~$300 per month. If you're going to do a monthly test when people come to get their cheques, $50 seems like a huge cost increase to me. You could do the test less frequently to save costs, but then it becomes easier to dupe the system by keeping clean long enough to pass the test.

...Or you could randomly screen once every 6 months. I'd venture to argue that a random screening would have a much better result even if done once every 6 months than having set periods of when they are done.

And finally, the core issue is that people may be taking the system for a ride.

What could be done is a hybrid rehabilitation/welfare system which is what has been done (to great effect) in America:

Allow people food stamps for a set period of time, and do random drug screenings. If someone is found to have drugs in their system, then they are forced to submit to drug counceling and rehabilitation by their local non-profit group. If they do not agree to it, then they are removed from welfare. If they take it, they may continue on welfare. If they take it, and fail the tests, then they are removed from welfare. That way, they are incentivized to better their lfiestyle, while ensuring that only the worst of the worst need to worry about welfare.