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

[famousringo]

mrstickball said:

famousringo said:

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.

1. 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.

2. ...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.

 

1. I know it's lousy deal, but I don't see a way out of it. It's a problem that society is going to have to pay for one way or another. My point is that paying somebody $3,600 a year in welfare money a year to 'support' their habit is a lot cheaper than paying $23,000 to punish that person.

The third way is to rehabilitate, and it's the one I'd prefer. It's probably the most cost-effective option if you can actually transform the addict into a productive taxpayer. I can't find any quick cost estimates of rehab, but I suspect it lands somewhere between the other two options. I get frustrated when government rehab programs come under political attack as 'supporting' drug users.

2. Good plan. Looks like you're more familiar with these issues than I am. Making welfare payments conditional on at least attempting to get better is something I can agree with. If an addict is too misanthropic and depressed to even talk about his/her problem, then they're liable to end up in hospital or jail sooner rather than later, anyway.