Do you think that it would be a good idea to make people who claim social benefits* do a urine sample? If illegal drugs are found then they would have their social benefits revoked for improper use.

The idea for this thread came from a soldier who the other day said that he is having his money taxed and putting his life on the line for people on welfare. He said that he would prefer his money to go to genuine cases who really need it, and not support the small percentage who spend their welfare money on drugs.

Basically he said he would not like his taxes to go to those who would waste it and support the drug trade.

What do you think?

(*Social benefits such as social housing, welfare cheques, etc)

what they need is help and rehabilitation and treatment

throwing them out on the street only means more homeless people (and possibly more crime if they steal to feed there habit)

Anyone who is familiar with any form of addiction will tell you that in order for the addiction to continue past the point where a person no longer has the ability to take care of themselves someone has to act as an enabler. The act of performing an intervention is as much about getting the enablers around a person with an addiction to "cut them off" if they continue this destructive behaviour in order to force them into getting help. When the government gives out social benefits to drug users the government is acting as an enabler and these people never have to deal with the destructive side of a lifestyle that they choose to continue.

On a side note, I find it remarkably unfair at times that (locally) the government will pay thousands of dollars per month giving drug addicts a place to life that is far better than mine (and all they do is trash it costing even more of my money) when I have spent my lifetime avoiding temptation and trying to lead a productive life.

I believe there was a congressman from Kentucky, or somewhere else in the states that said the same thing, Highwaystar.

Essentially it was 'if you want government money, you need to allow government intervention' by taking a urine sample.

I would be all for it. I really don't like the idea of government intruding more into people's lives (and forcing urine samples does that), but at the same time, if your taking government money to live, then you shouldn't feel like your living a free life, either.

@SciFiBoy - I don't think anyone is arguing that if they fail the test, they get thrown out on the street. If anything, them failing would force them into a position to be rehabilitated. The government can't act as the enabler of bad habits.

Yes, and for those chavvy mothers that spent all their benefits on a new mobile phone whilst their BF's are growing drugs in the loft.

Absolutely. I don't want my tax dollars supporting some damn druggie. Hell, I have to do drug tests for my job, and I wish that more places would require them. If you were stupid enough to start, and even stupider to get addicted, then you can get out of your own damn problem without my money. I'll admit that I rather something else be done, but alas, it would not be legal.

As long as this would apply to both legal and illegal drugs, I'm slightly in favor of it.

I would be in favour of it. No need to prop up drug users when the money could be given to those who are clean and in need.

why not give them vouchers for food and stuff rather than cash, that way they cant spend it on drugs

you shouldnt take someones welfare away just because you dont like there lifestyle

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.