Yes they should be revoked.

Even if you do that (and in America, that is what we do), it doesn't prevent them from spending their earned income on drugs, nor stop them from making or using drugs.

Its not a matter of liking or disliking lifestyles. Its about enabling or disabling people from making bad choices. If the government gives someone resources (lets say cards to purchase food), which allows them to in turn, use what income they still had coming in (as most people on welfare may have some way of earning a menial income) for really bad purposes?

Example:

A man makes $10,000 a year - well below the poverty line. His expenses are $10,000 a year for food and shelter. The government gives him aid of $5,000 to help out. This doesn't change the fact that living still costs $10,000 and he still makes $10,000 a year. So he has $5,000 of discretionary income.

What if he spends that discretionary income on drugs? Alcohol? Tobacco? Child porn? Pork rinds and twinkies? A flat screen TV? Season 3 of the Golden Girls on DVD?

So what happens is that the government not only provides for his welfare - his ability to survive - but also allows him to have discretionary income if he has any source of income (which in most cases, the person will have some sort of income). That is where the danger lies. You do want to help people, but you want to ensure that the money isn't enabling them to do bad things.

Also, for that very reason is why private charities are usually a better source of distributing funds and help for needy people. With smaller, more local distribution points for help, attention can be paid to individuals to ensure that they are being taken care of, and charity isn't bankrolling bad behavior.

This man speaks with the truth.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your a bit on the naive side, aren't you?

I say remove social benefits from everyone, and then it does not matter if the guy does drugs or not.

If they are long term out of work due solely to their drug use, they shouldn't carry on receiving benefits anyway. Unless there's a medical reason beyond their control, the focus behind any benefits should be to try and get them back into some form of work as soon as possible.

Drug tests wouldn't be necessary, they just would have to not get back into work in the time limit and then /not/ be able to prove they are physically unable to return.