Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Should they be tested?

Ok, I see people say 'I smoke weed and am not on PA' - I'm sorry - this is WRONG.
My question is this...
Should those who receive ANY type of Public Assistance be required to do mandatory drug testing? AND - If they test positive, should their benefits be revoked?


I think they should. I do NOT believe that all people who are on PA do drugs, nor do I believe 90% of them do. HOWEVER, if you have nothing to hide, then why should it be a problem? Wouldn't this solve a lot of the problem with people selling their benefits for drugs or sex or whatever else? Yes, some would fly under the radar, but it would cut down on it a lot, would it not?

Answer Question

Asked by RutterMama at 2:02 PM on Jan. 12, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 12 (896 Credits)
Answers (14)
  • One of the question the do ask is if you have a felony drug conviction. If you do it can disqualify you to get PA.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:03 PM on Jan. 12, 2010

  • Yes and yes. The way I see it, I am required to take a drug test in order to get hired at a job, and at my current job I have to risk getting randomly tested in order to keep my job. Therefore, the people who are on PA should be treated no differently.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:10 PM on Jan. 12, 2010

  • so we should pull food stamps from a family with children....
    that punishes the innocent people in the family and is not the answer

    Answer by peanutsmommy1 at 2:15 PM on Jan. 12, 2010

  • The children should be REMOVED from a home where there is illegal drug use. It isn't punishing the innocent - it is PROTECTING them.

    Answer by RutterMama at 2:17 PM on Jan. 12, 2010

  • AGREED RUTTERMAMA! you're completely right, if they test positive they should have their children taken bc it's illegal. if pot were legalized i'm all for it but since it's not this would help with our PA/drug issues that we all know seem to go hand-in-hand in most communities.

    Answer by angevil53 at 3:09 PM on Jan. 12, 2010

  • HOWEVER, if you have nothing to hide, then why should it be a problem?

    Can we forget about public aid and drugs for a minute and think on a broader spectrum? Its a problem because the constitution says its a problem. The 4th amendment bars against unreasonable searches, that includes searches of the PERSON. A drug test constitutes a search of the person within the framework of the law. If they don't have reasonable grounds to conduct the search it is unlawful. Qualifying or needing public assistance does not equate to reasonable grounds.


    Answer by SRiveroC at 3:31 PM on Jan. 12, 2010

  • Testing can be mislead to come out negative when indeed they should be positive, too many cleansing kits out there for them to be reliable.

    Answer by older at 3:36 PM on Jan. 12, 2010

  • I have no idea what the percentage is of drug users. But I do think EVERYONE should be tested for drugs. Those of us who work and applied for jobs have had to be tested and there are now many companies who do random drug testing. So, why not?It seems like a great idea! But then, I have never taken a drug or smoke pot so itseems like a good idea. :-)

    Answer by Lindalu2 at 3:45 PM on Jan. 12, 2010

  • Hey me. I would not care a bit. If you have nothing to hide, then why not be tested and searched? I wanna know!

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:46 PM on Jan. 12, 2010

  • Well, if you want to get technical Rivero there is no constitutional framework/allowance/legality for PA to begin with.

    If you have money for drugs you have money for food.

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:21 PM on Jan. 12, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.