Gwen Styles In The City

I fully agree with this person’s point of view. Being an American, I see on a daily basis, people who come here from other countries to rape and pillage our welfare and public assistance programs… So much so, that the people who have been putting into this system are having a hard time receiving assistance when they need it. My husband has been out of work for 7 months now. Promised a job that fell though… He’s been contributing to his own unemployment benefits for over 20 years now, and now that he needs it- guess what?!? It’s not available. My confidence in our “System” welfare, unemployment, social security… Is extremely low. My view of it is- it’s biost towards the minority, and is untrue to the “born and raised”… I have a night job where I encounter a lot of different types of people, and it is truly amazing who is on which drug(s), and how they get their money for it/them… At least Canadians have a much better health care system/ government/ way of life!!

The tricky part of this equation is that the person in the email works for a private company and he is complaining about a government service. As far as I know the government doesn’t institute random drug testing in its employees and I will thank it very much for staying the hell out of my private life.

And what bothers me most is the way private companies work very hard to regulate the lives of their employees outside of work.

About 70 years ago having a drink of alcohol was illegal, and about 70 years before that marjiuana was legal.

What I don’t like about this letter is that it categorizes everyone who is receiving welfare or social assistant as a miscreant/lazy/drug addled loser. But hey if you keep telling these people that’s what they are- they are going to start to believe it and believe that being a drug addled loser is all they are going to accomplish.

The system isn’t perfect, but neither are people. And what the hell does this guy suppose we do? Mark people, perhaps with black bands on their arms who are not desirable to receive a chance or government assistance? (hmmm someone did that once somewhere- who was that again?)
And hey while we’re at it, we might as well weed out all those immigrants and women, because they are subsectors of society as well.

Why doesn’t this guy get mad at the company that employs him thinks so little of his character and ability that they need to control him even after he clocks out and isn’t getting paid for the day.

A very Canadian point of view!

I think the issue here is the misuse of social assistance benefits. His concern is that the money some people receive from welfare is being used to fund bad habits instead of being used to better themselves or “get on their own two feet”, which only serves to perpetuate the vicious cycle of poverty, homelessness (or near homelessness) and substance abuse, all of which cost the taxpayers more at the end of the day. While I do sympathize somewhat with this ideal, I also fervently thank my lucky stars every day that I live in a democratic society instead of a totalitarian one – and along with the good that brings, is the simple unalienable right to do what one wants with his or her life. The guvvie can’t tell me what to do with my money, no matter how I earn it.

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/1440.jpg

I have always supported the idea of drug testing for welfare.

On a similar note, I also support marijuana being legalized, taxed and regulated the same way alcohol is. It’s a silly waste of time, and would solve a lot of hassles if we just let the people be mellow. (And this is from someone who does not want to use it. Ha!) Because of this, I feel drug testing for the harder drugs would be more effective then punishing someone for taking the edge off now and then.

Oh and to throw it out there. The people on assistance probably wouldn’t mind the extra testing, if they are honestly trying to not be on it once they are back on their feet. I know had I had to be drug tested to be on WIC, I would do it gladly, especially if it means more money would go to where it’s truly needed.

Like you I see both pros and cons to this. A major con for me is the slippery slope this puts us on. Urine testing for drugs may seem a good idea because it stops welfare checks from being spent on illegal activities that are bad for health, expensive, and prevent one from being able to work. However, many people would then say alcohol also can have that effect (and of course if you are on welfare that means that you are an alcoholic, because we know that you can’t be on hard times and capable of drinking responsibly), so then we should ensure that welfare checks cannot be spent on alcohol. Cigarettes are also detrimental to health and many tax payers do not smoke so why should they pay for others to smoke. And of course there is junk food. Welfare bums are overweight and lazy already, we don’t need to be paying for them to eat McDonald’s at every meal, so this should be regulated as well. If you want a welfare check because you fall on hard times you should have to allow the government into every aspect of your daily life and should they find you unsuitable for any reason you should be rejected from the only help available to those in that situation.

I live in a small town where welfare is the easy thing to for many people. Unlike in the larger cities welfare actually does give you enough to pay rent and eat, and with there being few jobs here many people take that option. It is abused and that needs to be restricted, but there are a lot of people who use the system to get to a place where they can support themselves. I do think that the welfare system needs revamping, but I do not think drug testing is the best way to reduce spending in this area.