Seems sort of obvious. . I HAVE M ISSUE WITH HAVING PEIOPLE " Milli} TESTED an min In an PASSING our In mi can In " Anna an nun [III L "corrent" _. you can be a functioning person and be on heavy drugs. but i agree. if you're going on welfare no drugs or alcohol for you. people with jobs, that do them well?
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #4 - jackmanagan ONLINE (11/13/2013) [+] (12 replies)
you can be a functioning person and be on heavy drugs. but i agree. if you're going on welfare no drugs or alcohol for you. people with jobs, that do them well? leave them alone, as long as they're not endangering anyone or ******* up. let them have their fun.
User avatar #11 - demigodofmadness (11/13/2013) [+] (4 replies)
Do that and drugs will become faster than you can say, "Boy, I sure hope drugs don't become legal."
User avatar #12 to #11 - demigodofmadness (11/13/2013) [-]
Become legal. I wasn't trying to say that drugs would grow legs and run.
User avatar #8 - coloki (11/13/2013) [+] (16 replies)
people on welfare shouldnt be tested. that **** is nosy and obnoxious
User avatar #25 to #16 - traelos (11/14/2013) [-]
That's not an invasion of privacy ******** .

Don't want the government knowing whether you do drugs or not? Don't be on welfare, no one is making you do it.

If you've opted to have the government pay for your existence, then you're goddamned obligated to follow their rules. Don't like it then just opt out.

Next you're going to bitch about how you have to pay to receive services, and chew to eat. Why shouldn't you get the reward without having to sacrifice?
User avatar #99 - xxxponyloverxxx (11/14/2013) [+] (7 replies)
Well, I don't follow poletics or whatever, but all I know is that America ******* fails at everything. loosers.
User avatar #109 - neoexdeath ONLINE (11/14/2013) [-]
The main issue I have with it is the massive cost of testing all that piss.
User avatar #65 - dunkleosteus (11/14/2013) [-]
As someone who lives in toronto.... T^T
User avatar #35 - ixcarnifexxi (11/14/2013) [+] (3 replies)

any other canadians?
User avatar #22 - loodee (11/14/2013) [-]
i think op missed that the meme is supposed to have unpopular opinions
#162 - nanerman (11/14/2013) [-]
How the the **** am I supposed to buy drugs if they drug testing me?
#147 - heisenberg (11/14/2013) [+] (10 replies)
Drug testing welfare recipients is costly with no real gain. In states that have enacted drug screening for welfare recipients there is huge cost to enforce the screening and very few failed tests. For example
Florida: people screened-4086, failed-108, net loss to state-$45780
Oklahoma: people screened-1890, failed-83, net loss to state-$82700 in 7 months
Utah: people screened-466, failed 12, net loss to state-$25000
And after 3 years in Arizona: people screened-87000, failed 1, net loss to state-$200000000.
All these rates are well below the national addiction rate of around 8% Meaning that welfare recipients have are, statistically speaking less likely to be addicts then everyone else. Many of these fails are for marijuana which is not addictive, because THC is hydrophobic and thus stored in fats it remains in the system much longer. It is also worth noting that these recipients are not always providing for themselves, but by denying benefits states remove their dependents access to food. Meaning children going hungry because a parent smoked one joint up to 6 weeks prior. It is a stupid, costly law whose only effect is ******** on the already downtrodden.

So do your research before spouting your mindless idiocy.
User avatar #142 - tronbot (11/14/2013) [-]
meh what would be the point of that? We're literally paying money to the people on welfare and we have no choice in the matter, the politicians are elected to office by us. Of course Im going to be more concerned with the people Im paying money for who I dont know, rather than the person I voted for.
User avatar #125 - loonquawl (11/14/2013) [-]
I guess overall, my view on this is that we are still free to **** up and be as ****** up as we want to be while we **** up.
Mandatory drug testing for things like government assistance would probably just lead to a lot of people being denied the help cuz they smoked a joint that month.
And drug testing politicians? I guess it depends on their viewpoint.. If they're anti-whatever drug, could ask them to prove they're clean..
User avatar #120 - xjessicaxrabbitx (11/14/2013) [+] (7 replies)
I don't like it because it implies drug users don't deserve help. They're people, too. Addiction is a disease. I just find it appalling how we, as a society, treat mental illness and poverty. We act like it's a choice people make that turns them into scum.
User avatar #123 to #120 - sparkyoneonetwo (11/14/2013) [-]
well if you do drug test them and they fail the test that is a great opportunity to try and help them find help to kick the addictions.

#77 - osusuckeyes ONLINE (11/14/2013) [+] (2 replies)
Actually the amount of money spent to test welfare recipients, is more money than it actually saves from drug users on welfare.
Actually the amount of money spent to test welfare recipients, is more money than it actually saves from drug users on welfare.
#83 to #77 - agena (11/14/2013) [-]
Not necessarily. In Ohio it cost roughly $30,000 to pay for all the drug tests. Yes, only like a dozen people were found to be on drugs, and yes the amount of money that saved was nothing compared to what they spent, but if you sad excuses for 'intelligent beings' would do further research than just whatever popped up on FJ or FB you would know that the Ohio state government paid out $300,000 less in welfare than the previous year. It is because hundreds of people who knew they would not pass the drug test did not even bother to sign up for welfare, which in the long run saved the state a good chunk of cash.

The more you know....
User avatar #54 - AliCattLovee (11/14/2013) [+] (8 replies)
User avatar #53 - rosietheamazon (11/14/2013) [+] (3 replies)
i had to write a paper on this one.
they instated this policy in florida and when the numbers came in, it was hardly worth the time effort and cost to catch a small percentage. the money we assume we won't lose on those we catch doing drugs while receiving welfare was/would be lost with all the cups, processing, and labor etc. etc. associated with this law.

but the politicians...that'd be nice.
User avatar #68 to #53 - shadowmanzninetwo (11/14/2013) [-]
Yeah I'd love to see them do that in Cleveland. Not even all of Ohio, just Cleveland. Hell, Cuyahoga county to be general.
User avatar #23 - manofbeardliness (11/14/2013) [+] (6 replies)
Let's go ahead and talk about drug testing wellfare and unemployment being drug tested... As much as I'd like to see this happen, it's far more expensive than it's worth. What really needs to happen is there needs to be more of an incentive for wellfare recipients to get jobs. Because of the stagnate economy (US) it's almost becoming more profitable to get onto wellfare or unemployment. If the amount of money and time was reduced than I guarantee people would stop reaping the benefits as much and go out and get a job even if it's low income.
#5 - jaked ONLINE (11/13/2013) [+] (3 replies)
Ideologically I completely agree, however the reality is that very few people on welfare are doing drugs, simply because welfare doesn't provide enough money to support a drug addiction. Florida briefly implemented drug tests for welfare recipients, but stopped it almost immediately because it ended up costing substantially more than it saved. Source: You need to login to view this link . salon . com/2013/08/29/gop%E2%80%99sinanemoneyeatingshamdrugtestsforwelfareahu ge_failure/
User avatar #3 - bme (11/13/2013) [+] (6 replies)
my mayor smokes crack and does a dam fine job running our city. if the useless people on welfare could do half of what he does i don't give a **** weather they are on crack or not. they arent stupid because they are on drugs they are on drugs because they are stupid.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)