(I am not sure if this is in the correct section, so please move if need be)

Like a lot of folks in the United States, I have a job. I work, they pay me.
I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine
test with which I have no problem.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to
people who don't have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check,
because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on
their feet.
I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT, doing drugs, while I work.. .
Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Good news. There is legislation in the works that involves drug testing those lazy money moochers who sit on their butts and waste our hard earned tax dollars on drugs. I hope they make ALL of them pee in a cup every time they pick up their free government money. Now we may finally be able to separate those deadbeats from the people that really need the help. No more will the crackheads be dipping their hands in our wallets so they can pay their drug dealers. No matter how much the urine testing costs the government, (if they stop giving free money to those that can't provide a clean sample) they will save more than they are spending.

I understand your frustration believe me.

But, what happens when the money is cut off, and the problems are not resolved.

Who will provide the money for shelter and food for the children in these relationships.

You can't force people to quit an addiction just because they waste money, or don't deserve money in my opinion.

Perhaps if there were conditions to money that involved addiction counselling, and steps to get and stay clean, a more productive person might not need the money in the first place.

Just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ANB428

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check? Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

---

Hello A:

I think you're absolutely right!

ANYBODY who gets MY tax money distributed to them, OUGHT to pass a UA. But, I'm not hypocritical about it. I don't distinguish between government handouts, like you seem to be doing.

If you're the owner of a house, YOU get some of MY taxes distributed to you in the form of a tax deduction on the interest you pay on your mortgage. Since I'm a renter, I can't do that.

To me, welfare or a tax deduction is a distinction without a difference. It's MY tax money one way or another. I earned it. In fact, EVERYBODY who lines up at the government cash window is getting a handout.

Plus, if you're wealthy and you live on the income from your stocks, you get to pay taxes at capital gains rates which are MUCH lower than the rates I pay on my INCOME. So, I'm subsidizing the rich too...

Now, I don't mind doing that. It's the way it should be here in this great country of ours. But, in the name of CONSISTENCY, let's make sure that EVERYBODY who gets a government handout takes a pee test.

Can you imagine how much the government would save if we did that?

excon

I understand your point. But, in my opinion, they wouldn't need so much help if they didn't spend money on drugs, and I don't think they should be spending government money on drugs either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jake2008

I understand your frustration believe me.

But, what happens when the money is cut off, and the problems are not resolved.

Who will provide the money for shelter and food for the children in these relationships.

You can't force people to quit an addiction just because they waste money, or don't deserve money in my opinion.

Perhaps if there were conditions to money that involved addiction counselling, and steps to get and stay clean, a more productive person might not need the money in the first place.

Just my opinion.

---

Well, when the money is cut off they won't have any money to spend on drugs anymore.
The children can be taken care of by CPS. If people are is need of the money then they should be able to pass a drug test. If they care about their children and wanted to provide for them then they shouldn't be using drugs. It isn't my fault that they are on drugs. I understand that people who are on drugs have a hard time coming off them. I have seen it first hand. We are not helping them any by handing them money. Most of the people who receive welfare and are on drugs are giving their food stamps and cash assistance to their drug dealers, not their children.
I see how people just abuse the system and it irritates me because they people who work and really need the assistance don't receive it because they actually have a job. I am a single mother and I have never received a dime of child support, I know that is my fault for having a child with a loser, but I provide for my daughter. I went to go try to get some sort of assistance because I couldn't afford to pay my daughter's daycare on top of all of my other bills. I don't live out side of my means what so ever. I made $9 an hour, so I didn't qualify for any assistance. I wasn't asking for food stamps or money, I was trying to get help paying child care. It makes me mad because people can sit on their butt all day and get things handed to them and it is my hard earned money that is paying them.

Poor people are poor for many reasons, they are visible for a reason. We can see them, they don't live in ivory towers in fancy bank buildings.

Far better to know what their problems are and point the finger at their presumed drug use as the cause of our tax dollars being wasted on losers and their families.

What about the taxes that everybody is going to pay for the losers who made multi-millions in tax profits and shady deals by devouring the public with loans and bad business deals. Who is paying for the bailout of crooked men in suits on Wall Street?

Is that not welfare, only multiplied by billions?

I don't see anybody complaining about that. But, people with drug problems living high on the hog at the expense of taxpayers, taking up far less zero's in cost, is the target de jour.

As excon has said, we all have our take on who benefits from tax dollars, and if we're talking numbers, and who makes the most from being on the dole, it it not the poor.

Yea, I agree with you on what you are saying about our tax money going to other worthless causes. But if you are poor and need assistance from the government then you shouldn't be on drugs. If you can't afford food for your children then you shouldn't be able to afford drugs. All I am saying is that if you really want to better your life and be successful you can't accomplish that by being on drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ;

But, people with drug problems living high on the hog at the expense of taxpayers, taking up far less zero's in cost, is the target de jour. Far better to know what their problems are and point the finger at their presumed drug use as the cause of our tax dollars being wasted on losers and their families.

---

Not sure how you are doing the math here. And yes I will assume that most more than not are taking drugs. Its not rocket science to see the drugs in the poor sections of towns and cities. How about the residual costs here. More police to deal with the crime that goes along with to many welfare recipients. It goes hand and hand .

The last city officer I talked with said the arrested a person on drug charges and found in his wallet 3 Welfare Checks stubs with His Name on them . NY NJ Pa. Or was that just a fluke. I got a ton of real fluke stories. The tips of the Iceberg. When ever this subject comes up we gage a story or two on a person that's having trouble getting food stamps or welfare Checks. There is collateral damage always. Can't use the minuet instances to make the argument for the all.

How about how much money Could be There if we drug tested welfare recips. For the other innocent people that need help and don't know how to work the system. Those people are usually the real legitimate people that needs assistance.

The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, Historical Tables, total outlays for Means Tested Entitlements in 2006 were $354.3 billion. This was 2.7% of GDP.

How about this math... Welfare spending is so large it is difficult to comprehend. On average, the annual cost of the welfare system amounts to around $5,600 in taxes from each household that paid federal income tax in 2000. Adjusting for inflation, the amount taxpayers now spend on welfare each year is greater than the value of the entire U.S. Gross National Product at the beginning of the 20th century.

Total federal and state spending on welfare programs was $434 billion in FY 2000. Of that total, $313 billion (72 percent) came from federal funding and $121 billion (28 percent) came from state or local funds. (See Chart 1.)
Medical assistance to low income persons cost $222 billion or 51 percent of total welfare spending.
Cash, food and housing aid together cost $167 billion or 38 percent of the total.
Social Services, training, targeted education, and community development aid cost around $47 billion or 11 percent of the total.
Means-Tested Welfare Spending: Past and Future Growth

So who is taking what. That's just the welfare part in the BILLIONS!! Multiply the past 20 years. Look at the chart from 1970 to 2000 and see the DRASTIC change in welfare. Correlate that with population and demographics. It can explain things about welfare and how it got so big. To this day I get frustrated because we censor facts and figures not to offend someone. Sooner or later WE MUST realize that Welfare will brake this country. Its basic math a high school student could do. So I ask what math were you referring to when you compare the drugees easy to point a finger at.

At least the ivory tower and Gov isn't breaking into my home or shooting a person down the street.! So what are the Real cost here. We help to often to give a drugee a supplemental income so he can buy a six pack and do another deal. No job means a lot of time on ones hands.

Don't come back with the "what its everybody thats on welfare" Of course not. BUT there's to many to point a finger at. That's the POINT.

Its not just the welfare drugee. Its what all comes along with it. Do the math. If welfare continues on its course what we do now to help save the economy will amount to nothing gained. So by basic statistic's we can calculate when the U.S. will be bankrupt for good. Add the illiteracy to that and we are done here. Plain and simple. If someone here can mathematically show me different please feel free.

Signed 21 Boat

If I Helped To Answer Your Question Please Rate My Answer

Ok, taxpayer money going to the poor bothers you, but taxpayer money going to, say, AIG, doesn't?

Are we talking apples to apples here, or oranges to peaches. Or is is all just rotten fruit.

Taxpayer money, 'wasted' on food, shelter, clothing, social assistance, to me at least, is a far greater 'waste' with potential for RETURN, than, say, 170 BILLION taxpayer dollars, going to a corporation, (AIG) of which, 165 MILLION, is given as 'bonuses'.

That is a disgrace, and shameful, and a debt that will be carried by taxpayers for generations, with no guarantees, as well as the untold millions upon millions of people affected in a trickle-down situation. Many of these people, will be going to food banks, ARE going to foodbanks, and are suffering as a result of this one example. The Big Three, The Banks,. unbelievable.

We now have the 'new' poor, who funded the newly rich with bonuses paid by THEIR tax dollars!! Are they to be turned away from food banks, social assistance, and suffer the stigma of being low-life losers who have been forced into homeless shelters because of corporate greed?

I won't comment further on the banks, but, just add a bunch more billions.

Please show a little compassion for the poor, and realize that most know not of their circumstances, and are not entitled to that information anyway. My point that they are targets and while the real criminals make off with tax dollars, we make all sorts of assumptions as to the less fortunate's character, or lack of, while billions upon billions of tax dollars are flowing into greedy hands in ivory towers.

I'm not going to comment on this further. I know there are those who understand, like myself, who was a child in a welfare family for all my high school years, and the food stamps were stamps then, no swiping a card, you tore out the food stamps from a book. But, each generation is the same with this really bad attitude toward poor people.

Perhaps it is because I've lived through it, and my (single) mother was accountable for every single penny, that I have a hard time reconciling welfare bashing, while at the same time, it is somehow okay to overlook gross mismanagement of banks being bailed out with the same dollars.

It is all welfare, but the real crooks are not the poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ;

165 MILLION, is given as 'bonuses'. Are we talking apples to apples here, or oranges to peaches That is a disgrace, and shameful, and a debt that will be carried by taxpayers for generations, with no guarantees Please show a little compassion for the poor, and realize that most know not of their circumstances

---

Jake2008. I'm not cold hearted nor am I picking on you. Here's some more basic math. [B]Those Bonus you refer to are an outrage no doubt. and yes I feel that it is also a crime at that level. Not to justify it, but the flip side is, how much tax money does the corporations pay in taxes and on the bonuses So welfare can have money also.

Welfare it seems can help promote illiteracy and a host of other social problems. Please show a little compassion for the poor, and realize that most know not of their circumstances ... Re confirms my next paragraph

Too often city kids and others don't care about a high school diploma and know that food stamps and welfare checks are to be had. The inner city kids see it on a daily basis. The residuals of welfare is FAR reaching in actual cost and what it promotes.

If you want to see how welfare is creating residuals, Just goggle up the most dangerous cities in the U.S. and go visit there and see who is not doing what. Then look at the literacy rates in those cities. Think they will be productive in the workforce for the next 40+ years. They can barely read and write. It could scare the be Jesus out of them if they knew the Net wasn't there or to hard to abuse and use the welfare system and social security.

I grew up very poor and from a broken family. Got through it/ Worked since I was 12.

Want to see who's the up and coming welfare people will be in big numbers. Goggle up the most dangerous cities in the U.S. look at the crime rates there. Look at the high school dropout rates. Look at the illiteracy % You really think they will be in the workforce long and not go on welfare and also cost Billions in a short time? Here's just an example.

USATODAY.com - Big-city schools struggle with graduation rates

The revelations have struck a raw nerve in Detroit, where 47 percent -- nearly one of out of every two adults -- is functionally illiterate, according to a government report, "The State of Literacy in America."

In fact, national studies suggest Detroit's illiteracy rate is the highest among major American cities. According to a 2002 United Nations report, Detroit falls short even when compared to developing Third World nations, such as Cuba, which has 2.7 percent illiteracy rate. In Ecuador, 7 percent of adults can't read, and in El Salvador, 18.9 percent of adults.

How many people would you think In detroit that quit school will Not be on Welfare? Add to that the layoffs in that town alone that will truly NEED Welfare and food stamps as they loose there houses. I wish I had all the Wellfare fraud money and would go beyound stamps and save there houses. We NEED to save the working class that got laid off or lost there job and may very well loose everything the WORKED for!!

You state not everybody has a computer. I've seen to many ghettos that have hummers in it. Better TV than I have. Many of the kids electronic games Etc. I would venture to say I can walk into many poor homes on welfare and per capita they have more electronic items by there 'Means" of wealth than working America.

We need welfare to a point. .

but the real crooks are not the poor. No they aren't if there in a tough spot and try to get out of it weather they succeed or not. But a crook is a crook. Big or small. In size if we combined all the welfare and Social Security fraud It would be in the Billions with out a doubt. So that's a big crook with a lot of helpers. Unlike what we are trying to do about those bonuses. The welfare by the trend it shows will eventually out way what we are experiencing now in the U.S.

Jake2008. We are not bashing the people on welfare, we are bashing the people who are on drugs and are on welfare who sit on their butts all day and do drugs. I don't mind helping people out when they are having a hard time and I understand hard times, I am a single mother and live paycheck to paycheck to support my daughter. I work two jobs and go to school full time. I can't quit my other job and have time to spend with my daughter or to focus on my school work because I make $9 an hour at my full-time job and that is supposed to pay for all of my bills, plus food and daycare, ha, that is a joke. My daucare alone is $500 a month, that is half my monthly income. I don't mind helping people out as long as they help themselves out. I am just saying that there would be a lot less people on welfare if there were drug tests given before any check was. Then maybe the people like me who really need the assistance can actually get it.

We aren't bashing people on welfare when we say they sit on their butts all day long and do drugs? They have better toys and hummers in their driveways?

It is the attitude I'm talking about, the prejudice toward people who receive tax dollars to survive in a welfare state.

And with today's doom and gloom, middle-class people are a heartbeat away from needing welfare, are they in the same kettle of fish? Do we presume that good people suddenly turn into tax sucking vampires at the expense of those still lucky enough to be employed?

Or are they 'the new poor', who, by bad luck and/or circumstance, find themselves in a position they thought they'd never be in, thanks to the welfare (tax) dollars that have, to the tune of billions, bailed out criminals and the elite, well educated, emotionally bankrupt bankers?

The tax dollars come from the same place- your paycheque. The difference being that you wouldn't be able to point to a wall street banker and say, "he's using the system!! He sits on his all day doing drugs, and transfers MY hard earned money to a bank account in the Caymen's" He makes enough off the dole to hide his assets in other words, while the other end of the welfare spectrum gets food stamps to feed their families, or lines up at a food bank. Rich people on welfare don't have to do that.

A friend of mine, through bad luck and circumstance, has been on a waiting list for herself and two sons for four years now, for subsidized housing. Her ex brother in law lives in subsidized housing with a woman on welfare, and two kids. Her rent is geared to income. He works full-time, she works full-time. He is invisible to the system. They drive better cars than I do, have far more opportunities for their kids because they qualify for free camp, after school programs, sports etc. that I cannot afford.

My friend, says people like HIM, are what causes HER not to get ahead. He should not 'qualify' to live this dishonest lifestyle, at the expense of not only the taxpayer, but at the expense of people like my friend, who DO qualify, and really need the break, but don't get it.

Add to that the economic woes of governments bailing out people who have received golden parachutes, and where to the cuts start to make up the difference? The poor.

So, under circumstances like that, the system fails those that really need these tax supported programs, and it has created a system within a system, where there are different levels of deceipt and corruption going on without a second thought to what welfare should mean.

I think of welfare as a HUGE kettle of money with a lineup 50 miles wide and 100 miles deep of people needing assistance. But, when I realize who is at the front of the line, I realize it is not the poor. By the time they get to the kettle, there is only loose change to scramble for at the very bottom.

Yes, kind people support all sorts of welfare, but the bulk of that in my opinion, is not going where it is needed the most. And because they cannot jet away to their second homes or cottages to hide from the public who demands answers, they are front and centre.

They produce the face of welfare, but the guts belong in different neighbourhoods in richer environments, within in gated communities.

We should not be judging the quality or integrity of a 'typical' person on welfare, simply because we presume they are ripping off the system. It really isn't fair, or objective, or realistic to suggest that somehow, THEY are responsible for our hard earned dollars going to 'waste'.

As I said before, a little compassion and insight, please!

I am not bashing the people who aren't doing drugs and are on welfare. I am bashing the people who are on drugs and sit on their butts all day and are on welfare! I know that not all the people on welfare are on drugs! I agree with you on what you are saying. What I am saying is that any one receiving welfare should take a drug test. If they pass it, then they should get assistance. If they don't then they shouldn't. There are people in Ohio that have $100,000 in the bank, but since they don't have jobs they get food stamps and the people like me who does have a job doesn't get anything even if they need it. All I am saying is that people on welfare should have to take a drug test. If I have to take one to get my paycheck they should too. I am not talking about how our taxes go to other worthless causes. That is a totally different subject and I could go on for days and days about how we keep bailing out the banks, car dealerships and the housing crisis. My point is that they need to change how money is just being handed out. This has been going on way before the economy started going bad, now that people are jobless because of the recession makes it more of a reason to regulate the system and who the system should help. People on drugs, or people who aren't on drugs. I am not talking about all of the other places our tax dollars go to.

Is this going to be the same person who tests all the bank managers urine, or school teacher's urine, or ministers, paramedics, hospital personnel, insurance executives, linemen, food inspectors, military personnel and pensioners urine too?

Are we talking about ALL people who receive public tax money, or just the poor.

All of those people work, so I am sure that they have to take a drug test at some point. So, yes, I still think that someone who receives welfare should be tested for drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ;

Is this going to be the same person who tests all the bank managers urine, or school teacher's urine, or ministers, paramedics, hospital personnel, insurance executives, linemen, food inspectors, military personnel and ? Are we talking about ALL people who receive public tax money, or just the poor.

---

Jake 2008.Need to get off the poor thing here and face some basic facts.

Weather you realize it or not, drug testing has been going on for a long time now. Notable instances when they found commercial pilots that were flying planes drunk or chemical substances. The big train wreck many years ago that killed many passengers and the engineer was on pot.

Eventually drug testing will most likely be in all the work forces. Why, INSURANCE reasons. As an employer I have to random drug test employees for my Insurance company.

pensioners urine too......, that's a cheap shot to make a point. How benign is that. They already worked for there Pensions and are at home so to speak. I believe we are talking about able body people that Don't work. Not of retirement age and are not retired and receiving welfare and may be habitual users of the Assistance programs and do basically nothing to get off welfare.

ministers,.....So is this a cheap shot. Now you bring religion into it. Why stop there how about our pets or foreign visitors of the family.

Lets keep it real and in some perspective here. There is always collateral damage in everything.

So be prepared, To get a ligament job anywhere in time, it will be more than likely there Will be drug testing Because Of the Insurance Companies. So who's going to stop them and challenge their polices. They are way to big and powerful, Even the Gov has to cater to them at all levels, weather it be there contributions etc or strong arming.

[B]Signed 21 Boat

If I Helped To Answer Your Question Please Rate My Answer[/B]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ANB428

(I am not sure if this is in the correct section, so please move if need be)

Like a lot of folks in the United States, I have a job. I work, they pay me.
I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine
test with which I have no problem.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to
people who don't have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check,
because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on
their feet.
I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT, doing drugs, while I work. . . .
Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

---

I think that, until you need welfare to survive, you will never face the wrath of people presuming exactly what you presumed, before you ended up in the same boat.

I don't mean you specifically of course, but those that share the belief that, welfare folks sit on their butts doing drugs at the expense of those who work to provide the taxes that support them.

I don't know where that comes from. Do you think people would feel differently about those on welfare if they knew WHY they were on welfare? The learning disabled, the mentally challenged, the physically impaired, families who have lost everything in this economy, the abused and battered trying to get their lives on track.

Perhaps a bigger picture is that when times are tough, people look for reasons their paycheque gets stretched more and more, and there is less and less left on payday. It is easy to, and traiditionally easier, to point fingers at those who are easy pickin's.

The poor are obvious. People know who they are in the schools, the grocery stores in small towns, those that neighbour housing complexes that subsidize rent, they see them lining up to get into foodbanks and at local missions to get a hot meal. Nobody chooses this life, yet people presume they live a good life sitting around all day with nothing to do except drugs.

But they are seen makes them somehow vunerable to our invasive assumptions, comments, and anger that they somehow get a free ride. We feel six-foot, puffed up and bullet proof, and it's MY money that is putting those chocolate bars and cigarettes in that shopping cart!! Why are THEIR kids getting subsidized after school programs and free clothing allowances. The nerve! I want them drug tested!!

It is very, very sad to see marginalized people singled out as a major player in welfare scams, when far more serious welfare (tax) crimes take place, to the tune of so many dollars I cannot comprehend it.

I would hope that, as many thousands more join the ranks of the 'newly welfared' because of the economy, that, as it hits closer and closer to home, attitudes just might change a bit, and blame will be placed where it is deserved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jake2008

I don't mean you specifically of course, but those that share the belief that, welfare folks sit on their butts doing drugs at the expense of those who work to provide the taxes that support them.

I don't know where that comes from.

---

Hello again, Jake:

The right wing needs a bad guy. If there isn't one available, they'll make one up. The left wing needs a bad guy too, but he's usually a CEO - not your neighbor.

Illegal aliens have been a recent target. Black people before that. Of course, drug users are demonized, and drug users on welfare are especially demonized. Let's see who else is demonized by the right: Muslims, abortionists, defense lawyers, homosexuals... I could go on...

I really don't know what brought about the welfare druggie recently. When Reagan reformed welfare he demonized them THEN, but not recently... In fact, Reagan changed welfare into workfare, and he eliminated MOST of welfare druggies. So, I don't know what the big deal is about it now.

There is aid to family's with dependent children. Yes, I suppose some of those parents do drugs... So, let's cut 'em off. That'll serve their kids right.

excon

Yea, well the reason why illegal aliens have been a target is because they are here in the US illegally and getting the benefits that the citizens should be getting. We have enough poverty with our own citizens. Now we are taking care of illegal citizens too? They came to our country illegally, they shouldn't be able to get a free ride. I don't.

Reagan reformed welfare over 20 years ago when he was in office. I think that it is about time to reform it again.

I am not saying that we shouldn't help people out when they are in need. The welfare system is to help people get on their feet and be able to eventually support themselves. In order for someone to really want to help themselves, the people who are on welfare, they need to be clean and not on drugs. Doing drugs is not going to better your life at all, it only makes your life worse. In order to get employed most employers administer drug tests. Therefore, if you are on welfare and you are using drugs, it will be a lot harder to get a job because you will more than likely have to take a drug test and if you can't pass one, you can't get the job. So it all goes hand in hand.

I am not saying that all people on welfare are on drugs and are abusing the system. I understand that people need help. What I am saying is that it makes me mad when I walk into the welfare office to go try to get help paying my childcare, not to get food stamps or cash aid, and there are people sitting in there lining up for their free gimmies with their nails done and their hair done, etc. And they get the assistance because they are to lazy to get out there and find a job. If these people don't have money for food and need help then why do they have their nails done when it costs $30 a pop? It is ridiculous. Again, I am not categorizing everyone and judging all of them. There are many people who are really in need of assistance and aren't on drugs. So, if you need assistance that bad then you should be able to take a drug test, I don't see what the problem with that is. Most drugs get out a persons system with in a week (excluding pot). If these people (the ones who ARE on drugs, not the ones who ARE NOT) can't go a week without their crack, cocaine, pills, or whatever they are on to pass a drug test, then they don't need to be getting assistance. I am not judging all people on welfare because I know that not all of them are on drugs. I am talking about the ones who are on drugs and the ones who are abusing the system.

You are making it seem okay to be on drugs and being on welfare. I don't see how it is okay to have some one be on drugs and still be able to receive welfare, much less raise a child properly. Welfare is used to help people get on their feet, not for people to support their drug habit. The people who really need the assistance would pass a drug test, I am sure. If they want what is in the best interest for their child/ children, then they would stop using drugs to make their lives better.