Image via Wikipedia
As a single mother who had to collect welfare benefits at intervals while her children were growing up, I can honestly tell everyone that Welfare Recipient does not automatically equate to Drug Addict. As my daughters grew up, I was neither drunk all of the time nor became a drug addict. It was not a necessary part of life.
I am also able to safely assure you that most of the welfare recipients I have known throughout my life were neither of these types of people either. As a matter-of-fact, I have known more non-welfare recipients with these issues than I have known welfare recipients.
Seriously, I was too busy doing mom and work related stuff to drink much, or do much of anything else. When I did drink, it was usually paid for by someone else.
Why? Because I was on welfare. There wasn’t much money to waste on that kind of stuff. I thank my family and friends for their kindness in taking me out sometimes, or sharing what they had on hand once in a while. But drinking wasn’t my life, and neither were drugs. All things in moderation, as they say.
I did smoke for a number of years. I quit just over 8 years ago, just before people were having to pay $2.00 for a cheap pack of cigarettes. Most of the cigarettes I smoked were purchased by others, though I am guilty of purchasing my own as well. Of course, I wasn’t on welfare the whole time I was smoking. And through much of that time I was earning my own money as well.
I don’t care if people on welfare smoke, but I do agree that people should not be wasting money on drugs and alcohol every day. I feel this way about non-welfare recipients as well. I feel that there are far better things we can all be doing. That is my own personal opinion. Not everyone agrees. Not everyone has to. Single parenthood is the single most difficult thing I have done in my life. Those cigarettes likely saved me from a number of possible breakdowns. Smoking just helps sometimes.
Now, I want to touch upon the issue of drug testing all welfare recipients in order for them to receive benefits or continue to receive them. I am offended by such a notion. Why? Because I am not an addict. People like to bring up that places of work require testing, so welfare recipients should be forced to in order to get their money. I disagree.
- First, not all places of business do this. Many do not. I have never actually been drug tested, and I have worked at a variety of places over the years.
- Second, being a parent is not a job… it is parenting. Welfare recipients aren’t being paid to work, but to aid in the raising of their children. If we go down this route, then ALL parents should have to be drug tested. We are expected to begin work at some point in order to live. At least, those of us who are healthy are expected to do this.
- Third, my state doses addicts. These people are given the right to be on drugs. If you give them this right, then you can’t take away the money they need to support their families. Doesn’t work. Why? Well, if all workplaces decide to test for drugs, then these people will not be able to work. They will need to be on welfare because the state insists that they should stay on drugs. This is not meant to be offensive to drug addicts (at least not from my part). I know people who dose, whom I love dearly.
- Fourth, it is not financially feasible to test all welfare recipients for drugs. It will cost the state or federal government – or the tax payers – even more money. Not a good idea. There is already not enough money.
On a similar note. The Kentucky post going around on FaceBook is a proposal. NOT a law. For more information, go here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kentucky.asp
I welcome intelligent conversation in the comments of this post. Any rudeness will not be sent through. I do monitor all comments before they get published.
Shannon
Welfare recipient does not = drug addict and being employed at a job also does not = drug addict but to touch on each of your bullet points at the end of the article:
Many workplaces do administer drug testing upon hire, especially for jobs where there are safety risks for the employees or clients/patients/etc. BUT the prospective employee must be told beforehand, during the interview process, that it is part of the hiring process that goes along with applying, interviewing, and then after hire orientation and training. Subsequent drug testing usually is upon suspicion of drug use at the workplace or a drug conviction.
Parenting is actually considered by many people to be the hardest, most underpaid, sometimes thankless, but usually most rewarding job there is. Whether or not we call it a job, if the government decides to test parents who collect welfare, then maybe it would be fair to test all parents. Then maybe the government should also pay all parents a stipend to raise their children. Maybe there shouldn’t be an income limit for welfare, just a sliding scale based on household income. But then where would the money come from for this?
Whether we call it a job or not, becoming a parent is something a parent has chosen to do be it an accidental or planned pregnancy. Pregnancy has long been preventable. Although you hear “it takes a village to raise a child”, it is the primary responsibility of the parent, not society, to provide their child with shelter, food, clothing, etc.
But in a way, you are right to say parenting is not a job. If it were like any other job where people care for children, there would be extensive training, fingerprinting, licensing, etc. before one could become a parent just like one would have to go through to be a foster/adoptive parent or a teacher.
“Dosed” addicts, I assume means addicts being treated for addiction under a doctor’s care? If so, that means they are prescribed a drug by a doctor, so by law, that drug showing up on a test (at the expected level) would not be considered positive as pointed out above. I’m not sure on this, but I don’t think the employer would have to know what an employee is on, I think that’s between the employee and a third-party administering the test who would verify with the employee’s doctor. But I would have to research that.
Posted by LF | Sunday, January 30, 2011, 12:58 amI really do not know the legalities of the dosing clinics. How employers have to deal with it and whatnot. I just used it as an example, and to make sure we all keep in mind that there are different situations for every circumstance.
I do know that not all childcare providers are fingerprinted and whatnot. I owned my own childcare business for years, up until a year-and-a-half ago, and never had to go through that. They checked my license and record with DHS, but that is no guarantee of anything. That only checks what people have been caught for accused of. And I wasn’t licensed. There are guidelines. I was allowed to take care of as many of my relatives children as I wanted at once, but could only care for two children that were unrelated to me at once. However… I often cared for more than the two, with DHHS paying me for them. So, it depends.
My point is that they never decided we had to be drug tested or watched very closely to care for other peoples children. Why should we have to be to in order to care for our own? I would never do anything like drink or anything around other peoples’ children of course. The parents trusted me because they new me, if when I wasn’t related to them. And my children did not grow up where drugs were prevailent.
Does this make sense?
Posted by Shannon Buck | Sunday, January 30, 2011, 11:14 amIn my last paragraph I say “as pointed out above”. That’s an error. It was a reiteration with more detail and referred to a part I cut out to condense. It was just redundant.
Posted by LF | Sunday, January 30, 2011, 1:02 am