Adults applying for welfare assistance should undergo drug screening

Thanks for accepting. My only stipulation in my first post was that the first round was for acceptance only, so any information you presented in the first round should be completely disregarded by the voters.The Purpose of WelfareWelfare assistance was originally meant to act as s sort of safety net to aid people into getting back into the job market. As such, the money given to welfare recipients from the government (In the case of the United States), was meant to be spent on basic necessities for life, such as food, water, and shelter. This money's purpose is to get an individual back on their feet so they can search for a new job and get themselves into a position where they no longer rely on welfare assistance. In short, "Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence" - Ronald Reagan. [1] Welfare recipients on addictive drugs voluntarily remove themselves from the job marketAlthough drug testing is not required by employers for most jobs, most employers choose to spend the extra money regardless because of the financial toll taken on private businesses by loss of productivity due to drugs and alcohol. In fact, roughly 84% of all private employers are now requiring drug tests [2]. As one can expect, it is extremely difficult for one who is a frequent drug user to acquire a job in today's market. If you keep in mind the purpose of welfare (to put oneself back into the job market), it's easy to see that drug abuse completely contradicts the welfare system in its entirety.Taxpayers are currently paying for the drug addictions of others.By allowing drug and alcohol users to receive welfare assistance, taxpayers are effectively paying for someone else's addiction to substances. This payment may be indirect, meaning that people on welfare assistance receive money for food and thus have more money to spend on drugs, or direct, meaning that people on welfare assistance receive money that they spend entirely on their drug addictions. In either case, it is completely unfair to ask that taxpayers who actually work for a living give up a portion of their earnings to help someone else get high a few more times. People who are abusing the welfare system should not be granted any money at all, this way taxpayers wouldn't have to contribute as much as they already do."Taxpayers have a right to insist that their financial help not only goes to those who truly need it but that it's not wasted on frivolous or self-destructive activities such as drug use" - Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow in domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation [3]. Denying welfare assistance to individuals with addictions encourages less-abusive behaviorBy denying financial aid to individuals who test positive for substance abuse, it encourages those individuals to identify the problem and receive help for it with the incentive of receiving aid in the future. Requiring these drug tests will give addicts encouragement to improve their lives, support their own families, and make positive contributions to society instead of draining taxpayer resources to support an unhealthy drug addiction. If you had a friend that was desperately in need of money, but also had the knowledge that this friend would spend any money he receives on their drug addiction, would you honestly choose to continue to support this addiction that is ruining his life, or would you encourage that friend to instead get help and better his life? To me the answer is clear, drug addicts should not be receiving taxpayer funds to spend on more drugs. Citations:1. http://www.pbs.org... 2. http://www.theledger.com... 3. http://www.usnews.com...