12-04-2013, 08:52 PM
(12-04-2013, 05:43 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: It won't be just an idea if they make it a law. It should be part of the deal for welfare recipients. It is not discrimination as clearly there is a strong link to the misuse of these funds and what they are to be used for. If it helps saves a child from a life of extreme poverty, neglect and abuse, I say bring it on.
The problem is that those children removed from their parents would go into foster care.
I don't know anything about foster care in Australia, aussie. Here in the US, there's certainly no guarantee that the child wouldn't simply be placed in a foster family with its own issues of equal or greater significance (drugs or otherwise); a family wherein the guardians are motivated to foster parent for the government paycheck only. Not all foster homes are like that, but it's a crapshoot.
So, you could be separating a child from his siblings and bio parents without improving, maybe even worsening, his lot in life.
Honestly, I think a higher percentage of the Congresspersons tested for substances would fail as compared to welfare recipients. Congresspersons can afford to indulge in drugs and alcohol without typically having to sacrifice food, shelter and clothing to do so.
The issue of drug abuse (prescription or illegal) is widespread. It seems to be equally prevalent amongst those of us who fall somewhere between welfare recipients and US Congresspersons in terms of lifestyle and wealth. I wouldn't like to see the government testing the general population either.
IDK. I think we here in the US have more than enough drug laws that aren't working and a disturbingly high percentage of our population is already incarcerated as it stands.