I wouldn't mind sharing the drug test reports with Social Services and on top of that I would use this to prosecute the drug users for fraud. If they have moeny for drugs they are lying to the government about how much they have and their need for government assistance.

 

This seems awfully conclusory to me.

I think this is a great idea.

 

For those "concerned about the children"....Where is your concern that these people are so poor they have to mooch off the hard working taxpayers, yet somehow spend that money on drugs? What about the children in the current system? They're not being properly taken care of as is.

 

Not all of the children in the current system are not being properly taken care of.

 

Of course, there are children that are NOT in the current system that live in a situation of drug abuse and I am concerned about those also.

This seems awfully conclusory to me.

 

It probablly is, but I have little patience for drug users or dealers. Not to mention a single pill some of them take can cost upwards of a hundred dollars.

When we take the aid away from parents that test positive for drugs how much will we end up spending when we have to put the children in the state's care?

When we take the aid away from parents that test positive for drugs how much will we end up spending when we have to put the children in the state's care?

 

Probably a lot more, but at least then you might give the kid a chance to grow up in a drug free home which is priceless to me.

Not all of the children in the current system are not being properly taken care of.

 

Of course, there are children that are NOT in the current system that live in a situation of drug abuse and I am concerned about those also.

 

We're talking about the children of drug-addicts though. If they're living off our dime, they don't have the ability to support their drug habit and the children properly. If the parents aren't using drugs, those children have nothing to worry about. I would also support them taking the children away from those that test positive as well.

Probably a lot more, but at least then you might give the kid a chance to grow up in a drug free home which is priceless to me.

 

:thumb:

Probably a lot more, but at least then you might give the kid a chance to grow up in a drug free home which is priceless to me.

 

Isn't there a long list of kids waiting to be put into a loving home? Who says these kids are going to be better off being a ward of the state?

We're talking about the children of drug-addicts though. .

 

So everyone that smokes weed is a "drug addict?"

We're talking about the children of drug-addicts though. If they're living off our dime, they don't have the ability to support their drug habit and the children properly. If the parents aren't using drugs, those children have nothing to worry about. I would also support them taking the children away from those that test positive as well.

 

I can agree with all of this. My questions stem along the line of the specifics in that removal and where we put them.

So everyone that smokes weed is a "drug addict?"

 

Everyone that uses our tax-dollars to support their weed habits instead of supporting their children is an addict as far as I'm concerned. If they were self-sufficient, it'd be entirely different.

Everyone that uses our tax-dollars to support their weed habits instead of supporting their children is an addict as far as I'm concerned. If they were self-sufficient, it'd be entirely different.

 

So the child would be better off with the state than with his mom who smokes weed?

Isn't there a long list of kids waiting to be put into a loving home? Who says these kids are going to be better off being a ward of the state?

 

This is based on the foster parents I know or have met...absolutely. Even if they stay in foster care until they are 18 they are much better off then with their natural parent/parents. I think their parents should be given the chance to clean up their act but if they can't their rights should be terminated.

So the child would be better off with the state than with his mom who smokes weed?

 

You're not getting it.

 

If the parent is poor enough to need welfare, they aren't able to support their weed habit and their children. They don't have the financial ability to do it. If they test positive for weed, it's obvious they've choosen that over caring for their child. The child isn't getting the proper care if their parents are spending their welfare checks on weed.

You're not getting it.

 

If the parent is poor enough to need welfare, they aren't able to support their weed habit and their children. They don't have the financial ability to do it. If they test positive for weed, it's obvious they've choosen that over caring for their child. The child isn't getting the proper care if their parents are spending their welfare checks on weed.

 

I'm dealing in reality. I do not agree that they cannot support their children if they smoke weed. So, again, if they are smoking weed and the children are being fed do you advocate taking away the money which will cause the child to end up as a foster child or a ward of the state? Simple question.