Is government assisted welfare a "right" or a "privilege"?

Thinking about the substance use thing; I guess that all depends on whether you think of it as an illness or an addiction, or as poor moral character and criminal. Depending on what side the state define a problem to be (mad or bad) will have an effect on how they decide to deal with it. At present, addiction itself is seen as an illness in the UK (so you receive incapacity benefits) but if you commit a criminal offence because of it you will be sentenced to treatment. In general, it's seen as an illness which is why people are 'entitled' to benefits. What you're proposing is a different conceptualisation of addiction.

Historically, if you look at welfare, it's something that was intended for everyone. Criminals can receive it (if not in prison, so community service), mad people, children (via their parents), the elderly. . . If it's decided it's a 'privilege', we'll be changing it's meaning. How does one become worthy of receiving it? What would happen to those who no longer get it? In this exmaple specifically, what would the consequences be on the child whose parent has no money because they have an addiction but income is further reduced by the state; I suspect the child would be taken into care sooner and the parents would engage in (more) criminal activity. Outcomes for looked after children are not good.

Mandatory drug testing is just another form of social control and I find the concept unnecessarily invasive, demeaning and insulting.

I agree with the other poster who claimed it was neither "right" nor "privilege".

A privilege is usually a a permission or a protection which is granted by an authority. While this definition could be extended to a benefit, it doesn't quite fit the spirit of the common connotation. Welfare would be more of a government-administered charity.

What it bears NO semblance to is a RIGHT. In fact I have to laugh at the idea anyone would try to make such an absurd claim! Indeed, I would love to hear what rationale they use to make such an argument.

What is worse is when people try to use the concept of it being a "right" to avoid being held legally accountable. In my opinion, they should be held to additional standards, not just testing for illegal substances. The people decided to grant certain people this money. By all rights, the people should be able to decide what criteria are required to receive it.

The "right" people have is to refuse welfare if they don't like the requirements.

If there's anything we need to fix in regards to extraneous expenses, it's excess welfare. The teabaggers would do better worrying about welfare reform rather than trying to take away benefits from teachers and money from schools.

I am all for it, even though I don't think it will help the children of drug addicts. I'm not so sure that their children should suffer the consequences of starving because of their bad choices. I think they should leave drug testing out of the food stamp benefits part of it and only use it for cash assistance. I live in Florida, and Governor Rick Scott is already facing a big opposition to this. I don't know enough about it, but if it helps keep people drug free, then so be it. I am not sure at this time if I consider it a right or a privilege.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott also had 500 Department of Family and Children employees laid off for budget cuts. I wonder how many children will suffer because of this?

It's definitely a privilege and they should have to pass a drug test to receive benefits. I'm not sure about other states but in GA, people receiving benefits and housing assistance can do 8 hours of volunteer work *a month* at places like Habitat for Humanity Resale Stores or the Animal Shelter to help "pay" for their benefits. I wish I could work 8 hours a month and have a check and food stamps sent to me and get free housing.

There are single parents out there trying to work and help their families who can't get food stamps to make sure they have enough food or medical assistance to be able to go to the doctor because they are working, while others get every benefit offered by sitting on their butts and having more kids for us taxpayers to support.

I think EVERY person receiving govt assistance should be drug tested every month. If you fail, you don't get your check, food stamps, free housing!!!!

It is not a "right", however, I'd hardly call it a privilege, either.

They should do a lot more than drug testing, though. There should be a volunteer task force checking up on these people, too. This has come up in many discussions with friends, and I know MOST tax payers would voluntarily check and make sure these people are truly disabled, not smoking it, not drinking it, not doing drugs with it, etc...

Welfare is neither a right nor a privilege. It is a charitable benefit to the destitute and underprivileged individuals who have no other means of support. Unfortunately it has often been misused by able bodied individuals who could work for a living. IMHO, the program should be given over to the faith based organizations to administer out of their sizable coffers. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that the function of the federal government is to engage in charity work. "Promoting the general welfare" is not the same as promoting welfare.

I recall some years ago a policy (or perhaps just a proposed policy) that said that if you applied to live in federal government-supplied housing ("the projects") you would have to agree to random police searches of the apartment (that the government owned) so the police could look for drugs/guns whenever they wanted. If you objected to the policy, you were entirely free to live elsewhere.

I also seem to recall that it did not fly.

It sounds good. But what happens to the children of drug addicts? This isn't going to stop drug addiction. Will it go hand in hand with some sort of form of drug rehab?

I don't believe children should live with parents who are drug addicts. It would be better to remove the children, thus forcing those parents who care about their children to consider the options. I'd like to see too, drugs addicts being offered (bribed? who cares?) sterilisation, in return for welfare.

Welfare should be a safety net, not a hammock.

But basically, the children of addicts are suffering already. Far better to remove them.

It is a privilege. If welfare people would give up their entitlement mentality, they might actually take responsibility for themselves and make something of their lives. Why anyone would oppose this law is beyond me. They apparently think that children are best raised by crackheads.

It's a privilege, as is voting. Welfare recipients should also not be able to vote until they are off government assistance, as they are more likely to vote for the 'take from the working class, give to the bums' wealth-redistribution candidates.