“Hey, I have to be drug tested to hold a job at XYZ Corporation. Why shouldn’t welfare applicants have to be drug tested, too? I pay the taxes that fund those lazy bums’ welfare checks, after all” (Human Health Services). Many people who live paycheck to paycheck to make ends meet have similar views. Wondering why all of their paychecks are smaller than what they should be. The answer is welfare and the funding for people who receive government funding. Although they live paycheck to paycheck welfare is not an option for them. It is not fair to taxpayers to pay for some people to buy drugs and illegal substances whilst they are working just to pay the bills. 3.6% of welfare recipients in Missouri were tested for drugs prior to receiving welfare and tested positive were denied welfare benefits. Does the 1-2% of people make a difference…show more content… Welfare helps people get back on their feet and look for work to eventually be taken off the funding. If applicants were denied welfare some believe that there would be an increase of homelessness and unemployment. Although, how can their be unemployment if these individuals are not seeking work? Assistance is granted when someone is unable to find a job at the moment and that need help before they can find said job. What if a person uses the extra money to sell or buy drugs and still not seek work? If students can receive free or reduced lunches and some be denied, so can welfare applicants. A student may be denied free and reduced lunch because their family doesn't make a small enough income even if they struggle to make ends meet. The same should be said for welfare applicants. If you do not make the guideline for funding you should not receive it. Free and reduced lunch has so many stipulations for assistance but, you can still be using drugs and receive money from the taxpayers. Recipients will continue to be on assistance and the program will be abused to their
