Dan-O,

As Aunty M mentioned, unemployment benefits are not indefinite. See, I don't care if someone uses drugs or is a drug addict. That's their personal choice and none of my business. If a drug user does his or her job, why should I care that they use drugs? However, if a person cannot do their job, whether because of drug use or some other reason, fire them. Pretty simple. People fired for cause aren't supposed to qualify for unemployment benefits, but I understand that they nonetheless often do. But that's a different problem that should be solved in and of itself, and not confused with "giving unemployment benefits to drug users."

As further evidence of American stupidity, I submit that altogether too many people have this bass ackwards idea that we can change drug use patterns in society by passing more laws. But the track record is absolutely clear that it makes no difference and has only succeeded in adding to government spending by over $105,000,000,000 per year in 1995 dollars. Flat out total legalization would have little effect on drug use in the U.S., except that heroin use most likely would decline significantly, and pot use might, maybe, possibly, potentially, increase slightly. Most people's drug use decisions are not base on laws about drug use. Believing otherwise is delusional at best, or misinformed, or stupid in many cases.

If you want people off welfare, support policies that make welfare recipients better off by getting off welfare.

If you want people off unemployment, support policies that add more jobs to the economic stream.

Negative incentives like drug testing for welfare and unemployment are excellent examples of shallow, nearly dimwitted, thinking, and far more likely than not are doomed to failure should they be used. There's gobs of social data showing what works and doesn't work when dealing with people, but the American aversion to science-based decision making pretty much assures a continuation of ineffectual policy level decision making.

Sg