Yeah, so let's cut off everyone with a trust fund. They didn't earn that lifestyle. Also, we should completely eliminate all inheritance because they didn't earn it. Oh wait, those are mostly rich white people and not the "scum" you so happily look down upon. How come we never see this same logic of not "earning it" on fox news when applied to people who inherited companies?
I'm curious how have you earned your lifestyle? Do you pay all of your bills? Are you over 18? Why do you have such a sense of entitlement?
You realize if you were to get laid off from a company you worked at for years and diagnosed with a very serious illness that required hospitalization you could be billed hundreds of thousands of dollars? That's why we have a safety net and those are the people who should be able to use it. This scenario is very rare but it does happen, along with other terrible luck situations like this.
I'm not trying to be a dick but you show almost no lacking of reality. My solution is similar to what Clinton wanted to do but welfare goes in the form of job creation, job training, food assistance, and housing. Money that otherwise would have been handed out and used for luxury goods would now be forced to be creating human capital. Not only would it provide experience to help show/realize talent, it also provides specific channels for how people can gain employment on a long term basis.
As per thread topic.: don't agree with the illegality of drugs in the first place so I don't support this law. I believe that if a drug impedes on your performance of a job you should be fired, but it shouldn't be held as a screening tool. There are already far too many of those. Also my solution would put an end to free checks rendering it almost impossible to buy drugs in the first place.