We should require welfare recipients to take a drug test

Someone on my FB feed had posted a picture with a caption saying "Like if you think we should have mandatory drug tests for welfare recipients" or something close to that.
I replied:
I can't "Like".
A. I don't think drug tests should be mandatory for anyone, anywhere, any time. If an employer, with no coercion from government, chooses to require them as part of the conditions for a voluntary relationship, there can, logically, be nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of options for people who don't want to be subjected to drug testing in a voluntary society. One not based on the threat of the initiation of violence.
B. There should be no welfare recipients. There should be no one receiving property that was taken from another by the initiation or threat of initiation, of violence. In effect, that is receiving stolen property.
C. Welfare recipients exist as a result of government intervention into the economy in the form of licensing and regulations, none of which exist to actually protect the consumer. They only exist to grow the state.
D. I do not mean to abuse the theory of the victim mentality, but in a sense, these people are victims.
One for instance, just to bring some perspective. A young woman is really great at doing nails or styling hair, and could make a decent living at it, but can't afford to go to school to take a test to get a license.

Then I accidentally hit Enter without shift. That "commits" the reply.
I was going to edit it, then I decided to just add another reply, then I decided I should just post it to my blog, Here.

Oh, and if I choose to use drugs, do you, acting on your own as an individual person, have the right or authority to prevent me from "using" drugs or from trading something of MINE with another person in exchange for drugs?
How do you come by that right?
If you do not have that right or authority, in a REPRESENTATIVE government, how can your representative, your delegate, your proxy, obtain that right or authority?
You can only delegate to your representative an action you could take on your own. And generally, if someone would have to choose whether or not to risk his life defending himself from your attempts to prevent him from taking an action, then you do not have the right or authority to make that claim.
I cannot understand how, in a society supposedly based on this,

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..."

people can have grown to think that somehow voting changes that relationship.
How can you vote yourself any right or authority you do not already possess?
How can you say that because a large enough gang called this taking of your property or pushing you around a "law" that that assertion somehow is able to supercede the natural law stated above?
How can you and I be equal if you can take my stuff or tell me what I can't or must do?
No matter who actually understands them, and I don't think most of the founders really understood what they were saying, the principles don't change.
All men are created equal is practically axiomatic. Please tell me what is a more fundamental principle than that, which could logically negate it?
Unless someone can state a more fundamental principle, that actually negates "all men are created equal," and it does not yield to contradictions; or if there are contradictions found with "all men are created equal," someone can find the question that yields the contradictions, then we can work to find an answer that resolves whatever the contradiction is.
Because I can immediately find a contradiction in calling something a "law" that claims to provide authority to violate the rights of another.