• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drug testing for welfare recipients suffers setback

Politicians, state employees, and federal employees receive money from the taxpayers. Why do you oppose testing them?

And what do we do with them and their children?

:coffeepap
 
Politicians, state employees, and federal employees receive money from the taxpayers. Why do you oppose testing them?

Because they are paid to perform a job / provide a service to the public. It's employment.

Welfare recipients, on the other hand, receive money predicated on the claim that they cannot support themselves because they are too helpless/disabled/whatever to obtain any money on their own. If people are using drugs while receiving welfare, then this claim is a lie and it's welfare fraud. The reality in those cases is that they don't have money and aren't able to get any because they are too busy feeding their habit. And so to give them more money/benefits when this is their pattern is to basically enable their addictions and bad habits. This does not actually help them.


You honestly couldn't figure that out on your own?
 
Last edited:
Because they are paid to perform a job / provide a service to the public. It's employment.

Welfare recipients, on the other hand, receive money predicated on the claim that they cannot support themselves because they are too helpless/disabled/whatever to obtain any money on their own.


You honestly couldn't figure that out on your own?

So, it's OK to use our funds for drugs overall. Just one group group can't?
 
Because they are paid to perform a job / provide a service to the public. It's employment.

Welfare recipients, on the other hand, receive money predicated on the claim that they cannot support themselves because they are too helpless/disabled/whatever to obtain any money on their own.


You honestly couldn't figure that out on your own?

Personally, I'd rather a swacked out druggie be on welfare and not making laws that affect my life.

But, that's just me.
 
So, it's OK to use our funds for drugs overall. Just one group group can't?

I don't care if someone is subject to a drug test as a condition of employment. I'm not opposed to that. What I'm opposed to is the idiocy that sees no difference between taxpayers compensating an employee vs. taxpayers funding the poor's drug habits.
 
Personally, I'd rather a swacked out druggie be on welfare and not making laws that affect my life.

But, that's just me.

Ok, then test the politicians too, I don't care.


In fact I'm not necessarily in support of drug testing all welfare recipients because I'm not sure that's cost-effective. If, however, a person receiving any federal assistance happens to test hot for controlled substances not prescribed to him/her (e.g. in the course of receiving medical attention), I think the benefits should stop right there. Funding people's drug habits actually directly harms them.
 
I don't care if someone is subject to a drug test as a condition of employment. I'm not opposed to that. What I'm opposed to is the idiocy that sees no difference between taxpayers compensating an employee vs. taxpayers funding the poor's drug habits.

If they have a drug habit, you're funding both. But where do we draw the line? Can we pick what they eat? Who they see socially? How much they exercise? How far do we go with this?
 
Ok, then test the politicians too, I don't care.


In fact I'm not necessarily in support of drug testing all welfare recipients because I'm not sure that's cost-effective. If, however, a person receiving any federal assistance happens to test hot for controlled substances not prescribed to him/her (e.g. in the course of receiving medical attention), I think the benefits should stop right there. Funding people's drug habits actually directly harms them.

What do you foresee as the results of such a policy?
 
If they have a drug habit, you're funding both. But where do we draw the line? Can we pick what they eat? Who they see socially? How much they exercise? How far do we go with this?

Ideally, no. No need to control people, just stop paying them to be dysfunctional.

What do you foresee as the results of such a policy?

We could speculate about that for another 50 posts, but really I see no result worse than enriching pharmaceutical companies and wasting tax revenues and scarce medical attention keeping people in an active stage of addiction.

Rock bottom is an ugly place, but I'd rather see people gain the motivation to get clean as a result of it than be protected from it and thus perpetuated in an addictive cycle by taxpayer funds. I've talked to a lot of recovered addicts who would never trade in the time they were abandoned by their friends, family and the system, broke and in DTs, because the experience finally got bad enough for something to click and they finally got inspired to live sober.
 
Back
Top Bottom