• 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

Aunt Spiker said:
Did you forget the legal-line here?

On that note, though - being an alcoholic can get you in the hot seat, too :shrug:
Click to expand...
There is the legal line, sure, but we aren't checking for other illegal activity such as check kiting, petty theft, drunk driving, etc... things that people at this socio-economic level might be more prone to do. Only this one.

If the goal is to "save the children", as some here have been advocating, then alcohol can be just as devastating to the kid(s) as illegal drugs, in spite of it being legal. For most* I feel that the children aspect is just an emotional tool to justify their position, not really the position itself.

*- I believe tessaque (sp?) is sincere in her point-of-view, for example, and I respect that, but I still disagree with her.
 
jamesrage said:
Anyone with advance notice can pass a piss test. It isn't hard.My best fried passes his piss tests all the time.All it takes is enough time to drive to a friend or relatives house and collect urine from a friend or relative who does not do drugs and keeping that urine warm and concealed. If they made these welfare recipients all go down the welfare office to collect their welfare and food stamps on a regular bases and randomly test them on the spot I guarantee the results would be a lot higher.
Click to expand...

And you absolutely are able to prove this as being factual rather than fanciful?
 
TheNextEra said:
What makes a person using abusing drugs any less productive than someone using alcohol. What is the REAL reason behind the drug testing?

BTW, doing something illegal, doesn't make you unproductive by default. It's illegal to speed and there are millions of people that do it everyday.
Click to expand...

The real reason behind drug testing is to ensure that person doing said job or leaning on the government for said support isn't abusing illicit drugs and thus the government isn't enabling the continuation of an illegal habit.

Do you support the government funding possible illegal drug habits for people who can't buy diapers for their babies or something?

What's your real issue with the government drug-testing these people here?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The real reason behind drug testing is to ensure that person doing said job or leaning on the government for said support isn't abusing illicit drugs and thus the government isn't enabling the continuation of an illegal habit.

Do you support the government funding possible illegal drug habits for people who can't buy diapers for their babies or something?

What's your real issue with the government drug-testing these people here?
Click to expand...

The fact it will coat billions of dollars with no clear benefit is a pretty good reason.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The real reason behind drug testing is to ensure that person doing said job or leaning on the government for said support isn't abusing illicit drugs and thus the government isn't enabling the continuation of an illegal habit.
Click to expand...
I won't discount that that is part of it, but I question that that is the *real* reason behind it. I believe the real reason is mindless political posturing to appeal to the mindless and shortsighted "tough on crime" and "don't spend MY money other than in ways which I think is right" crowds.
 
kenvin said:
Politicians get public money too. The point of the amendment was to point out hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Not true. The point was to ammend the bill in such a way that it would not pass. There is a difference in a salary and a welfare check. The legislators are elected by the people to do a certain job and to receive a certain salary. It is called work- regardless of how good or bad they are at it.

Then there is the welfare check, which is not earned money. It is charity- and you have to qualify for it. Being drug free is just a common sense qualification.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The real reason behind drug testing is to ensure that person doing said job or leaning on the government for said support isn't abusing illicit drugs and thus the government isn't enabling the continuation of an illegal habit.
Click to expand...

And you don't think people on welfare do the same with alcohol? Again, if you are worried about a habit, then why isn't alcohol done as well? An illegal habit is the same as a legal habit in the way they are both HABITS and are a possible detriment to the recipient trying to find work.


Aunt Spiker said:
Do you support the government funding possible illegal drug habits for people who can't buy diapers for their babies or something?
Click to expand...

No more than I do alcohol, but the government doesn't seem to care if people that can't buy diapers for their babies are abusing it.

Aunt Spiker said:
What's your real issue with the government drug-testing these people here?
Click to expand...

Consistency. If you are concerned about abuse, then all MAJOR methods of abuse should be looked at but that is not the case with this bill. So that is why I am against it. It is just demonizing pot and that's it. It serves no purpose since the majority of people abuse alcohol over illegal drugs anyway.
 
kamikaze483 said:
There is a difference in a salary and a welfare check.
Click to expand...

So you're saying tax dollars to pay a politicians drug habit is better than using tax dollars to pay a welfare recipient's drug habit?

How so? In both instances TAXPAYER'S money is being used to buy drugs.
 
TheNextEra said:
And you don't think people on welfare do the same with alcohol? Again, if you are worried about a habit, then why isn't alcohol done as well? An illegal habit is the same as a legal habit in the way they are both HABITS and are a possible detriment to the recipient trying to find work.




No more than I do alcohol, but the government doesn't seem to care if people that can't buy diapers for their babies are abusing it.



Consistency. If you are concerned about abuse, then all MAJOR methods of abuse should be looked at but that is not the case with this bill. So that is why I am against it. It is just demonizing pot and that's it. It serves no purpose since the majority of people abuse alcohol over illegal drugs anyway.
Click to expand...

Honestly, if aid for the poor were organized in such a way to lift people out of poverty, with active management, preventing alcohol abuse, etc.
Very few would actually use it.
 
There is a difference in a salary and a welfare check.
Click to expand...

Both are using tax payer money. That is the bottom line.

I support welfare recipients being drug tested. I support politicians being drug tested. Anyone who receives a regular check from tax payer dollars should be subject to it. I don't want some guy who is or was recently high on meth making decisions concerning our country's laws. I dont want a teacher who is high teaching my children. I dont want my tax dollars being handed away to people who are going to waste it away on drugs.
 
TheNextEra said:
So you're saying tax dollars to pay a politicians drug habit is better than using tax dollars to pay a welfare recipient's drug habit?

How so? In both instances TAXPAYER'S money is being used to buy drugs.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes. Because when the paycheck is written to the Senator, it becomes's the Senator's money to do with as he/she wishes- because he/she earned it. It is no longer the taxpayer's money.

However, that was not what I was arguing above. The original legislation in this instance was a welfare reform bill. It would have helped cut down on misuses of welfare money. The ammendment had nothing to do with welfare reform. It was not a good faith effort to come to a compromise and save some tax payer dollars. It was an effort to cloud the issue- as if a state salary for legislators should have the same qualifiers as a welfare check. One was earned, one was not.
 
kamikaze483 said:
Actually, yes. Because when the paycheck is written to the Senator, it becomes's the Senator's money to do with as he/she wishes- because he/she earned it. It is no longer the taxpayer's money.

However, that was not what I was arguing above. The original legislation in this instance was a welfare reform bill. It would have helped cut down on misuses of welfare money. The ammendment had nothing to do with welfare reform. It was not a good faith effort to come to a compromise and save some tax payer dollars. It was an effort to cloud the issue- as if a state salary for legislators should have the same qualifiers as a welfare check. One was earned, one was not.
Click to expand...

So state emplyees shouldn't have to take drug tests? Teachers no?
 
Actually, yes. Because when the paycheck is written to the Senator, it becomes's the Senator's money to do with as he/she wishes- because he/she earned it. It is no longer the taxpayer's money.
Click to expand...

Same could be said about welfare recipients. That doesn't matter. The Senator is a public servant. They make and amend laws. They are the leaders of our country. They should not be out shooting smack because they earned the money. As a public servant, put their by the public, to serve our interests, being paid by our tax dollars, I see no problem with them being required to prove they are clean and sober when making these decisions.
 
kamikaze483 said:
Actually, yes. Because when the paycheck is written to the Senator, it becomes's the Senator's money to do with as he/she wishes- because he/she earned it. It is no longer the taxpayer's money.

However, that was not what I was arguing above. The original legislation in this instance was a welfare reform bill. It would have helped cut down on misuses of welfare money. The ammendment had nothing to do with welfare reform. It was not a good faith effort to come to a compromise and save some tax payer dollars. It was an effort to cloud the issue- as if a state salary for legislators should have the same qualifiers as a welfare check. One was earned, one was not.
Click to expand...
You're being disingenuous by separating the pre-check money of the welfare recipient and the post-check money of the Senator.
 
danarhea said:
So here is the question we all want to know - What do the Indiana lawmakers have to hide? If drug testing is good enough for mothers and children who are receiving food stamps, then it is damn well good enough for lawmakers too.

Article is here.

Discussion?
Click to expand...

Short lived stunt....It was torpedoed by a provision for breathalyzer tests inserted...However, the measure passed today.....

The Indiana House passed a bill 73-23 today that would establish a pilot program for drug testing for people who receive welfare assistance from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

snip

Legislators also would face drug testing under an amendment approved Monday. Half of the legislature would face random drug testing during each session, and the House speaker and Senate president pro tempore could also order drug testing of a particular member.

Indiana House OKs bill to drug-test welfare recipients | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com
Click to expand...

Looks like it is going to be a reality, and it should be.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Short lived stunt....It was torpedoed by a provision for breathalyzer tests inserted...However, the measure passed today.....



Looks like it is going to be a reality, and it should be.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Why should it be? Perhaps we shoudl drug test CEO's before they take a bailout or recieve corporate welfare. I wonder how many would fail a drug test?
 
kenvin said:
So state emplyees shouldn't have to take drug tests? Teachers no?
Click to expand...

No one said that! Go back and think about what the original intent of the legislation was. It was to make reforms to the welfare program, with the home of reducing abuses to the welfare program.

Drug tests for teachers, legislators, or state employees- personnel issues regarding state employees is an entirely separate issue that is not even part of this thread. This is way more than thread drift. This is changing the subject.
 
Boo Radley said:
Why should it be? Perhaps we shoudl drug test CEO's before they take a bailout or recieve corporate welfare. I wonder how many would fail a drug test?
Click to expand...


Hey, I got no problem with that...Chances are that the people you hold such disdain for don't either...See, I have to have random drug testing for my job, I think everyone should.


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
Why should it be? Perhaps we shoudl drug test CEO's before they take a bailout or recieve corporate welfare. I wonder how many would fail a drug test?
Click to expand...

My guess is that less than 1% (probably much, much less) of CEO's would test positive for illegal drugs. My guess is that a much, much higher percentage of welfare applicants would test positive. This is because a huge percenage of addicts are poor or penniless. This is not stereotyping. This is a symptom of addiction. If almost all drug addicts are poor, almost all addicts will apply for welfare... and almost all would fail the drug test.

Ignore the problem, blame others. Good tactic.
 
kamikaze483 said:
Actually, yes. Because when the paycheck is written to the Senator, it becomes's the Senator's money to do with as he/she wishes- because he/she earned it. It is no longer the taxpayer's money.

However, that was not what I was arguing above. The original legislation in this instance was a welfare reform bill. It would have helped cut down on misuses of welfare money. The ammendment had nothing to do with welfare reform. It was not a good faith effort to come to a compromise and save some tax payer dollars. It was an effort to cloud the issue- as if a state salary for legislators should have the same qualifiers as a welfare check. One was earned, one was not.
Click to expand...

Earned it? What planet are you from? How have they earned it? As far as I can see, Congress has done just about nothing. At least when people on welfare get their money, you know they aren't working, but when Congresscritters are expected to do the nation's business, and goof off and play political games instead, it is orders of magnitude worse, because WE EXPECT THEM TO DO THE DAMN JOB WE ARE PAYING THEM TO DO!! This makes them the worst kind of welfare loafers, even ahead of the banksters, who we gave money to so they could pay themselves bonuses they didn't deserve.

Yea, drug test the sons of bitches (and daughters of bitches too - LOL).
 
Last edited:
kamikaze483 said:
My guess is that less than 1% (probably much, much less) of CEO's would test positive for illegal drugs. My guess is that a much, much higher percentage of welfare applicants would test positive. This is because a huge percenage of addicts are poor or penniless. This is not stereotyping. This is a symptom of addiction. If almost all drug addicts are poor, almost all addicts will apply for welfare... and almost all would fail the drug test.

Ignore the problem, blame others. Good tactic.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure. And you don't have to be an addict to use. Just saying. ;)
 
j-mac said:
Hey, I got no problem with that...Chances are that the people you hold such disdain for don't either...See, I have to have random drug testing for my job, I think everyone should.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I don't. Don't need it either. But you're not arguing for everyone. You're arguing one select group, and not even everyone who takes tax dollars.
 
danarhea said:
So here is the question we all want to know - What do the Indiana lawmakers have to hide? If drug testing is good enough for mothers and children who are receiving food stamps, then it is damn well good enough for lawmakers too.

Article is here.

Discussion?
Click to expand...

I think lawmakers who get medical coverage as part of their jobs should have to have regular cholesterol and blood pressure tests. And they are banned from smoking and eating fatty foods.
 
BTW name this fallacy: If A is ok then B is ok. Notice that neither A or B is validated in that example.

So the question is why is it ok to drug test anyone? A drug test is unlikely to confirm that the person will be high during the time that they are working. And in a similar fashion a positive drug test does not provide proof that a person on welfare used welfare money to pay for drugs. In fact one can grow weed and not use any welfare money to do it.

It is also a well established fact that people in all walks of life have been known to do drugs. And it also a known fact that alcohol is much worse class of drug than weed. Yet no law ever addresses alcohol even though it leads in total sales in the US among drugs.

What it comes down to isnt the drugs but the structure of the welfare system that needs attention. Drugs are just a distraction.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom