• 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!

Should Drug Tests Be Required to Get Welfare Benefits?

Should drug tests be required to get welfare benefits?

  • Yes

    Votes: 39 75.0%

  • No

    Votes: 13 25.0%
  • Total voters
    52
ksu_aviator said:
20% admit to it.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED463392.pdf
Click to expand...

According to the article, "although almost 20% of welfare recipients report recent use of some illicit drug during the year, only a small minority satisfy the criteria for drug or alcohol dependence." So that's a bit misleading; is the guy who smoked a joint 6 months ago really in the same category as a meth addict? And I'd be curious to know how that 20% figure compares with the population as a whole...that doesn't really sound that high to me.

In any case, I fail to see how taking away the benefits from drug addicts will help the situation. You need to resolve the underlying problem (the addiction) before you can address the symptom (the lack of a job). A better approach would be to help addicts get treatment for their problem so that they can get their life in order.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
According to the article, "although almost 20% of welfare recipients report recent use of some illicit drug during the year, only a small minority satisfy the criteria for drug or alcohol dependence." So that's a bit misleading; is the guy who smoked a joint 6 months ago really in the same category as a meth addict? And I'd be curious to know how that 20% figure compares with the population as a whole...that doesn't really sound that high to me.

In any case, I fail to see how taking away the benefits from drug addicts will help the situation. You need to resolve the underlying problem (the addiction) before you can address the symptom (the lack of a job). A better approach would be to help addicts get treatment for their problem so that they can get their life in order.
Click to expand...

Well since there arent any drug tests for Welfare at the moment.....thats 20% who "admitted" to drug use....... 20% who admitted the US Taxpayer pays for their drug habits.

.........but its akin to asking the prison population who is innocent......
.
.
.
 
Kandahar said:
According to the article, "although almost 20% of welfare recipients report recent use of some illicit drug during the year, only a small minority satisfy the criteria for drug or alcohol dependence." So that's a bit misleading; is the guy who smoked a joint 6 months ago really in the same category as a meth addict? And I'd be curious to know how that 20% figure compares with the population as a whole...that doesn't really sound that high to me.
Click to expand...

Half of it is marijuana. It says on page 13 that 21% have used drugs in the past year. If you eliminate marijuana, then it's 10%. It continues to say that if you were to throw off people who are dependent, you will get about 3% of welfare recipients. Yeah, 3% is really a large faction.

Is all the money we spend on this, the larger amount of government surveillance of the people, really worth 3% of welfare recipients?
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Oh I read, maybe you need to read what you wrote.



What did you say. Stop with the dishonesty and tell me what you said. You didn't say that a large faction uses drugs. No you did not. You said "There is a large faction of people that are on welfare because they can't get a job DUE TO THEIR DEPENDENCY". See how those two statements are not equal? I can't believe that in this short amount of posts you want to engage so dishonestly in the debate to try to change what you said just a few posts ago. No, you said there are a large faction of people on welfare who are dependent upon those drugs. The link you posted said that the number on people who can be classified as dependent on drugs and/or alcohol is a SMALL MINORITY. A small minority is not a large faction as you had laid claim to at the start.

There's nothing wrong with disagreement and opinion, but outright lying after you've been corrected and engaging in intellectually dishonest posting will not advance the argument. Please stop.
Click to expand...

I never lied. What part of this do you not get? If you are on drugs you can't get a job. 20% are on drugs, therefore they can't get a job because the can't/won't stop their drug use. That is dependency. When the drug use becomes more important than the necessities...that is dependency. They may or may not be physically dependent, but they are definitely socially dependent on drugs.

Now I turn your quote back on you:

There's nothing wrong with disagreement and opinion, but outright lying after you've been corrected and engaging in intellectually dishonest posting will not advance the argument. Please stop.
Click to expand...

You misrepresented my position. You are being intellectually dishonest. You are the one demonizing me for having a difference of opinion. How quick you jump on the name calling and belittling band wagon when you knew not of which you spoke.
 
Yes, welfare is supposed to be given to people that need to to survive, it was not intended to fuel habits which lead to unproductivity.
 
Lets see I drive for a living and I am subject to a drug test every year and at random and can be spot checked on the highway. In regards to alcohol consumption my legal limit has been reduced to .04 and not .08, holding a CDL applies to me both at work and off work. There are many other area's of the work place that are also subject to drug test. Now that being said I think if some one is going to get free money from the taxpayer who earned it, a simple requirement of being drug tested is not asking for a lot.
 
ksu_aviator said:
I never lied. What part of this do you not get? If you are on drugs you can't get a job. 20% are on drugs, therefore they can't get a job because the can't/won't stop their drug use. That is dependency. When the drug use becomes more important than the necessities...that is dependency. They may or may not be physically dependent, but they are definitely socially dependent on drugs.

Now I turn your quote back on you:



You misrepresented my position. You are being intellectually dishonest. You are the one demonizing me for having a difference of opinion. How quick you jump on the name calling and belittling band wagon when you knew not of which you spoke.
Click to expand...

You need to read. It does not say that 20% cannot get jobs because of their drug use. It says that 20% have said to have used drugs sometime in the past year, that half of that is marijuana, and that those who are actually drug dependent are a SMALL MINORITY. That's what was said. So when you said "If you are on drugs you can't get a job. 20% are on drugs, therefore they can't get a job because the can't/won't stop their drug use." that's a lie. First off, it's based of a false premise that if you're on drugs you cannot get a job. There are a lot of drug users out there with jobs. So barring even that stupid comment. 20% have used drugs, therefore they can't get a job because they can't/won't stop their drug use is a lie too. And NOT supported in your link. You are actually saying the opposite of what is said in the link you gave. You said they can't get job because of their dependency, you imply it here as destructive behavior due to drug us is one of the conditions of dependency. But the article clearly states that addicts, those dependent upon the drug/alcohol are a SMALL MINORITY. 3% in fact.

A little honesty is all I'm asking for here; it shouldn't be that tough.
 
deltabtry said:
Lets see I drive for a living and I am subject to a drug test every year and at random and can be spot checked on the highway. In regards to alcohol consumption my legal limit has been reduced to .04 and not .08, holding a CDL applies to me both at work and off work. There are many other area's of the work place that are also subject to drug test. Now that being said I think if some one is going to get free money from the taxpayer who earned it, a simple requirement of being drug tested is not asking for a lot.
Click to expand...

How much is this worth to you? If we huck these people onto the street, do you see perhaps even bigger problems spawning?
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Yes, welfare is supposed to be given to people that need to to survive, it was not intended to fuel habits which lead to unproductivity.
Click to expand...

Is it worth it? How much money are we going to spend going after that 3-5% of welfare recipients?
 
Ikari said:
You need to read. It does not say that 20% cannot get jobs because of their drug use. It says that 20% have said to have used drugs sometime in the past year, that half of that is marijuana, and that those who are actually drug dependent are a SMALL MINORITY. That's what was said. So when you said "If you are on drugs you can't get a job. 20% are on drugs, therefore they can't get a job because the can't/won't stop their drug use." that's a lie. First off, it's based of a false premise that if you're on drugs you cannot get a job. There are a lot of drug users out there with jobs. So barring even that stupid comment. 20% have used drugs, therefore they can't get a job because they can't/won't stop their drug use is a lie too. And NOT supported in your link. You are actually saying the opposite of what is said in the link you gave. You said they can't get job because of their dependency, you imply it here as destructive behavior due to drug us is one of the conditions of dependency. But the article clearly states that addicts, those dependent upon the drug/alcohol are a SMALL MINORITY. 3% in fact.

A little honesty is all I'm asking for here; it shouldn't be that tough.
Click to expand...

You asking for a little honesty is hypocritical.

First, whether or not they are on marijuana is not relevant and it is dishonest to even bring it into the discussion. Marijuana is illegal and its use is considered abuse. For you to imply that marijuana is not relevant is dishonest. Second, they are on welfare, they don't have jobs and admit to using drugs. It may be an assumption, but it is a valid assumption to tie the lack of a job with drug use..especially since almost every company in the United States tests for drugs. The fact that some slip through the cracks does not mean that these drug users can find work. Third, if you are unemployed and one condition to getting a job is to not use drugs and you are still using drugs...you are dependent. If you don't have the will power to stop using drugs so that you can get a job...you are dependent.
 
ksu_aviator said:
First, whether or not they are on marijuana is not relevant and it is dishonest to even bring it into the discussion. Marijuana is illegal and its use is considered abuse. For you to imply that marijuana is not relevant is dishonest. Second, they are on welfare, they don't have jobs and admit to using drugs. It may be an assumption, but it is a valid assumption to tie the lack of a job with drug use..especially since almost every company in the United States tests for drugs. The fact that some slip through the cracks does not mean that these drug users can find work. Third, if you are unemployed and one condition to getting a job is to not use drugs and you are still using drugs...you are dependent. If you don't have the will power to stop using drugs so that you can get a job...you are dependent.
Click to expand...

And how is that dependence problem going to be solved by yanking their benefits out from them? Do you think that drug addicts are rational actors who are governed by the invisible hand of the market? No! They are looking for their next fix, and if you take away their money without also taking away their addiction, the ones who are truly addicted will turn to crime to finance their habit. If you're really concerned about drug addicts on welfare, then it would make more sense to get them treatment than to cut them off. They aren't going to be able to keep a job as long as they're addicted anyway.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Is it worth it? How much money are we going to spend going after that 3-5% of welfare recipients?
Click to expand...

Considering the eternity spent by many Democrats sucking the Social Teet........

.........this could save Billions........and help thwart Drug Dealers, Gangs, The DNC Base, and Criminals.
.
.
.
 
Ikari said:
How much is this worth to you? If we huck these people onto the street, do you see perhaps even bigger problems spawning?
Click to expand...
Who said anything about hucking them into the street, besides the majority on welfare are the ones selling the drugs, driving two cars, working under the table, buying lottery tickets and cigarettes etc. Abuse of this system is massive and it carries on from one generation to the next. I see this B/S all day long in the course of my work duties. The problem is already really big, then again we can lock them up and hand over the checks to a correctional facility. Actually not only being drug tested would be required but also treatment and mandatory education or some training in a viable trade.
 
jamesrage said:
Drug testing strips do not cost much.


Instant Result Drug Screen Kit for Drug & Alcohol Testing
Click to expand...


So if we are going to test for all these drugs:

AMC110


10 Drugs - Cocaine, Methamphetamine, Opiates, Marijuana, PCP, Amphetamines, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepines, Methadone, TCA (Tricyclic Anti-Depressants)


$260.00 per case of 25
($10.40) each

The costs adds up pretty quickly.

And there what if a persons contests the results....
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Thats not a very large fraction

1/0
now that's a large fraction:2razz:
Click to expand...
Really? Maybe you could tell the class what it is as a percentage. ;)

.
 
Kandahar said:
And how is that dependence problem going to be solved by yanking their benefits out from them?
Click to expand...

It depends on how you define the problem. The problem is that people are using tax payer money to fund their drug abuse. Kicking them off the rolls solves that problem.

Do you think that drug addicts are rational actors who are governed by the invisible hand of the market? No! They are looking for their next fix, and if you take away their money without also taking away their addiction, the ones who are truly addicted will turn to crime to finance their habit. If you're really concerned about drug addicts on welfare, then it would make more sense to get them treatment than to cut them off. They aren't going to be able to keep a job as long as they're addicted anyway.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is we should allow people to use money for illegal purposes because they'll make another bad decision if we don't? I'm fine with people getting free help...there is a lot of it out there. Just don't expect to keep getting that help if you use it to brake the law
 
Can an argument be made that such a law is an invasion of privacy? An infringement of the right against self-incrimination?
 
Ikari said:
What's with the rolling eyes. You said LARGE FACTION. The link you gave, that report, says that the folk you're talking about is not a large faction, but a small minority.

You may want to actually read the stuff you post so you don't post something foolish.
Click to expand...

WOW
I have to say that was one of the most dishonest representation of facts I have seen on here, You are right Ikari not only is his statement 100% wrong, his proof totally goes against him and he is trying to play drastic word games. Its almost like he thinks what he original wrote is going to go away. just say you misspoke that all.

Anyway on to the OP. I didnt vote because I would vote other. Although I might go back and vote yes.

In theory I think this is an awesome Idea as I have stated in other threads but its not something as simply as drug testing them.

How much will it cost and who pays for it?

If the recipient pays Im fine with that but if they are clean they better get reimbursed.

What type of test, cheaper tests are less accurate as more costly test?

How often are the tests? I knew some users of hardcore drugs that could always beat their cheap 90 day pee test because some drugs dont stay in your system long.

Once found not clean then what? no benefits for a 6months? a year? etc

Once found not clean is help offered? how much help? who pays for that?

again I really do think this is a great idea and would LOVE for it to be implemented but its not a "flick of the switch" issue. It needs a solid plan laid out and it seems it might not actually save MONEY at all but it may save or improve lives and make some productive and that Im more than ok with.
 
Last edited:
Krhazy said:
Can an argument be made that such a law is an invasion of privacy? An infringement of the right against self-incrimination?
Click to expand...

Possibly but since unemployment and welfare is voluntary and drug screening for jobs and other benifits (insurance etc) already exsists Im not sure it would go far.

I mean yes the 90% of people that are clean some of them might feel they are being puniished for the very few that do abuse the system but the vast majority of any job they get are also going to drug screen them.

I think it would lose based on premise.
 
MistressNomad said:
No. Marginalizing and trying to "starve out" addicts just creates more crime and poverty. Half the problem is that we have so few resources for addicts as it is, and the drug war culture makes people afraid to admit they have a problem, on top of the difficulty of dealing with it.

As offensive as it is to the mentality of people who would rather punish people for the audacity to be human, the exact opposite works much better: harm reduction programs. It increases the rates at which addicts go to rehab, and lowers crime.

I am not concerned with whether it serves some people's desire for vengeance. I'm only concerned with what works best.

In addition, a casual pot smoker is not any more an addict or inhibited from functioning than a casual drinker. There is absolutely no reason to discriminate against this sort of drug use (which is already perfectly acceptable in society as long as the drug has some totally arbitrary stamp of government approval). Marijuana lingers in your urine for up to a month, sometimes even longer if you're overweight. It lingers in hair for much longer, unless you shave it. Should someone who smoked a joint last month at their birthday party be thrown off benefit? Seriously?
Click to expand...

This. ^

Also: After CNY Central broke the news that the New York State Senate is considering a law to require welfare recipients to undergo drug tests, many readers wondered about the cost of such a requirement.

Under Senate Bill 174, if a person on public assistance tests positive for illegal drugs, he or she would be required to undergo drug treatment. The bill says only that the fiscal implications are "to be determined."

Most states can hardly afford to hand out welfare, much less provide drug testing, and treatment for those who may be positive. Besides, it's painting an entire demographic in a negative light. More people are receiving food stamps now because of the high unemployment. Most of these people are not drug addicts.
 
Krhazy said:
Can an argument be made that such a law is an invasion of privacy? An infringement of the right against self-incrimination?
Click to expand...

....oh the ACLU will most assuredly make the case........and do their best to ensure the DNC Base can have their drugs and welfare too!
.
.
.
 
ksu_aviator said:
You asking for a little honesty is hypocritical.

First, whether or not they are on marijuana is not relevant and it is dishonest to even bring it into the discussion. Marijuana is illegal and its use is considered abuse. For you to imply that marijuana is not relevant is dishonest. Second, they are on welfare, they don't have jobs and admit to using drugs. It may be an assumption, but it is a valid assumption to tie the lack of a job with drug use..especially since almost every company in the United States tests for drugs. The fact that some slip through the cracks does not mean that these drug users can find work. Third, if you are unemployed and one condition to getting a job is to not use drugs and you are still using drugs...you are dependent. If you don't have the will power to stop using drugs so that you can get a job...you are dependent.
Click to expand...

It's NOT a valid assumption. Because certain drugs under light use will not cause dependency. YOU ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS TO MAKE CONCLUSIONS NOT SUPPORTED BY LOGIC OR REALITY.
 
Badmutha said:
Considering the eternity spent by many Democrats sucking the Social Teet........

.........this could save Billions........and help thwart Drug Dealers, Gangs, The DNC Base, and Criminals.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Prove it. You made the claim, prove it. Show me how drug testing people on welfare will save "billions" first off. And that it will thwart drug dealers, gangs, the DNC base, and criminals. That or don't make stupid comments not supported by reality.
 
Ikari said:
It's NOT a valid assumption. Because certain drugs under light use will not cause dependency. YOU ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS TO MAKE CONCLUSIONS NOT SUPPORTED BY LOGIC OR REALITY.
Click to expand...

They have no job
They are on drugs
They have not stopped...

What would you have me think? They are all angels that are just down on their luck? Please. They are users that are abusing drugs and abusing the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom