• 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
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...

Well, then.

The solution is that since the Constitution does not allow the Congress to subsidize poverty, the Congress should stop taking money from people who earned it to buy votes from people who haven't earned the money in any other way.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Well, then.

The solution is that since the Constitution does not allow the Congress to subsidize poverty, the Congress should stop taking money from people who earned it to buy votes from people who haven't earned the money in any other way.
Click to expand...

The free market tanks and you want to cut welfare. The usual, 'starve the poor' attitude.
 
tessaesque said:
My only issue here is that managing relationships with an addict are never cut and dry. Any action which promotes their access to their addiction enables them to continue, just like an action against the addiction is an easy excuse for them to continue using. Addicts are rarely successful in rehab programs they didn't enter voluntarily, and the relapse rate is quite high amongst the "successful". While disallowing them access to money to feed their addiction may lead to increased crime, the solution is not so easily identified.
Click to expand...

Depends on who the problem is identified. If you're considering the problem to be addiction, then the solution is problematical.

If, as the Mayor sees it, the problem is not addiction. Hell, the Constitution makes no restrictions about what a person can put in his body. As far as the Mayor is concerned, anyone who wants to be addicted to heroin, crack, methampetamines, alcohol, and tobacco, all at the same time, has every freedom to indulge himself.

The problem isn't in the addiction to chemical substances.

The problem is the addiction almost all politicians have to the money someone else earns. That addiction is treated by not letting the politician waste the money.

The intersection of this addiction with the chemical addictions is controlled by refusing to allow the politicians to award chemical addicts with OPM.
 
SE102 said:
The free market tanks and you want to cut welfare. The usual, 'starve the poor' attitude.
Click to expand...

The government controlled markets under Obama are faltering, no big surprise, and the Mayor wants the limited funds available to go to people who deserve it.

It's not surprising that you want to piss it away on trash.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
The government controlled markets under Obama are faltering, no big surprise, and the Mayor wants the limited funds available to go to people who deserve it.

It's not surprising that you want to piss it away on trash.
Click to expand...


I can't believe Im hearing this. You should get on the radio and win 2012 for obama.
 
SE102 said:
I can't believe Im hearing this. You should get on the radio and win 2012 for obama.
Click to expand...

You're not hearing it.

You're reading it.

You're either arguing that drug addicts have a right to money earned by someone else, or you're not saying that.

What are you saying?
 
SE102 said:
The free market tanks and you want to cut welfare. The usual, 'starve the poor' attitude.
Click to expand...

I hate to be dick but the free market doesn't crash because of bubbles. That is your kind of markets. How does the poor people like them?

And I would love to hear how not supporting welfare starves people. Since you know, no one has ever been able to prove this drivel.
 
Last edited:
No because drug tests can falsely show a positive.
 
joko104 said:
No because drug tests can falsely show a positive.
Click to expand...

Life is a bitch, isn't it?

The solution to that is that anyone showing a positive volunteers to have their persons, their car, and their home searched with drug doggies, and submit another sample. On the condition that all evidence of criminal behavior collected thereby will be turned over to the proper authorities.
 
This is an interesting argument. On one side, a lot of liberals are forgetting what this law saws - if the user is denied, he may not receive the benefits, BUT, he may designate someone else to receive the benefits if it is for his children. Those on the left who argue this hurts taxpayer money are also wrong, because the cost of the test is charged to the person applying for the benefits. That I sort of have a problem with. I mean if this is a genuine poor person in need of benefits, why are we making them pay for a test? But then again, how else can it be done without hurting taxpayer money? Really no other way.

Whether this helps with personal responsibility and drug use is hard to say. We will have to see what this Florida law results in. Whether or not it is constitutional is also hard to say - this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme court I'm sure.
 
Badmutha said:
If the American Worker is subject to drug tests.....and the Democrat Provided Social Teet is funded via theft from said worker......

.......shouldnt the recipients of the fruits of another's labor be subject to the same test?



It must NOT be a reward either........
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

The reason your comments are stupid.. You are simply not considering how many christian republicans are on welfare with their 5 and 6 kids.. Like my brother in law.. Who has 6 kids, Christian, republican and on welfare.. You just assume that most people on welfare are democrats.. Which is why your comment is stupid.. No.. My brother in law does not do drugs..

There is no justifying this law.. It is stupid and a waste of tax payer money..
 
DemonMyst said:
The reason your comments are stupid.. You are simply not considering how many christian republicans are on welfare with their 5 and 6 kids.. Like my brother in law.. Who has 6 kids, Christian, republican and on welfare.. You just assume that most people on welfare are democrats.. Which is why your comment is stupid.. No.. My brother in law does not do drugs..

There is no justifying this law.. It is stupid and a waste of tax payer money..
Click to expand...

If the Christian Republican is also taking drugs, he can and should be refused access to taxpayer dollars as well.
 
Gargantuan said:
This is an interesting argument. On one side, a lot of liberals are forgetting what this law saws - if the user is denied, he may not receive the benefits, BUT, he may designate someone else to receive the benefits if it is for his children. Those on the left who argue this hurts taxpayer money are also wrong, because the cost of the test is charged to the person applying for the benefits. That I sort of have a problem with. I mean if this is a genuine poor person in need of benefits, why are we making them pay for a test? But then again, how else can it be done without hurting taxpayer money? Really no other way.

Whether this helps with personal responsibility and drug use is hard to say. We will have to see what this Florida law results in. Whether or not it is constitutional is also hard to say - this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme court I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Ahh... I can't see how it beats giving away taxpayer money to people who have done nothing to earn it as far as constitutionality.
 
DemonMyst said:
The reason your comments are stupid.. You are simply not considering how many christian republicans are on welfare with their 5 and 6 kids.. Like my brother in law.. Who has 6 kids, Christian, republican and on welfare.. You just assume that most people on welfare are democrats.. Which is why your comment is stupid.. No.. My brother in law does not do drugs..

There is no justifying this law.. It is stupid and a waste of tax payer money..
Click to expand...

Ummm....

Since when does "American Worker" = "Christian Republican"

?!?!?!?!?!

Im very confused.....
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Life is a bitch, isn't it?

The solution to that is that anyone showing a positive volunteers to have their persons, their car, and their home searched with drug doggies, and submit another sample. On the condition that all evidence of criminal behavior collected thereby will be turned over to the proper authorities.
Click to expand...

So you really are just all about ****ing over the 4th amendment. Sick
 
OscarB63 said:
yes you did
Click to expand...

That's called the fourth amendment. A person has the right to secure their person, effects, and property from unreasonable search, Ignoring then the questionable use of government force against the individual's right to secure their person from unreasonable search; there are still significant worries with the policy.

Yes, I used the word unreasonable. Not in the way you want to portray, but yes the word was present.
 
Is there any way I can vote "yes" 100 more times?
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
I would like you to think like a human. You are making improper assumptions that their drug use is at fault. When if fact, it could very well not be. Let's say that I was in a job that due to the economic downturn got eliminated. I'm on welfare/unemployment because the economy is tough and it's taking a while to even find employment (we're near 9% still, we had gotten close to 10%). During my time off work, a buddy offers me a joint; I smoke it. Is my smoking of that joint making me not get a job? No. If within a year I was given the survey and they asked if I used drugs in the past year, I would answer yes as I had a joint. But am I unemployed because of the drugs? Can I not find a job because of the drugs? No.

Humans are capable of higher order thought, it's time to employ it. What you are saying is not supported by your source. In fact, your source says the EXACT OPPOSITE. People who are dependent upon drugs (what you keep claiming), is a small minority. It is not the 20% you continually and dishonestly keep trying to claim.
Click to expand...

Nice, bookend your fallacy with personal attacks.

To answer your hypothetical....yes, if you smoked one joint one time that would be a large part of the reason why you didn't get another job. It shows a lack of understanding and awareness of consequences for your actions. That one joint can cause you to fail a drug test up to 30 days after. You, being unemployed and dumb enough to eliminate any chance at another job for the next 30 days shows a level of dependency on the drug. The very scenario itself screams dependency.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Nice, bookend your fallacy with personal attacks.

To answer your hypothetical....yes, if you smoked one joint one time that would be a large part of the reason why you didn't get another job. It shows a lack of understanding and awareness of consequences for your actions. That one joint can cause you to fail a drug test up to 30 days after. You, being unemployed and dumb enough to eliminate any chance at another job for the next 30 days shows a level of dependency on the drug. The very scenario itself screams dependency.
Click to expand...

OK. So now I know where you are at with critical thinking and assumptions. Not only did the link you post directly conflict with the conclusion you want to draw; but you cannot keep straight emotion from fact and fly off the handle when you hear "drugs". One joint would not impair me beyond an ability to get a job. In fact, if I smoke one joint and had a pee test, there are all sorts of things to take to cover it as well. Thought out and taken care of. It will not serve as the hurdle to a new job. Nor will it permanently prevent me from getting a new job. The fact you would call it dependency illustrates that you have no real scientific and rational idea of what dependency really is.
 
Ikari said:
OK. So now I know where you are at with critical thinking and assumptions. Not only did the link you post directly conflict with the conclusion you want to draw; but you cannot keep straight emotion from fact and fly off the handle when you hear "drugs". One joint would not impair me beyond an ability to get a job. In fact, if I smoke one joint and had a pee test, there are all sorts of things to take to cover it as well. Thought out and taken care of. It will not serve as the hurdle to a new job. Nor will it permanently prevent me from getting a new job. The fact you would call it dependency illustrates that you have no real scientific and rational idea of what dependency really is.
Click to expand...

You, Ms. Pot, do a great job of calling the kettle black *sigh* and you have no real understanding of the devastating effects of drug use. Let me put it this way, there is no safe, inconsequential means of getting high.

You try so desperately to create a scenario that paints the drug abuser as a descent, honest person that you fail to account for the possibility that others might see them differently.

I recently had a random drug test for work. They did three tests and the testing center told me this is the new normal...I'd never seen it before. I pee'd in a cup (that's normal). Then, they swabbed my mouth (new). Then, they plucked a piece of hair (new). Some drugs can be beat in the urine test, some in the mouth but none of them beat all three. You can't smoke anything and get a job now. It just won't happen.

Now, as I said before, if you are offered a drug one time and you can't turn it down even though you know the consequences that shows a level of dependency (or maybe stupidity, I might grant you that). But let's not pretend that any more than a small small itty bitty percentage of drug abusers just had one joint in a year...that's a grand assumption that doesn't pass the smell test.
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
You, Ms. Pot, do a great job of calling the kettle black *sigh* and you have no real understanding of the devastating effects of drug use. Let me put it this way, there is no safe, inconsequential means of getting high.

You try so desperately to create a scenario that paints the drug abuser as a descent, honest person that you fail to account for the possibility that others might see them differently.

I recently had a random drug test for work. They did three tests and the testing center told me this is the new normal...I'd never seen it before. I pee'd in a cup (that's normal). Then, they swabbed my mouth (new). Then, they plucked a piece of hair (new). Some drugs can be beat in the urine test, some in the mouth but none of them beat all three. You can't smoke anything and get a job now. It just won't happen.

Now, as I said before, if you are offered a drug one time and you can't turn it down even though you know the consequences that shows a level of dependency (or maybe stupidity, I might grant you that). But let's not pretend that any more than a small small itty bitty percentage of drug abusers just had one joint in a year...that's a grand assumption that doesn't pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

There certainly are jobs that don't require drug tests. You try so desperately to create scenarios that paints the drug user as a lazy incompetent who can't do anything for themselves or hold down a job. But I personally know quite a few people who use various drugs and are quite productive. It's about quantity and effect. One can use certain drugs reasonably and have little to no impact on their abilities. Other drugs are worse and in large quantities all produce negative side effects. Not everyone who uses drugs on occasion is an addict or dependent upon the drug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom