• 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
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.

Prove this statement. Prove that the majority of welfare recipients are selling drugs, driving two cars, working under the table, etc. That or don't make stupid comments that cannot be supported by reality.
 
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.

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.
 
irrelevant... 1% would be too high

It is relevant. I want to know how bad the problem is (according to KSU's link, it's 3-5% of welfare recipients), how much it's going to cost to do this testing, how much it's going to "save". If we spend more money policing it than not, there's no point.

I'd also like all the people claiming this is a huge problem, that we could save billions, or that the majority of welfare recipients are drug dealers to actually put up numbers or shut up because if they have no numbers, they have no proof, and everything they are saying is based on their personal bias and not scientific study or hard number measurement.
 
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.

58,000 people x $10.40 to test each person just once a year = $603,200

$603,200 x 6 random tests per person in a year = $3,619,200.00

$603,200 x being tested once a month for a year = $7,238,400



PolitiFact Florida | Scott-O-Meter: Require drug screening for welfare recipients
The Florida Legislature delivered Gov. Rick Scott a victory in the closing days of the 2011 legislative session when it passed a measure requiring all Floridians who receive cash welfare assistance to first pass a drug test.

Scott had run for office promising a drug-testing requirement, and worked to broaden an original drug-testing bill that would have applied only to recent drug felons.

The final bill, HB 353, forces all people who receive welfare cash, called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, to pass a test in order to be eligible for the funds. If prospective recipients fail a first test, they would lose benefits for one year. A second positive drug test makes them ineligible for three years. The new testing requirement would affect about 58,000 people.

And there what if a persons contests the results....

Take another test.
 
irrelevant... 1% would be too high

Its VERY relevant if it costs more money and doesnt fix anything.
ANd just for a point of reference way more than 1% of the working class are already abusing drugs.

I agree I dont want these people abusing the system either nor should they be allowed to but I cant simply say the percentage its irrelevant because thats not true. Especially in the content it was being questioned, it was being questioned against somebody falsely saying LARGE FRACTION
 
I completely support this. I think they also need to tightly control all the narcotics that welfare recipients get via Medicaid.
 
58,000 people x $10.40 to test each person just once a year = $603,200

$603,200 x 6 random tests per person in a year = $3,619,200.00

$603,200 x being tested once a month for a year = $7,238,400



PolitiFact Florida | Scott-O-Meter: Require drug screening for welfare recipients
The Florida Legislature delivered Gov. Rick Scott a victory in the closing days of the 2011 legislative session when it passed a measure requiring all Floridians who receive cash welfare assistance to first pass a drug test.

Scott had run for office promising a drug-testing requirement, and worked to broaden an original drug-testing bill that would have applied only to recent drug felons.

The final bill, HB 353, forces all people who receive welfare cash, called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, to pass a test in order to be eligible for the funds. If prospective recipients fail a first test, they would lose benefits for one year. A second positive drug test makes them ineligible for three years. The new testing requirement would affect about 58,000 people.



Take another test.


So you're saying we should spend at almost 4-7 million dollars (that's not counting facilities, workers, blah blah blah) a year to test for this. How well can we actually find these people (meaning what percentage of drug using welfare recipients will we catch with this? Even if you test everyone it's still not 100%). What do you do when you remove them from benefits? Do you think this can have negative side effects (increased crime, increased cost to us for police/jail/etc?). How much are we "saving" by throwing these people off welfare? Is it more than 4-7 million?
 
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....

Not to mention how often will the test be done? From my understanding and Id have to check even if its every 90 days this will catch people that randomly smoke weed and could miss everything else.
 
I completely support this. I think they also need to tightly control all the narcotics that welfare recipients get via Medicaid.

I definitely think ALL narcotics need a better catch system because its where alot of abuse starts.
 
Not to mention how often will the test be done? From my understanding and Id have to check even if its every 90 days this will catch people that randomly smoke weed and could miss everything else.

And it's not like there aren't ways to beat piss tests. Even if you ignore the questionable use of government force against the individual's right to secure their person from unreasonable search; it's not clear that we'd even save any money doing this. It's quite possible it could cost money to do this. It's government, it's not like they're efficient with their money.
 
I definitely think ALL narcotics need a better catch system because its where alot of abuse starts.

I agree 100%. Working in a pharmacy really opened my eyes to prescription drug abuse. And based on my experience, roughly 50-75% of those narcotics are paid for by Medicare or state Medicaid programs. People go doctor shopping and they'll write prescriptions like candy. At the pharmacy end we have to keep it very tightly controlled, but I think we also need regulation at the physicians end as well. There definitely needs to be better channels of communication between the physicians and pharmacists as well.
 
Not to mention how often will the test be done? From my understanding and Id have to check even if its every 90 days this will catch people that randomly smoke weed and could miss everything else.


In Florida there are 1.7 million people on food stamps. At 10.40 a pop that is 17,680,000 every ninety days (assuming testing every 90 days) that is 70,720,000 every year (4 test per year) and that is only for people on food stamps.

Also of course rent would have to be paid for a facility as well as up keep and a staff would have to paid for as well.
 
Last edited:
I agree 100%. Working in a pharmacy really opened my eyes to prescription drug abuse. And based on my experience, roughly 50-75% of those narcotics are paid for by Medicare or state Medicaid programs. People go doctor shopping and they'll write prescriptions like candy. At the pharmacy end we have to keep it very tightly controlled, but I think we also need regulation at the physicians end as well. There definitely needs to be better channels of communication between the physicians and pharmacists as well.

Prescription drugs are the most abused.
 
Prescription drugs are the most abused.

I agree, and I believe they are because they are readily available and usually very cheap through an insurance company or Medicare/Medicaid. There are also doctors that will write prescriptions for them at a whim.
 
And it's not like there aren't ways to beat piss tests. Even if you ignore the questionable use of government force against the individual's right to secure their person from unreasonable search; it's not clear that we'd even save any money doing this. It's quite possible it could cost money to do this. It's government, it's not like they're efficient with their money.

how is it unreasonable to expect freeloaders to stay off drugs? however, any crackhead will tell you, all you need is a couple days notice and you can beat the test. when I was fosterparenting, one of the crackhead mom's knew she was getting tested every thursday. she smoked crack thursday evening thru monday morning. crack only stays detectable in your system for 72 hours. i once saw the bitch light up the crack pipe in her car sitting in the DHR parking lot immediately following he weekly drug test. being the ass that I am, I promptly ratted her out and they retested her. ding, ding, ding...we have a winner
 
how is it unreasonable to expect freeloaders to stay off drugs? however, any crackhead will tell you, all you need is a couple days notice and you can beat the test. when I was fosterparenting, one of the crackhead mom's knew she was getting tested every thursday. she smoked crack thursday evening thru monday morning. crack only stays detectable in your system for 72 hours. i once saw the bitch light up the crack pipe in her car sitting in the DHR parking lot immediately following he weekly drug test. being the ass that I am, I promptly ratted her out and they retested her. ding, ding, ding...we have a winner

I didn't say it was unreasonable. I wanted to know how much it will cost, how much it will save, and the larger ramifications for throwing these people off welfare. Because that will tell me if this is something I can support. Not your made up "everyone on welfare is a crackhead" crap going on. I want to know the real functional implementation and results for this plan.
 
So you're saying we should spend at almost 4-7 million dollars (that's not counting facilities, workers, blah blah blah) a year to test for this.
How much money is spent on welfare and food-stamps in the state of Florida?

If this totals in the billions the 4-7 million is chump change.

How well can we actually find these people (meaning what percentage of drug using welfare recipients will we catch with this? Even if you test everyone it's still not 100%).

It shouldn't that hard to test them. Give them an hour notice and tell them if they want the welfare check then they have to go to one of the approved drug testing facilities,get tested and when they show up in the system they get mailed their check.

What do you do when you remove them from benefits? Do you think this can have negative side effects (increased crime, increased cost to us for police/jail/etc?). How much are we "saving" by throwing these people off welfare? Is it more than 4-7 million?
A vast majority of those 58,000 people are not going to piss hot. So the cost would not be that much.Besides that if they got money to spend on drugs then obviously they are not in a dire financial situation.
 
It is actually a great idea. There is a large faction of people that are on welfare because they can't get a job due to their dependency. Make them get sober and get a job. It isn't societies responsibility to support meth heads and stoners.

And what will happen when you cut them off? Will they stop being dependent? I guess when I think about this I want to know the purpose for checking. If it is just to kick them off wlefare, I have to ask what youn think will happen next?
 
And what will happen when you cut them off? Will they stop being dependent? I guess when I think about this I want to know the purpose for checking. If it is just to kick them off wlefare, I have to ask what youn think will happen next?

Probably jail or drug rehab. Regardless, if they are using drugs they shouldn't be on welfare. Personally I think welfare needs to be fundamentally reformed to function more as a financial rehab program.
 
Probably jail or drug rehab. Regardless, if they are using drugs they shouldn't be on welfare. Personally I think welfare needs to be fundamentally reformed to function more as a financial rehab program.

Wouldn't drug rehab be part of a rehab program? However, if they are in jail, wouldn't that cost us more? Not to mention the harm of the crime to start with. Would crime likley increase?

And why shouldn't they be on welfare if they are using drugs? I'm not sure I understand why.
 
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.

You keep coming back to statistics that have no definable connection to the issue. This is not about 20% of society who admit to using drugs. This is about folks who come to the government for free-stuff paid for by the rest of us. I very safely assume that the incidence of drug and alcohol abuse is much higher with those seeking free-stuff than those who do not.

Regardless, this law is being put in place by elected officals down here. Those who endorse this policy get my continued vote. Those that do not I will work to have thrown out of office. Then they can get in line for free-stuff and take a drug test too. ;)
 
It would be. Will FL save billions of dollars by doing this?

The fact it would be chump change means that cost is non-issue when it comes to piss testing welfare recipients.
 
The fact it would be chump change means that cost is non-issue when it comes to piss testing welfare recipients.

Regardless, if it doesn't save money, why do it? What exactly do we want to accomplish?
 
Back
Top Bottom