• 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
There are circumstances in which individuals find themselves on welfare, not because they can't hold down a job but because of the circumstances around the industry and economy. Not everyone is on welfare for life, which is really how you make it sound.

Oh, for crying out loud. I never said there were no outside circumstances. If they are on welfare, they don't have a job. If they don't have a job, they can't hold down a job. It is that simple. Don't try to muddy the waters with this victimism b.s.
 
It's an offered social program to help those incapable of currently helping themselves. It isn't money for whoever wants it. You have to apply and seek approval, meet qualifications to receive the money. Any qualification they want to put in place that does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, age, or religion is completely justified.

So you can say, for instance, no one on welfare is legally allowed to own a gun? They cannot protest at political events? They cannot redress the government? They may not freely associate?
 
Aside from the loaded moral point we're making here... that check still stimulates the economy. The dealer likely buys munchies or other completely useless things to society that keep the economy rolling.

The added debt from giving the moocher the money hurts us far worse than any gain by the spending of the free money. If it didn't, we could all stop working, and just get free-stuff.
 
Oh, for crying out loud. I never said there were no outside circumstances. If they are on welfare, they don't have a job. If they don't have a job, they can't hold down a job. It is that simple. Don't try to muddy the waters with this victimism b.s.

It's pretty much worthless. These people deserve everything handed to them on a silver platter because they're poor and downtrodden, didn't you know? It should be hard, there shouldn't be restrictions, and we shouldn't require them to behave in any specific way...we should just give it out because they "need" it.
 
So you can say, for instance, no one on welfare is legally allowed to own a gun? They cannot protest at political events? They cannot redress the government? They may not freely associate?

Those actions violate rights. Pissing in a cup does not violate their rights. If private employers can do it without ACLU protest and law suits then the government can do it as well
 
Oh, for crying out loud. I never said there were no outside circumstances. If they are on welfare, they don't have a job. If they don't have a job, they can't hold down a job. It is that simple. Don't try to muddy the waters with this victimism b.s.

If they can't hold down a job, then they cannot get off of welfare. If they cannot get off of welfare, then they are there for the long term. Are people on welfare always there for the long haul? Or is that only a subset of the welfare recipients? It's not always they cannot hold down a job as sometimes there being no job to hold down.
 
Those actions violate rights. Pissing in a cup does not violate their rights. If private employers can do it without ACLU protest and law suits then the government can do it as well

The People have the right to secure themselves, their effects, and their property from unreasonable search and seizure. Without reasonable suspicion to a crime, there is no reasonable means to search a person for that crime. Pissing in a cup is a search of one's person. The 4th clearly states we have the RIGHT to secure against unreasonable searches. You said:

Any qualification they want to put in place that does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, age, or religion is completely justified.

Everything that I listed followed those restrictions. How can you now have a problem with it when you said that it is completely justified previously?
 
Last edited:
If they can't hold down a job, then they cannot get off of welfare. If they cannot get off of welfare, then they are there for the long term. Are people on welfare always there for the long haul? Or is that only a subset of the welfare recipients? It's not always they cannot hold down a job as sometimes there being no job to hold down.

And when one becomes available but they fail to qualify because they test positive for drugs, we'll continue to foot the bill, right? Because it's okay for them to do drugs on our dime, even though most employers wouldn't allow it on their payroll.
 
The People have the right to secure themselves, their effects, and their property from unreasonable search and seizure. Without reasonable suspicion to a crime, there is no reasonable means to search a person for that crime. Pissing in a cup is a search of one's person. The 4th clearly states we have the RIGHT to secure against unreasonable searches.

You've said that over, and over, and over again. You have not provided any legal basis for the insistance that a government-mandated drug test for anybody voluntarily applying for welfare is a violation of that right. Further, you would then have to explain why pirvate employers are allowed to violate the privacy and perform "unreasonable searches" against potential job candidates, but the government is not allowed to require such for those who are seeking a handout.
 
And when one becomes available but they fail to qualify because they test positive for drugs, we'll continue to foot the bill, right? Because it's okay for them to do drugs on our dime, even though most employers wouldn't allow it on their payroll.

Private business and government have different sets of restrictions. Maybe if you said that someone in general goes to a job, takes a test, fails; that the result of that test can be reported to the Welfare office and subsequent penatlies can be assessed. It's then not a general "test everyone" clause. It's at the very least slightly better than what is being currently passed/proposed.
 
It's a check. Or a debit card. Either way, cash is easily available from the funds. Pretty hard to track cash. Buying illegal drugs is illegal regardless of whether it's money you earned by working or money you received from entitlements.

No really that hard. But if you can prove it was spent on drugs, wouldn't that already be against the law?

If however, I monitor your rent, your food, the card can only purchase food, and such, wouldn't there be nothing left for drugs?
 
And when one becomes available but they fail to qualify because they test positive for drugs, we'll continue to foot the bill, right? Because it's okay for them to do drugs on our dime, even though most employers wouldn't allow it on their payroll.


It depends on the type of employee you are. If you are the head of a mega church like Tim Haggard was you don't get drug tested.
 
Ikari said:
So you can say, for instance, no one on welfare is legally allowed to own a gun? They cannot protest at political events? They cannot redress the government? They may not freely associate?

I'd definitely say no to the first one. Welfare should not be used for purchases that are not considered ultimately crucial. Last I checked, you can live quite well without owning a gun.

The rest of the examples given are not capital-intensive. The simple fact is that you really need to decentivize welfare to make sure it is eliminated. By requiring absolutely no frills whatsoever when you live on the dole, you greatly reduce, if not eliminate, the portion who live on it under their own volition - out of want, not need.

The biggest problem with welfare is that you can actually live rather well on it. Maybe no vacations to the French Riviera, but I know of people on welfare with their own place.

The key is to paint a picture where being on welfare is a situation nobody would envy. Make recipients have no choice but to live like crowded roaches, eating beans, and enjoying absolutely no creature comforts like air conditioning or cable TV.

We can protect the pursuit of happiness, but we should never subsidize it or make it a right.
 
You've said that over, and over, and over again. You have not provided any legal basis for the insistance that a government-mandated drug test for anybody voluntarily applying for welfare is a violation of that right. Further, you would then have to explain why pirvate employers are allowed to violate the privacy and perform "unreasonable searches" against potential job candidates, but the government is not allowed to require such for those who are seeking a handout.

Voluntarily applying for offered social programs does not, should not abdicate rights.
 
No really that hard. But if you can prove it was spent on drugs, wouldn't that already be against the law?

If however, I monitor your rent, your food, the card can only purchase food, and such, wouldn't there be nothing left for drugs?

If the card were only capable of application on necessities we wouldn't be having most of this discussion. That was a proposal I made. However, there is still the issue of that recipient being largely unable to secure stable employment with a drug habit, thus indefinitely enslaving them to the entitlement.
 
We can protect the pursuit of happiness, but we should never subsidize it or make it a right.

Maybe not "pusuit of happiness" in some general sense. But property and privacy must be upheld against government force.
 
It depends on the type of employee you are. If you are the head of a mega church like Tim Haggard was you don't get drug tested.

How many welfare recipients immediately jump into profitable envangelicism?
 
Ikari said:
Maybe not "pusuit of happiness" in some general sense. But property and privacy must be upheld against government force.

If the government insists on knowing what I do with my money, it's a violation of privacy. If they insist on knowing what I do with their money, it's due diligence.
 
And it doesn't, even with drug testing.

The individual is free to secure their person. Which means their body as well. You are making a search of their body to determine if there is anything in there that the government wouldn't agree with. Less you have some reasonable suspicion of drug use, there is no reasonable way to search a person for said drug use without violating their right to secure their person against unreasonable search.
 
So people freak about having their DNA stored by law enforcement, having a SSnumber etc. But statism in the name of punishing poor drug users (would be millions) is alright?
 
If the government insists on knowing what I do with my money, it's a violation of privacy. If they insist on knowing what I do with their money, it's due diligence.

Once the money is given to the individual, it is no longer the government's money. It now belongs to the individual to whom it was gifted.
 
The individual is free to secure their person. Which means their body as well. You are making a search of their body to determine if there is anything in there that the government wouldn't agree with. Less you have some reasonable suspicion of drug use, there is no reasonable way to search a person for said drug use without violating their right to secure their person against unreasonable search.

Do private employers have reasonable suspicion to test me for drugs? Are they violating my rights when they require it? No, because my employment is strictly voluntary. I can choose whether or not to meet their requirements for employment. Welfare recipients have the same choice. They are only required to piss in a cup if they are applying for free money. If they decide they don't want to piss in a cup that's fine, but no free money. No violation of rights. Repeating yourself over and over doesn't prove anything, by the way.
 
Ikari said:
The individual is free to secure their person. Which means their body as well. You are making a search of their body to determine if there is anything in there that the government wouldn't agree with. Less you have some reasonable suspicion of drug use, there is no reasonable way to search a person for said drug use without violating their right to secure their person against unreasonable search.

The deal is that you need to pass before you receive welfare benefits though. If you are a drug user, you can freely say no. Not everyone qualifying for welfare must receive it. If you want to protect your right not to be "searched", you have that right. They also have the right not to grant you money based on that decision.

Works both ways, bud. Free will is a bitch.
 
Back
Top Bottom