• 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 you pass a drug test to receive food stamps?

Should food stamp recipients be drug tested?

  • Total voters
    68
Removable Mind said:
Polygraphs should be given to all persons who seek to run for office to see if they have ever participated in the use of illegal drugs, have stolen goods or services, and intend to be less than truthful about their personal background during a campaign.

Once a politician is seated in office, they have a drug test monthly for illegal drugs and/or excessive or abusive use of alcohol.
Click to expand...
You have low standards if you want to base something that important on something that is no more accurate than a coin flip.
 
Ikari said:
How much money are we going to spend to ensure that the money is spent "wisely"? I don't think government monitoring of its citizens without cause or evidence of crime is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Just understand the fact that it is acceptable to have strings attached to being subsidized.
 
radcen said:
You have low standards if you want to base something that important on something that is no more accurate than a coin flip.
Click to expand...

It's better than a sharp stick in the eye. Or, if you will, doing nothing, like most Americans do to hold their elected officials accountable.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Just understand the fact that it is acceptable to have strings attached to being subsidized.
Click to expand...

Government subsidizes quite a few things, are we going to drug test corn farmers?

How much money are we going to spend to ensure that the money is spent "wisely"?
 
Lord of Planar said:
If they can buy drugs, then they have more money than they need to eat.
Click to expand...

Probably. I still don't care. It's only about $120 bucks and 'food stamps' are not easy to sell - not impossible though.

Plus, it is none of the government's business if they are on drugs or not. If they meet the income requirements and want them - they can have them imo.

Besides, what if they fail the drug test and then quit? How long before they can re-apply in your mind?
 
Removable Mind said:
It's better than a sharp stick in the eye. Or, if you will, doing nothing, like most Americans do to hold their elected officials accountable.
Click to expand...
Why do so many people want some outside force to hold them accountable? Term limits, drug tests, polygraphs, and so on. How about we just vote them out if they fail?

Or, maybe, we actually do get what we want.
 
Ikari said:
Government subsidizes quite a few things, are we going to drug test corn farmers?

How much money are we going to spend to ensure that the money is spent "wisely"?
Click to expand...

I want those subsidies eliminated too.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I want those subsidies eliminated too.
Click to expand...

So are we drug testing corn farmers then? How much money are we going to spend to ensure that the money is spent "wisely"?
 
Ikari said:
So are we drug testing corn farmers then? How much money are we going to spend to ensure that the money is spent "wisely"?
Click to expand...

LOL...

People who do well have no suspicion of abusing drugs that affect them from finding gainful employment.

Maybe instead of knee-jerk reactions over a plan, you should ask why such a plan is proposed.

Understand things are the key, otherwise there is no proper debate.

There are several reasons why someone may want drug testing.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

People who do well have no suspicion of abusing drugs that affect them from finding gainful employment.

Maybe instead of knee-jerk reactions over a plan, you should ask why such a plan is proposed.

Understand things are the key, otherwise there is no proper debate.

There are several reasons why someone may want drug testing.
Click to expand...
So, subsidizing law-breakers is ok as long as they're doing well?
 
radcen said:
So, subsidizing law-breakers is ok as long as they're doing well?
Click to expand...

Why do you make up my point instead of asking what it is?

I never implied any such thing.

You have a strange mind.

Do you read what people say? I said I wanted all subsidies to end.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

People who do well have no suspicion of abusing drugs that affect them from finding gainful employment.

Maybe instead of knee-jerk reactions over a plan, you should ask why such a plan is proposed.

Understand things are the key, otherwise there is no proper debate.

There are several reasons why someone may want drug testing.
Click to expand...

So you don't want to drug test all people getting subsidies, just ones you think may be abusing drugs? You have no real suspicion to suspect that someone on welfare is abusing drugs, you have no evidence or data to go from. You just have a personal bias.

So other people receiving subsidies shouldn't be drug tested, but based upon your preconceived notions of the poor, those on welfare should be. Even though there is no reason to suspect any given individual is abusing drugs without evidence. The rich and well off? Nah, don't need to drug test them. But someone on welfare? Yes, let's do it. Based on the same lack of data as the rich folk, but there is more "suspicion" that poor people are abusing drugs than rich people, yes?

How much money are we going to spend to ensure that the money is spent "wisely"?
 
Ikari said:
So you don't want to drug test all people getting subsidies, just ones you think may be abusing drugs? You have no real suspicion to suspect that someone on welfare is abusing drugs, you have no evidence or data to go from. You just have a personal bias.

So other people receiving subsidies shouldn't be drug tested, but based upon your preconceived notions of the poor, those on welfare should be. Even though there is no reason to suspect any given individual is abusing drugs without evidence. The rich and well off? Nah, don't need to drug test them. But someone on welfare? Yes, let's do it. Based on the same lack of data as the rich folk, but there is more "suspicion" that poor people are abusing drugs than rich people, yes?

How much money are we going to spend to ensure that the money is spent "wisely"?
Click to expand...
I don't have the proper solution, but something needs to be done.

I don't have a problem with monthly testing for those receiving subsidies. Staying "clean" will make it easier for them to find gainful employment to get off the system. Making it hard or embarrassing to be a user of the system will provide motivation to get off the system.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

People who do well have no suspicion of abusing drugs that affect them from finding gainful employment.

Maybe instead of knee-jerk reactions over a plan, you should ask why such a plan is proposed.

Understand things are the key, otherwise there is no proper debate.

There are several reasons why someone may want drug testing.
Click to expand...

Then what about CEO's whose companies get bailed out at taxpayer expense? Those are handouts and LOTS of people on Wall Street use illegal drugs. In the 80's, Wall Street ran on cocaine.

Should they be tested for drugs?

And if so, then should all the employees who benefit from the bailouts get drug tested?
 
Last edited:
I don't care for drug tests on principle, so no.
 
DA60 said:
Then what about CEO's whose companies get bailed out at taxpayer expense? Those are handouts. Should they be tested for drugs?
Click to expand...

My God man.

That is idiotic.

They shouldn't be getting bailed out in the first place.
 
Lord of Planar said:
My God man.

That is idiotic.

They shouldn't be getting bailed out in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree...they shouldn't be. But they are.

So you are for drug testing everyone on food stamps (who receive about $120 bucks each per month) but NOT for drug testing those that get hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in corporate bailouts?

True?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't have the proper solution, but something needs to be done.
Click to expand...

Why? How much money are we losing out due to welfare being manipulated for drug purposes?

Lord of Planar said:
I don't have a problem with monthly testing for those receiving subsidies. Staying "clean" will make it easier for them to find gainful employment to get off the system. Making it hard or embarrassing to be a user of the system will provide motivation to get off the system.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with any amount of government collection of personal data/papers/etc. without proper evidence and suspicion.

So in the end, you won't call for drug testing corn farmers, but we're going to call for drug testing welfare recipients. Do you have any proof/evidence of a problem? Why is it that we're targeting the poor?

And in the end, you don't even have a plan for doing this, other than some general call for drug testing the poor because it is "good for them" (thanks government!). No idea of what it will cost vs. what it will "save", no data that there's even a problem.

The largest drug abuse problem, FYI, is prescription drug abuse. And that's not just the poor abusing them.
 
Lord of Planar said:
My God man.

That is idiotic.

They shouldn't be getting bailed out in the first place.
Click to expand...

But they are. So should we drug test the CEOs of corporations that receive bailouts?
 
DA60 said:
I agree...they shouldn't be. But they are.

So you are for drug testing everyone on food stamps but NOT for drug testing those that get hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in corporate bailouts?

True?
Click to expand...

Ummmm....rich people doing drugs has a much lower probability of affecting society negatively.
 
Henrin said:
Ummmm....rich people doing drugs has a much lower probability of affecting society negatively.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

WHat if that CEO is a drug addict and is thusly wasting much of that hundreds of millions in taxpayer money?

What if a CEO is a drug addict and because of his drug addiction, is wrecking his company that is costing tens of thousands of jobs? That certainly affects society...FAR more than a few hundred/thousand drug addicts who get food stamps.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why do you make up my point instead of asking what it is?

I never implied any such thing.

You have a strange mind.

Do you read what people say? I said I wanted all subsidies to end.
Click to expand...
Write better. That's how it read. I was seeking confirmation and/or clarification, hence the "?".
 
The testing costs more than the savings. Dumb idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom