• 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
If you hold a security clearance you are subjected to a random drug test at any time.
When notified you had two hours to respond to the testing facility and give your sample.
 
Henrin said:
Same here, but still drug tests don't sit well with me.
Click to expand...

What is your solution to weed the populous off of being subsidized without instilling better responsibility?
 
radcen said:
So? That's not right, either.
Click to expand...

But for the OP to make it seem as though drug tests for welfare is somehow an attack on the poor or making it seem like its accusing the poor of being drug addicts is blatantly dishonest.
 
jamesrage said:
But for the OP to make it seem as though drug tests for welfare is somehow an attack on the poor or making it seem like its accusing the poor of being drug addicts is blatantly dishonest.
Click to expand...
I am tired of the whole, "It's so unfair to the poor." mantra. The poor and rich should live by the same rules. My position is consistency and fairness and values. We as a society prattle on about "innocent until proven guilty" to make ourselves look so fair and noble, then we go do stuff like this which is the polar opposite of that. Doesn't matter if it's private or public, it's wrong and we shouldn't put up with it.

But, as with everything, there can be exceptions. I'd accept an exception for legitimate safety concerns, i.e. bus driver, train engineer, etc. Something where other people's lives on a large scale would be directly at risk.
 
I think you should pass a drug test to hold a job that matters to other people's safety (paramedics, firemen, police, lifeguards, military). I couldn't give two sweet goddamns what the cashier at Wegman's is on.
 
LadyMoonlight said:
What if the money meant to feed children is spent on drugs? Who suffers then? Yes, people who receive welfare should be drug tested, people who seek employment should be drug tested, politicians should be drug tested.
Click to expand...

No one should ever be drug tested. It's ****ing disgusting!

I get pee on my hands trying to cap the bottle, but I can't use the sink? Mind if I wipe my hands on your face?
 
Lord of Planar said:
What is your solution to weed the populous off of being subsidized without instilling better responsibility?
Click to expand...

How about allowing people to collect various social safety nets while going to school instead of forcing them to take some crappy job at a gas station.
 
Bucky said:
I believe this is an incredibly stupid idea. Nothing correlates that a poor person is more likely to use drugs than anyone else.

This just seems like a colossal waste of time and money.
Click to expand...
Do you think it would prevent drug abuse, or at least make people think twice about it? What type of drugs are we talking about? Hard core or some weed? Do we deny pot to some seriously ill people who also happen to be on food stamps because they are ill?
OTOH, if we could identify drug addicts and get them some help getting clean, it might be worth looking into.
 
X Factor said:
It's funny. In the context of a religion based organization having or being supported by fed grants or whatever, we're often told, "don't like it, don't take the money". Use fed money to support and enable addicts and it's then totally offensive to advocate for any guidelines, limitations or parameters. :lol:
Click to expand...

Calling food stamps "enabling addicts" is absurd.
 
Bucky said:
I believe this is an incredibly stupid idea. Nothing correlates that a poor person is more likely to use drugs than anyone else.

This just seems like a colossal waste of time and money.
Click to expand...

OMG I actually agree with Bucky. In other news, a record snowfall is occurring in Hell right now as we speak.
 
Lord of Planar said:
What is your solution to weed the populous off of being subsidized without instilling better responsibility?
Click to expand...
OK, first let me ciorrect that to:

Lord of Planar said:
What is your solution to wean the populous off of being subsidized without instilling better responsibility?
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
How about allowing people to collect various social safety nets while going to school instead of forcing them to take some crappy job at a gas station.
Click to expand...

I'm good with safety nets. I don't want to eliminate them. My problem is when the net becomes a hammock.

It should not be comfortable to live off "other people's money."

I have spoken of giving free home economic classes and making people cook from scratch, reducing the draw on the SNAP program.

There should be no candy, soda, etc. purchases using SNAP. These are not necessary for nutrition. I say make it more strict, using WIC style requirements.

I don't know the extent of social programs, but I have dated several single mothers over the years who knew how to take advantage of them, and sit on their asses.

I don't hate the poor like what someone may say about what I say next, but why are we OK with people reproducing who are too irresponsible? If you can't afford a child, then don't have sex!
 
Bucky said:
I believe this is an incredibly stupid idea. Nothing correlates that a poor person is more likely to use drugs than anyone else.

This just seems like a colossal waste of time and money.
Click to expand...

And if they had taken dope? You let them starve? That's not nice.
 
Bucky said:
Taking a drug test in those situations isn't unconstitutional.

Forcing people to take a drug test to receive food stamps targets the poor specifically. If high paying executives needed to take a drug test to receive any pension or payout over $250k, would that be acceptable?
Click to expand...

Being poor is not a protected class. If companies choose to drug test their executives, that's fine. The taxpayer is the "employer" of the poor, so long as the poor is getting benefits paid for by tax dollars. Hence the taxpayer can decide, through their votes or representatives, what requirements the poor need to meet to get paid.
 
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...

Except it is well known that polygraphs aren't particularly accurate. But if you want to pass a law requiring drug tests for politicians, I'm fine with that.
 
Should you pass a drug test to receive food stamps?
Click to expand...

nope, it's a waste of money. i would add that if we were to do that, we should also drug test everyone receiving federal funds, including lawmakers.
 
Helix said:
nope, it's a waste of money. i would add that if we were to do that, we should also drug test everyone receiving federal funds, including lawmakers.
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a bad idea.
 
What's the point, starve them to abstinence? Or hope they keep using as an excuse to starve disliked groups (the poor)? Make them spend their meager income only how we tell them?

Food stamps are usually such a pittance that i don't it persuading anyone to give up a deep addiction. It seems to me if that's the goal, raise the value of food stamps alongside the drug testing
 
Bucky said:
I believe this is an incredibly stupid idea. Nothing correlates that a poor person is more likely to use drugs than anyone else.

This just seems like a colossal waste of time and money.
Click to expand...

Actually while the affluent who are able to afford to experiment with drugs do that, there is a strong correlation between drug/alcohol abuse and the poor:

. . .Around 20 percent of people on welfare in America reported using some kind of illicit drug in the year prior to being surveyed.[19] Someone who makes less than $20,000 annually is about one-third less likely to recover from a cocaine addiction than someone who makes over $70,000.[20] Even employment has a discernable effect on the likelihood of substance abuse. A 2007 survey notes that 23 percent of unemployed persons had used cocaine at least once, while 19 percent of those employed full-time and almost 15 percent of part-time employees had tried it.[21]

Substance abuse and homelessness often co-occur. Data from 2003 estimates 38 percent of the homeless population were alcoholics and 26 percent were drug abusers.[22] Frequently, homelessness is a result of substance abuse. Still, many who are without a place to live turn to drugs and alcohol to avoid dealing with their feelings and life problems. . .​
Economic Status and Abuse | Dual Diagnosis

A huge number of hungry and otherwise neglected kids that show up in the schools can be traced to chemical dependent parents. Addiction is a cruel and demanding master and the addiction takes priority over everything else. And as the addiction becomes more and more demanding and expensive, there is less and less money for food, shoes, school supplies, etc. And children are left to fend for themselves because mommy is just too under the influence to notice or care.

Is that the case with ALL of the poor or those receiving public assistance? Of course not. But it certainly is a strong factor among all the reasons or causes of poverty.
 
Cephus said:
You say that like it's a bad idea.
Click to expand...

i don't know. the world might be a better place if more lawmakers smoked pot regularly.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Actually while the affluent who are able to afford to experiment with drugs do that, there is a strong correlation between drug/alcohol abuse and the poor:
Click to expand...

According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.

https://thinkprogress.org/what-7-st...ng-welfare-recipients-c346e0b4305d#.n7hiqxd6v
 
Gimmesometruth said:
According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.

https://thinkprogress.org/what-7-st...ng-welfare-recipients-c346e0b4305d#.n7hiqxd6v
Click to expand...

I'll put the link I provided and you omitted up against ThinkProgress's data any day of the week. I haven't yet found Thinkprogress to be honest about much of anything. But even if they have it right in this case, I am not necessarily advocating blanket drug testing for welfare recipients. I AM saying that drug/alcohol abuse and addictions are a huge factor in this discussion.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I'll put the link I provided and you omitted up against ThinkProgress's data any day of the week.
Click to expand...
It isn't their data, it was data they collected from the STATES.
I haven't yet found Thinkprogress to be honest about much of anything.
Click to expand...
Well, here is your chance....GO FOR IT....show them in error on data collected from the states doing exactly what you want....spending millions to do it.....and coming up with lower than the general population rates.


But even if they have it right in this case, I am not necessarily advocating blanket drug testing for welfare recipients. I AM saying that drug/alcohol abuse and addictions are a huge factor in this discussion.
Click to expand...
The discussion is:

Should food stamp recipients be drug tested?


I just showed that those states that test are not finding much. So no, it is NOT a "huge factor in this discussion."

Oh, and just to clarify one other detail, the point you were trying to counter, your "discussion" was:

Nothing correlates that a poor person is more likely to use drugs than anyone else.

Bucky was correct.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
It isn't their data, it was data they collected from the STATES. Well, here is your chance....GO FOR IT....show them in error on data collected from the states doing exactly what you want....spending millions to do it.....and coming up with lower than the general population rates.


The discussion is:

Should food stamp recipients be drug tested?


I just showed that those states that test are not finding much. So no, it is NOT a "huge factor in this discussion."
Click to expand...

I try very hard not to respond to chopped up posts that deliberately take my words out of their intended context. Thanks for understanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom