• 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!

Drug testing for welfare recipients suffers setback

Yeah, that's great for you. But there are still several million children in this country who do not "turn out okay" because of the lack of care they receive due to the dependencies of their parents. Personally? I don't see a lot of harm coming from marijuana use in parents, either. But marijuana isn't the only drug people use. And alcohol isn't always "okay", either. That's why, if a parent using the system to support their family tests positive for drugs of ANY kind, there should be an investigation into the welfare of the children.

And who does this investigating? A system that makes money on the number of children entered into? Kinda like the one we have now? Filled with social workers who have either never had kids, don't even LIKE kids, or who's kids likely do drugs, lol. The current trend these days is taking obese kids away from their parents. I guess they don't have a right to be fat, or to have fat kids?

I agree that some form of oversight should be in place for kids who have crap parents. Were we diverge is where that oversight should come from.
 
The welfare aspect isn't moot. If a parent not on welfare tests positive for drugs in the work place then that work place should report the parent. If a parent on welfare tests positive for drugs then an investigation into the welfare of the child should ensue. Children in poverty have a great need of care and support than children outside of poverty, so if a little bit of government intervention into children known to live in poverty (through the parent's application) helps prevent these children from stagnating then I'm all for it.
You dont find that a bit too over stepping of the government? And who is going to pay for all of that monitoring?
 
The welfare aspect isn't moot. If a parent not on welfare tests positive for drugs in the work place then that work place should report the parent. If a parent on welfare tests positive for drugs then an investigation into the welfare of the child should ensue. Children in poverty have a great need of care and support than children outside of poverty, so if a little bit of government intervention into children known to live in poverty (through the parent's application) helps prevent these children from stagnating then I'm all for it.

Wow. Just.....wow.
 
The welfare aspect isn't moot. If a parent not on welfare tests positive for drugs in the work place then that work place should report the parent. If a parent on welfare tests positive for drugs then an investigation into the welfare of the child should ensue. Children in poverty have a great need of care and support than children outside of poverty, so if a little bit of government intervention into children known to live in poverty (through the parent's application) helps prevent these children from stagnating then I'm all for it.
Why just poverty? Why stop there? Why not be an advocate for all children? I mean, if you're going to disregard the ideals of our Constitution and due process and so on, then do it right.

Seriously, I think most of the people (not necessarily you specifically, I'm speaking generically now) who want drug testing for welfare recipients are really more worried about control of their money (and other's lives)... though they portray it as concern for public money to give the illusion of noble intent... than they are actually worried about the lives of welfare recipients.
 
<------ can I please have the "User" comment removed or at least changed to something not drug related. This topic has now made me feel judged and singled out and I am not a "User."

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Why just poverty? Why stop there? Why not be an advocate for all children? I mean, if you're going to disregard the ideals of our Constitution and due process and so on, then do it right.

Seriously, I think most of the people (not necessarily you specifically, I'm speaking generically now) who want drug testing for welfare recipients are really more worried about control of their money (and other's lives)... though they portray it as concern for public money to give the illusion of noble intent... than they are actually worried about the lives of welfare recipients.

Surely you understand that cocaine use in the executive suite is much, far, oh totally different from a welfare mom lighting up a joint, don't you? Why, it's like night and day... like... like...



Like rich and poor.
 
If employers can regulate drug use because it affects the health of the employee and the employer is responsible for providing insurance, then they should be able to control almost everything about a person's life, then. What food they eat, how much they work out, how they drive, their sexual habits, etc. There's really not very many things we do that do not affect our health in some way.
I will agree, employers shouldn't be involved in insurance. We should have universal public healthcare. But giving some people (the ones with money) the power to control so much of others' (those without money) lives is just plain wrong. It's contrary to America's ideals of freedom.

I cannot believe you wrote that.

First, employment is optional. Health care via employer, is optional. Employers are not the actual insurance company you use if you get it through them. I have had health care outside employer, through employer, and now through self-employment. Easy peasy, I am free to a large degree, and the employer is one of millions, optional, and isn't the actualy health insurance provider.

Second, if you are arguing that health care via employer (see above, that's wrong anyway) is bad, then how do you proceed to then suggest health insurance through the federal government, is good? I would have thought that would be an example, following your above logic, of the absolute worst it could be! No choice. No freedom. Controlled by the most poweful and wealthy government in the world. Can use it as an excuse to control any number of things which it directly pays for...which is far more than what any EMPLOYER pays for (roads, welfare, emergency care, security, etc., etc).

But giving some people the power to control so much of others' lives is just plain wrong.
Then why do you support just the opposite in your own post(!), and in nearly every post about government you make!?
 
All this makes me wonder....Can you drug test an applicant for a job in California for marijuana these days?
 
I am on the fence about drug testing welfare recipients but if you asked me to vote yes or no right now I would say no. But comparing welfare recipients no matter if they are worthy enough to receive benefits to those who are taxed and who contribute to the tax base and to the economic welfare of the country is beyond all sense. Let's not demean those people who are unfortunate and need a hand up but let's put it perspective that they contribute nothing while on the government payroll. Let the government decide the tax on capital gains. Criticize them, not the people who are making a legitimate living. I recieve capital gains on my meager investments. It not just the CEO's and the super rich but milions of people in this country.

Feeling sorry for the hedge fund managers that can afford the good drugs and pay a lesser tax rate than many in the middle class are ya? I personally prefer helping the seniors, disabled and working poor.
 
Because if they have chronic head aches, they can legally smoke pot?

Oh.

I suppose if they could show a prescription for marijuana, then the employer wouldn't have a case for dismissing them for smoking it.

but, the do require drug testing.
 
Oh.

I suppose if they could show a prescription for marijuana, then the employer wouldn't have a case for dismissing them for smoking it.

but, the do require drug testing.

Prescription or not, if they tell me they gotta go take their "meds" during lunch break, they ain't coming back to work, knowwhatImean?
 
I personally prefer helping the seniors, disabled and working poor.

If only that were the discussion topic.


What we're discussing here is whether a drug test should be a condition of welfare benefits. It does not help the seniors, disabled and working poor who are addicts if the state funds their addiction. Giving money to addicts actually does them harm.
 
Prescription or not, if they tell me they gotta go take their "meds" during lunch break, they ain't coming back to work, knowwhatImean?

I suppose the same thing would hold true if the employee were taking some sort of pain meds that made them woozy.
 
If military personnel,law enforcement,firefighters, teachers, and pretty much any other tax payer funded employee has to be piss tested then surely so can welfare recipients and politicians.
Anyone with a Class B drivers license is required too!
 
Random, unannounced home visits would likely have a greater effect at deterring fraud than drug testing.



Who would have guessed it would be the "Libertarians" calling for jack booted thugs coming into your home to monitor personal conduct!


The word ironic just seems very inadequate to describe this post. :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom