• 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

Erod said:
All this makes me wonder....Can you drug test an applicant for a job in California for marijuana these days?
Click to expand...

No you can't. If he is taking marijuana, it's because he has a disability, and you know the disabled can't work. LOL.
 
Neomalthusian said:
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.
Click to expand...

As does giving federal tax cuts to addicts. Drugs are bad, umkay..........
 
Prof. Peabody said:
Anyone with a Class B drivers license is required too!
Click to expand...

Also these groups:

Astronauts. Too many of them have had hallucinations, up there in space, and think they see little green men.

Musicians. We don't want them to sound like Willie Nelson, Jim Morrison, or Frank Zappa. We want them to sound like John Tesh, Billy Ray Cyrus, or a robocall over a telephone.

Proctologists. For OBVIOUS reasons.

Tea Partiers and Occupy Wall Streeters. We have had enough insanity in politics.

Artists. No more Picasso, please. Everything should look like "American Gothic".

Stephen Hawking. No more crazy stuff about string theory and the like. We want our world to be flat.

And finally, ALL politicians or politician wannabes - The "crazies" in America must end, especially the insane War on Drugs.

:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
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
Click to expand...

Wow at home visits by DFACs workers, now means jack booted thugs.
Can't help but wonder how your creative imagination makes these transitions.

Lets see now, you tell the gov you can't feed/support your family without the gov's help.
The gov has no right to review the well being on the people in said home and to make sure the funds appropriated to those people, are being used correctly?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Wow at home visits by DFACs workers, now means jack booted thugs.
Can't help but wonder how your creative imagination makes these transitions.

Lets see now, you tell the gov you can't feed/support your family without the gov's help.
The gov has no right to review the well being on the people in said home and to make sure the funds appropriated to those people, are being used correctly?
Click to expand...



Is this the neo-Libertarian position???

Why not just pay people a living wage and reduce the need for taxpayer supported welfare?
 
Catawba said:
Is this the neo-Libertarian position???
Click to expand...

Off topic derailment and deflecting from the question.

Catawba said:
Why not just pay people a living wage and reduce the need for taxpayer supported welfare?
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with this thread.
Why don't you answer my question, instead of derailing and deflecting.

If you seek some form of government assistance, you're admitting that you can't support yourself and your family.
Does the government not have an interest, in you telling the truth and that the well fair of the individuals (especially the children) is in good state?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you seek some form of government assistance, you're admitting that you can't support yourself and your family.
Click to expand...

There are 4 people for every job currently, what do you suggest the people do for which there are no jobs available?


Does the government not have an interest, in you telling the truth and that the well fair of the individuals (especially the children) is in good state?
Click to expand...

Reminds me of "1984" - "Life in the Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance"
 
Catawba said:
There are 4 people for every job currently, what do you suggest the people do for which there are no jobs available?

Reminds me of "1984" - "Life in the Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance"
Click to expand...

Neither of these answers the question, it's further derailment and deflection from the original question.
I guess you don't want to answer it, because you know that your comparisons are fallacious.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Neither of these answers the question, it's further derailment and deflection from the original question.
I guess you don't want to answer it, because you know that your comparisons are fallacious.
Click to expand...

What question player? The OP question:

What do the Indiana lawmakers have to hide?
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
What question player? The OP question:
Click to expand...

If you seek some form of government assistance, you're admitting that you can't support yourself and your family.
Does the government not have an interest, in you telling the truth and that the well fair of the individuals (especially the children) is in good state?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you seek some form of government assistance, you're admitting that you can't support yourself and your family.
Click to expand...

This is not a question, it is a false premise. You overlook the disabled, the old, women with dependent children, and billionaires who make most of their money from investments.

Oh here is your question, based on your false premise above.

Does the government not have an interest, in you telling the truth and that the well fair of the individuals (especially the children) is in good state?
Click to expand...

No more than in our interest in our legislators telling the truth and the welfare of the individuals (especially the children) that are affected by their policies.
 
Catawba said:
This is not a question, it is a false premise. You overlook the disabled, the old, women with dependent children, and billionaires who make most of their money from investments.

Oh here is your question, based on your false premise above.

No more than in our interest in our legislators telling the truth and the welfare of the individuals (especially the children) that are affected by their policies.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a question, you just refuse to answer it because it's actually a reasonable position, that deflects from your attempt at character assassination and usual mud slinging.

We aren't talking about people on social insurance, aka disability, retirement.

We're talking about regular people, who admit they can't support their family without emergency government services (aka welfare, food stamps, children's medicaid, etc).
Does the government not have a right to make sure these people are, telling the truth and that these people in good state?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Of course it's a question, you just refuse to answer it because it's actually a reasonable position, that deflects from your attempt at character assassination and usual mud slinging.

We aren't talking about people on social insurance, aka disability, retirement.

We're talking about regular people, who admit they can't support their family without emergency government services (aka welfare, food stamps, children's medicaid, etc).
Does the government not have a right to make sure these people are, telling the truth and that these people in good state?
Click to expand...

Well who exactly are you talking about, the 50% of the country that average $15,800? You want to drug test them but not the legislators that are wasting way more taxpayer dollars on the military industrial complex and more tax cuts for the rich??

Really? You don't mind kids living in poverty so the rich can be richer, but you want to spend taxpayer money monitoring people's homes to make sure someone making $15,000 doesn't smoke a joint now and then??? Really?
 
Catawba said:
Well who exactly are you talking about, the 50% of the country that average $15,800? You want to drug test them but not the legislators that are wasting way more taxpayer dollars on the military industrial complex and more tax cuts for the rich??
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't want to drug test them.
I said home visits.

That's why you called me a jack booted thug, remember?

Catawba said:
Really? You don't mind kids living in poverty so the rich can be richer, but you want to spend taxpayer money monitoring people's homes to make sure someone making $15,000 doesn't smoke a joint now and then??? Really?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that either.
A home visit /= monitoring peoples homes.
It has nothing to do with drug use either.

You still haven't answered the question.
 
Catawba said:
Well who exactly are you talking about, the 50% of the country that average $15,800? You want to drug test them but not the legislators that are wasting way more taxpayer dollars on the military industrial complex and more tax cuts for the rich??

Really? You don't mind kids living in poverty so the rich can be richer, but you want to spend taxpayer money monitoring people's homes to make sure someone making $15,000 doesn't smoke a joint now and then??? Really?
Click to expand...

I oppose condoning any behavior that enables an unsuccessful parent to continue to be unsuccessful. . . .drugs are not cheap or free. Not even weed. And if one manages to get some for free in exchange for other activies then perhaps they need to turn that business mind towards actually supporting their family and not their habit.

I'm much less concerned about the private drug-related conduct of parents who are providing for their children adequately . . . but in those cases it's still fit to intervene when they start to neglect their children.
 
AdamT said:
Based on the results in Florida, this seems to be another non-problem that Republicans are fixating on to curry favor with their base. Why make everyone who applies for assistance pay for this humiliating test when it appears that it's less of a problem among this population than it is in the population as a whole?

It seems to me that the real problem here is with those who have the biased perception that people who are going through tough times and need some assistance must be drug-addled parasites.
Click to expand...

I don't' have a biased perception at all, I have a grip on reality. I am not for the drug testing program. I agree that we shouldn't arbitrarily test people. I am very much against the way we deal with the drug problem via the so-called war on drugs. I am specifically addressing that we have a bigger drug problem in poor neighborhoods in which a lot of people are necessarily on public assistance. The drug problem in these communities is a plague that keeps a lot of good people from getting off assistance and doing more with their lives. It is simply a fact. The cycle of poverty and abuse has a new ally in modern times and it is drugs. Tessa's life was greatly affected by this problem and I would like to figure out how to make things better. I don't think ALL people who are going through tough times are drug-addled parasites but there are far too many that are. And even if they aren't on public assistance they are part of the problem. Their is a certain responsibility that people who have been given aid should have to society. How do we help them live up to that reponsibilty?
 
Give it up, Cat will NEVER answer questions that fly in the face of his ideology.


Ostrich -----> sand.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I oppose condoning any behavior that enables an unsuccessful parent to continue to be unsuccessful. . . .drugs are not cheap or free. Not even weed. And if one manages to get some for free in exchange for other activies then perhaps they need to turn that business mind towards actually supporting their family and not their habit.

I'm much less concerned about the private drug-related conduct of parents who are providing for their children adequately . . . but in those cases it's still fit to intervene when they start to neglect their children.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like straight and sober parents never neglect their children.
 
jambalaya said:
I don't' have a biased perception at all, I have a grip on reality. I am not for the drug testing program. I agree that we shouldn't arbitrarily test people. I am very much against the way we deal with the drug problem via the so-called war on drugs. I am specifically addressing that we have a bigger drug problem in poor neighborhoods in which a lot of people are necessarily on public assistance. The drug problem in these communities is a plague that keeps a lot of good people from getting off assistance and doing more with their lives. It is simply a fact. The cycle of poverty and abuse has a new ally in modern times and it is drugs. Tessa's life was greatly affected by this problem and I would like to figure out how to make things better. I don't think ALL people who are going through tough times are drug-addled parasites but there are far too many that are. And even if they aren't on public assistance they are part of the problem. Their is a certain responsibility that people who have been given aid should have to society. How do we help them live up to that reponsibilty?
Click to expand...

Well, again, the actual data from Florida suggests that there is *less* drug use -- not more -- in the population seeking assistance than there is in the population as a whole.

Not sure what your position is as you seem to be arguing both sides.
 
I have issues about the inconsistency behind testing welfare recipients for illegal drugs.

If it is aimed to prevent substance abuse, then they also need to test for licit substances such as alcohol as well. If it is because they do not want public money spent on drugs, then all recipients of public money.. including the lawmakers should be tested as well. If it is because they do not want parents abusing drugs.. then why single out welfare recipients only (and again why only illicit but not licit)? If it is aimed solely to prevent misappropriation of welfare money, then they need to prevent welfare recipients from using welfare funds to buy flat screens, video games, movie tickets, fancy rims for their car, and any other discretionary spending as well.

IMO here is what should be done to insure that welfare money only gets spent for living expenses, it also will prevent the money from being used to support substance abuse (both licit and illicit) - from a previous thread on the topic regarding Florida's law:

marduc said:
Would it be that hard to issue a plastic card or set up a welfare account that could only be used for food, housing expenses, transportation costs, and medical treatment?

Is there a potential for abuse[?] -always and in all things, but not compared to just sending a check in the mail which can then be converted to cash with ease. This way welfare money can be used strictly to insure an individuals or a family's welfare. If they have other money that they earn, there is no way to really control how that gets spent, other than enforcing income reporting measures and insuring that the amount of assistance available is tied to that (ideally on a month by month basis). This leaves money under the table, side jobs, illegal income ect. which we cannot control all that much, but controlling where the welfare money goes, and the limit of money according to legitimate reported income would account for the majority of recipients, and take care of a lions share of waste and inappropriate allocation of funds.
Click to expand...
 
If the military have to take frequent "surprise" drug test, then I don't see why politicians and welfare recipients should be above it.
 
Hatuey said:
Republicans who constantly bitch about class warfare are the first to demonize the poor, the sick, minorities, the needy, etc. If they're not lazy bastards, they're scum who do drugs and don't take of their kids. If they're not trailer trash, they're simply there to leech off the rest of us. This is the supposedly non-class warfare mantra of modern day Conservatism in America.
Click to expand...
Not quite. It's the result of political nannies who declare the poor, the "sick", and the minorities too helpless & stupid to forge their own destinies.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Well, again, the actual data from Florida suggests that there is *less* drug use -- not more -- in the population seeking assistance than there is in the population as a whole.

Not sure what your position is as you seem to be arguing both sides.
Click to expand...

Data "suggests"? Seriously, how would they actually get reliable data for that? I'll have to call B.S. on that one. And frankly, what people who pay their bills and pay taxes ingest in the form of drugs doesn't concern me as much. I think drug use should be greatly decriminalized. My position is I am not a hack that sees only one side of this issue.
 
The libertarian position regarding people who can't feed themselves and their families is that charity is a function of the churches, not of the government.

But, it that isn't practical in the real world, and it probably isn't, then the next best thing is to help people to get into a position where they can feed themselves.

Providing money isn't likely to accomplish that end. It is more likely to foster dependence.

So, what we do (should do) is to provide public housing and a food warehouse where they can get staples needed to feed a family. We need to gather clothing donations, so that the kids can be dressed. Along with the food, clothing, and housing aid, we need to provide job training so that they can become independent once again.

and if we're going to continue the absurd war on drugs by testing them, then let's by all means test our public servants as well. Maybe the Congress and state legislatures will come up with more rational actions than they are doing currently.

But, I doubt it.
 
KevinKohler said:
One facet not yet mentioned is cost.

Last I checked, even for large corporations that get the cost down due to bulk, it's still about 80 bucks per person for a drug test. **** ain't free.
Click to expand...

Not true any more. I had to pay for my own drug tests while I was serving probation for DWI. They were 11 bucks each.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom