• 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!

Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

And what if they test dirty?
Without assistance, they won't be able to take care of their kids.
Are you going to take their kids away?
Where would you put them all?

If there's one thing our nation won't stand for, it's seeing American children going hungry, homeless, or deprived of necessities.
And we shouldn't stand for it.
This isn't Calcutta. We don't want to have to kick dirty, diseased beggar children out of our way when we walk down the street. The idea is obscene. We live in the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.

Nevertheless, we don't have the apparatus in place to remove the children of the poor en masse, even if this were a desirable solution (which i don't believe it is). We don't have anywhere to put them or any way to take care of them.

Besides, drug testing only ever really catches pot-smokers.
Most other drugs are out of one's system within hours or days.
Pot's the only one that stays with you for weeks, even over a month in some cases.
It seems counterproductive to penalize recreational pot-smokers, while meth-heads, junkies, and coke fiends continue to receive federal or state aid.

:shrug:
Then we send a bill for their upkeep to all registered Democrats, who would be against this drug testing. That way Republicans who don't believe in buying drugs for addicts don't have to pay.
 
Then we send a bill for their upkeep to all registered Democrats, who would be against this drug testing. That way Republicans who don't believe in buying drugs for addicts don't have to pay.

Oh, stop the ridiculous partisan hackery. Read the thread and notice that, with the exception of 1069, people on both sides of the political aisle agree.

And btw, please show that Republicans do not use drugs. Links to evidence please.

You make this too easy.
 
So at least 40 million drug tests then...

So where do you get 40 million? From your sensationalized mind that would include even infants of welfare recipients?
 
Mr Hatch makes an irrefutable case for mandatory testing of lawmakers with this proposal. What is he on?
 
So where do you get 40 million? From your sensationalized mind that would include even infants of welfare recipients?

I figured it was something like that. Didn't bother to check as I considered the number "40 million" too silly to be taken seriously.
 
Actually, I don't see the problem in feeding drug addicts, but foodstamps does have some issues with people bypassing it. Sticky problem there.
 
Btw, the numbers that I have found range from 3-5 million. Makes sense. Nice try, Pete.
 
I have read to page 4 and I have the following problems with this.

1. Help only works when people want it and when it is appropriate for them - not all people are the same, not all help works for all people even if they want it.

2. Some of this is introducing a new philosophy which is open to abuse.
e.g. taking away the children of all drug users when in this country it is known that some drug users can still be reasonable parents. Who will be the next group of people to lose their children because they fall into some category?

3. Obviously it will if anything just increase crime as people will still need their fix.

I think if you have a mammoth problem with drug use in the US, possibly a better approach would be to offer help to people who come on welfare and offer that help in a way which they feel good about - for instance harm reduction, (drugs being given under supervision) to counselling to rehab centres. If the intention was to reduce the number of drug addicts, I think this would probably be the more effective way to go about it.
 
So where do you get 40 million? From your sensationalized mind that would include even infants of welfare recipients?

More than 40m now use food stamps - The Boston Globe
Recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program subsidies for food purchases totaled 40.2 million, up 21 percent from a year earlier and 1.2 percent more than in February, the Department of Agriculture said yesterday in a statement on its website.

So 40 million on food stamps, and then all those on unemployment and other welfare programs. Yes there will be some that get one or more of the programs, but it wont take the 40 million number down... So.. yes 40 million plus.
 
Btw, the numbers that I have found range from 3-5 million. Makes sense. Nice try, Pete.

Then you seriously need to look better. You have at least 14 million unemployed according to the Labour department, 40 million on food stamps as proven above, and considering that the word "welfare" could easily also include Medicare, Medicaid and social security, then we are nearing a very large population number. Or would you except the elderly?
 
I have read to page 4 and I have the following problems with this.

1. Help only works when people want it and when it is appropriate for them - not all people are the same, not all help works for all people even if they want it.

2. Some of this is introducing a new philosophy which is open to abuse.
e.g. taking away the children of all drug users when in this country it is known that some drug users can still be reasonable parents. Who will be the next group of people to lose their children because they fall into some category?

3. Obviously it will if anything just increase crime as people will still need their fix.

I think if you have a mammoth problem with drug use in the US, possibly a better approach would be to offer help to people who come on welfare and offer that help in a way which they feel good about - for instance harm reduction, (drugs being given under supervision) to counselling to rehab centres. If the intention was to reduce the number of drug addicts, I think this would probably be the more effective way to go about it.

If drug users cant afford their habit AND provide for their children without government assistance then they are bad parents.

As for the rest. Are you suggesting that we should pay druggies money so they dont become criminals? Its about time people start taking personal responsibility for their own choices, and stop mooching off of the rest of us because they cant, or are intentionally unwilling to provide for themselves, and arent smart enough to make it on their own.
 
And what if they test dirty?
Without assistance, they won't be able to take care of their kids.
Are you going to take their kids away?
Why do you suppose an unemployed habitual drug user should be allowed to keep his/her kids?
 
One thing: Whatever the merits of limiting welfare benefits for drug users, that's a bit different than limiting unemployment benefits. (At least theoretically) People pay for unemployment insurance out of their own pocket. It would seem unfair to have a person who paid thousands of dollars in unemployment insurance lose their job and then lose their unemployment simply because they used drugs.
 
"Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients"

Is it election time already?
 
More than 40m now use food stamps - The Boston Globe


So 40 million on food stamps, and then all those on unemployment and other welfare programs. Yes there will be some that get one or more of the programs, but it wont take the 40 million number down... So.. yes 40 million plus.

I believe this number includes each member of the family. This is how numbers get "padded". Further, I am NOT including unemployment. The numbers that I quoted (3-5 million) are accurate.
 
I think we need some pee-pee from Hatch. It's obvious that his prescription narcotics have taken over his ability to think clearly.
 
And what if they test dirty?

No more welfare.
Without assistance, they won't be able to take care of their kids.

Last I checked the Salvation Army and other charities handed out food not recreational drugs. So obviously if they have money for recreational drugs then they got money for food.

Are you going to take their kids away?
Where would you put them all?

The state can take care of them, there is foster care and group homes.

If there's one thing our nation won't stand for, it's seeing American children going hungry, homeless, or deprived of necessities.
And we shouldn't stand for it.This isn't Calcutta. We don't want to have to kick dirty, diseased beggar children out of our way when we walk down the street. The idea is obscene. We live in the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.
.

Which is why we have department of human services that put kids into group homes and foster care.

Nevertheless, we don't have the apparatus in place to remove the children of the poor en masse, even if this were a desirable solution (which i don't believe it is). We don't have anywhere to put them or any way to take care of them.

That is a total lie.

Besides, drug testing only ever really catches pot-smokers.
Not if it is random.
Most other drugs are out of one's system within hours or days.

If the drug test are random then they will eventually catch someone besides pot smokers.
 
If drug users cant afford their habit AND provide for their children without government assistance then they are bad parents.

Then I am sure they will not try for welfare so money will indeed be saved.

As for the rest. Are you suggesting that we should pay druggies money so they dont become criminals?

No I am just pointing out that one of the consequenses of cutting welfare from someone who is addicted to drugs will almost certainly be an increase in crime.


Its about time people start taking personal responsibility for their own choices, and stop mooching off of the rest of us because they cant, or are intentionally unwilling to provide for themselves, and arent smart enough to make it on their own.

There is I think a big difference between the person who can and the person who can't.

If someone can easily and safely come off drugs on their own, then obviously that is exactly what they will do. For those that can't it will just be an increase in crime, and people leading a more furtive lifestyle.

If the interest is to punish people and save money on welfare, I think it may work.

If the interest is to get people off drugs and reintegrated into society I have strong doubts.

I suspect from the way you speak your interest is to punish and save money so I imagine for you it will work - unless one day you suffer a theft from one of these people needing to feed their habit and put food in their bellies.
 
I'm not particularly on board with these sorts of things. They're rather intrusive and I don't think they'd have any positive result. Either we have welfare for poor people, or we don't. Let's leave it at that. We don't need to complicate the issue and bring in even more bureaucracy. I understand that people don't want to pay for poor people who are using drugs, but at the same accord all we'd really do is make those drug addicts homeless and we won't have really addressed any issue.
 
This is what? The 4,348th time that this has been proposed and it didn't pass, because it's racist?
 
Against it for the reasons already mentioned. Most people who are hardcore drug addicts and are on welfare are poor in the first place. Remove the assistance and they fall deeper. I know some people are so selfish that they don't care if other people fall through the gutter, but I promise you'll start to care when you see an influx of homeless people roaming the streets and turning up dead in plain site. Because you live in America, you've never seen what that looks like. Take a little trip to Asia and you'll see what it looks like when the system completely abandons people. It's rather disturbing.

The pure punishment approach doesn't work, and I wish people would get past the notion already.
 
That is your opinion. Prove it... and focus only on welfare recipients. Tell us how doing this is NOT beneficial.

Does anybody have any stats on how many really hardcore drug users are on welfare, and are raising their kids?

I don't see how they could be doing this. We do have DCS that should have kids confiscated from this type of situation.

MO is a lot of welfare recipients sell drugs, but don't use. I also feel this is a huge invasion of privacy.

I realize people don't like their tax dollars aiding drug users, but if it's recreational and occasional it's not our business.
 
Back
Top Bottom