• 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 Drug Tests Be Required to Get Welfare Benefits?

Should drug tests be required to get welfare benefits?

  • Yes

    Votes: 39 75.0%

  • No

    Votes: 13 25.0%
  • Total voters
    52
If the host organisms are subject to drug tests......than so should the parasites/Paid Democrat Voters.
.
.
.
.
 
It is actually a great idea. There is a large faction of people that are on welfare because they can't get a job due to their dependency. Make them get sober and get a job. It isn't societies responsibility to support meth heads and stoners.
 
ksu_aviator said:
It is actually a great idea. There is a large faction of people that are on welfare because they can't get a job due to their dependency. Make them get sober and get a job. It isn't societies responsibility to support meth heads and stoners.
Click to expand...


How large is this fraction?
 
Badmutha said:
If the host organisms are subject to drug tests......than so should the parasites/Paid Democrat Voters.
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

A rather stupid comment.
But this "idea" should be given consideration..
Drug use must NOT be a crime, however foolish it may be.
This Florida governor should discuss this with an addict or two, that is, if his mind is open...this I do not know....
 
earthworm said:
A rather stupid comment.
But this "idea" should be given consideration..
Drug use must NOT be a crime, however foolish it may be.
This Florida governor should discuss this with an addict or two, that is, if his mind is open...this I do not know....
Click to expand...

If addiction exists, should the government be enabling through monthly funding of said addiction? Would it not be better to simultaneously enact a drug-screening requirement and some sort of work-to-play rehabilitation program for those with addictions?
 
No. Marginalizing and trying to "starve out" addicts just creates more crime and poverty. Half the problem is that we have so few resources for addicts as it is, and the drug war culture makes people afraid to admit they have a problem, on top of the difficulty of dealing with it.

As offensive as it is to the mentality of people who would rather punish people for the audacity to be human, the exact opposite works much better: harm reduction programs. It increases the rates at which addicts go to rehab, and lowers crime.

I am not concerned with whether it serves some people's desire for vengeance. I'm only concerned with what works best.

In addition, a casual pot smoker is not any more an addict or inhibited from functioning than a casual drinker. There is absolutely no reason to discriminate against this sort of drug use (which is already perfectly acceptable in society as long as the drug has some totally arbitrary stamp of government approval). Marijuana lingers in your urine for up to a month, sometimes even longer if you're overweight. It lingers in hair for much longer, unless you shave it. Should someone who smoked a joint last month at their birthday party be thrown off benefit? Seriously?
 
earthworm said:
A rather stupid comment.
Click to expand...

If the American Worker is subject to drug tests.....and the Democrat Provided Social Teet is funded via theft from said worker......

.......shouldnt the recipients of the fruits of another's labor be subject to the same test?

But this "idea" should be given consideration..
Drug use must NOT be a crime, however foolish it may be.
This Florida governor should discuss this with an addict or two, that is, if his mind is open...this I do not know....
Click to expand...

It must NOT be a reward either........
.
.
.
.
 
Yes. Welfare is supposed to be a helping hand not a hand out. If you can afford recreational drugs then obviously you do not need this helping hand. This helping hand is not there so that you have extra money in your pocket to buy recreational drugs. I think this should extend to tobacco products too.No I am not some anti-smoking nazi who wants to see smoking banned everywhere and smokers arrested. The fact is cheap cigs are 20-30 dollars a carton depending on where you live and most smokers smoke around a pack or more a day so three cartons of cigs a month is 60-90 dollars a month assuming the individual buys generic and does not live in New York where they **** smokers in the ass on cigarette taxes.


Before some twit goes "what about social security?" No on social security, because everybody pays into social security with the expectation they will get it back. Making people get drug test for social security would be like banks making you get a piss test to draw out your own money.


I am sure some whiny lib will say its not fair its none of the tax payers business what welfare recipients do with tax payer money. Bull **** it is tax payer's business what welfare recipients do with that money and I am pretty sure many of these people wanted government bailouts to not be used CEO bonuses.
 
MistressNomad said:
No. Marginalizing and trying to "starve out" addicts just creates more crime. Half the problem is that we have so few resources for addicts as it is, and the drug war culture makes people afraid to admit they have a problem, on top of the difficulty of dealing with it.

As offensive as it is to the mentality of people who would rather punish people for the audacity to be human, the exact opposite works much better: harm reduction programs. It increases the rates at which addicts go to rehab, and lowers crime.

I am not concerned with whether it serves some people's desire for vengeance. I'm only concerned with what works best.

In addition, a casual pot smoker is not any more an addict or inhibited from functioning than a casual drinker. There is absolutely no reason to discriminate against this sort of drug use (which is already perfectly acceptable in society as long as the drug has some totally arbitrary stamp of government approval). Marijuana lingers in your urine for up to a month, sometimes even longer if you're overweight. It lingers in hair for much longer, unless you shave it. Should someone who smoked a joint last month at their birthday party be thrown off benefit? Seriously?
Click to expand...

My only issue here is that managing relationships with an addict are never cut and dry. Any action which promotes their access to their addiction enables them to continue, just like an action against the addiction is an easy excuse for them to continue using. Addicts are rarely successful in rehab programs they didn't enter voluntarily, and the relapse rate is quite high amongst the "successful". While disallowing them access to money to feed their addiction may lead to increased crime, the solution is not so easily identified.

I'm all for the legalization of marijuana. Studies indicate that use of other drugs declines significantly when marijuana is legal. But I'm not for subsidizing addiction for the sake of crime rates. A better solution is needed, though I'll be honest when I say I don't have one.
 
tessaesque said:
My only issue here is that managing relationships with an addict are never cut and dry. Any action which promotes their access to their addiction enables them to continue, just like an action against the addiction is an easy excuse for them to continue using. Addicts are rarely successful in rehab programs they didn't enter voluntarily, and the relapse rate is quite high amongst the "successful". While disallowing them access to money to feed their addiction may lead to increased crime, the solution is not so easily identified.

I'm all for the legalization of marijuana. Studies indicate that use of other drugs declines significantly when marijuana is legal. But I'm not for subsidizing addiction for the sake of crime rates. A better solution is needed, though I'll be honest when I say I don't have one.
Click to expand...

That's why harm reduction programs are awesome. They don't force the person into rehab. They work through creating awareness of resources and de-shaming the addiction.

Is it a cure-all? No. There is none. But at the end of the day, this would help them more, cost us less, and help reduce the damage it does to society.

Why not? They're already addicted. They're going to keep being addicted. At the end of the day it costs us less, and makes us safer, to deal with these people somehow rather than just throwing them back onto the street.

There may be a better solution out there still. And what I've mentioned is probably incomplete. Is there any use for drug testing? Perhaps. How would we manage benefit vs. harm reduction or rehab? Not entirely sure. But I am fairly sure of this. Barring drug users from benefit is exactly the wrong move in my opinion.
 
ksu_aviator said:
20% admit to it.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED463392.pdf
Click to expand...

No, your comment was:

ksu_aviator said:
It is actually a great idea. There is a large faction of people that are on welfare because they can't get a job due to their dependency. Make them get sober and get a job. It isn't societies responsibility to support meth heads and stoners.
Click to expand...

From the link you posted it said that while 20% of welfare recipients have admitted to using illegal drugs in the past year, only a SMALL MINORITY satisfy the requirements for drug or alcohol dependency. So in the abstract of the link you gave, it's already saying the dependency numbers, to which you make a claim of LARGE FACTION OF PEOPLE ON WELFARE, is a SMALL MINORITY.
 
MistressNomad said:
That's why harm reduction programs are awesome. They don't force the person into rehab. They work through creating awareness of resources and de-shaming the addiction.

Is it a cure-all? No. There is none. But at the end of the day, this would help them more, cost us less, and help reduce the damage it does to society.

Why not? They're already addicted. They're going to keep being addicted. At the end of the day it costs us less, and makes us safer, to deal with these people somehow rather than just hanging them up to dry.

There may be a better solution out there still. And what I've mentioned is probably incomplete. Is there any use for drug testing? Perhaps. How would we manage benefit vs. harm reduction or rehab? Not entirely sure. But I am fairly sure of this. Barring drug users from benefit is exactly the wrong move in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I think even if we don't "hang them out to dry" there are benefits to knowing who is using drugs before we give them money. If a mother of 5 with a baby on the way tests positive for cocaine we can do infinitely more to help those kids than we could have if we'd just handed her a check.
 
Ikari said:
No, your comment was:



From the link you posted it said that while 20% of welfare recipients have admitted to using illegal drugs in the past year, only a SMALL MINORITY satisfy the requirements for drug or alcohol dependency. So in the abstract of the link you gave, it's already saying the dependency numbers, to which you make a claim of LARGE FACTION OF PEOPLE ON WELFARE, is a SMALL MINORITY.
Click to expand...

Right, because people use drugs casually and that never shows up on a drug test:roll:
 
tessaesque said:
I don't know. I think even if we don't "hang them out to dry" there are benefits to knowing who is using drugs before we give them money. If a mother of 5 with a baby on the way tests positive for cocaine we can do infinitely more to help those kids than we could have if we'd just handed her a check.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd rather see no drug tests than drug tests use to throw them back on the street, but I'd rather see what you mention than no drug tests. Although ideally we'd live in a culture where there was less shame and less harsh punishment and people were more likely to admit it.

What would we do with that information once we had it? Don't know. Our system is not currently built to be much help at all to addicts. Whatever it would be would have to be from scratch, but to me, this is a much better conversation to be having.
 
earthworm said:
Drug use must NOT be a crime, however foolish it may be.
Click to expand...

Regardless of its legality it still cost money to do drugs. They are called recreational drugs because they are are used for recreational purposes not because someone needs those drugs. Those are a luxury or extra item which could possibly impair your ability to get back on your feet. Welfare and foodstamps are a helping hand not a handout, you seem to forget that. Spending money of recreational drugs is akin to buying a bug screen tv, going out to McDonalds, going gambling and all sorts of things that waste much needed cash.



Should those who receive foodstamps be allowed to use foodstamps to purchase energy drinks, fast food, lobsters, Filet Mignon and all sorts of other luxery food, fast food and junk food?
 
ksu_aviator said:
Right, because people use drugs casually and that never shows up on a drug test:roll:
Click to expand...

What's with the rolling eyes. You said LARGE FACTION. The link you gave, that report, says that the folk you're talking about is not a large faction, but a small minority.

You may want to actually read the stuff you post so you don't post something foolish.
 
Ikari said:
What's with the rolling eyes. You said LARGE FACTION. The link you gave, that report, says that the folk you're talking about is not a large faction, but a small minority.

You may want to actually read the stuff you post so you don't post something foolish.
Click to expand...

You may want read my post for comprehension. I said that a large faction uses drugs and that is 100% true.
 
MistressNomad said:
Agreed. I'd rather see no drug tests than drug tests use to throw them back on the street, but I'd rather see what you mention than no drug tests. Although ideally we'd live in a culture where there was less shame and less harsh punishment and people were more likely to admit it.

What would we do with that information once we had it? Don't know. Our system is not currently built to be much help at all to addicts. Whatever it would be would have to be from scratch, but to me, this is a much better conversation to be having.
Click to expand...

And to be honest, I'm not sure what they would actually do for welfare-moms or dads who test positive for drugs..

My birth mom is an addict. When she was pregnant with my little brother we moved to Michigan, where she had to apply for Medicaid/WIC in order to receive prenatal care (which she neglected for 7 months of the pregnancy). During her first doctor's visit, she tested positive for drugs...a few, actually. She received a "warning" that further positive results would lead to consequences. Two positive tests later and she was placed on bed rest in the hospital, with monitored visits. She stayed there for the last month of the pregnancy (can't even imagine the cost!). At no point in time did they ever even look at the fact that she was a single mom and I was only 11, or provide information or resources for drug rehab. It's like plugging a hole in a boat with bubble gum, ya know?
 
ksu_aviator said:
You may want read my post for comprehension. I said that a large faction uses drugs and that is 100% true.
Click to expand...

Oh I read, maybe you need to read what you wrote.

ksu_aviator said:
It is actually a great idea. There is a large faction of people that are on welfare because they can't get a job due to their dependency. Make them get sober and get a job. It isn't societies responsibility to support meth heads and stoners.
Click to expand...

What did you say. Stop with the dishonesty and tell me what you said. You didn't say that a large faction uses drugs. No you did not. You said "There is a large faction of people that are on welfare because they can't get a job DUE TO THEIR DEPENDENCY". See how those two statements are not equal? I can't believe that in this short amount of posts you want to engage so dishonestly in the debate to try to change what you said just a few posts ago. No, you said there are a large faction of people on welfare who are dependent upon those drugs. The link you posted said that the number on people who can be classified as dependent on drugs and/or alcohol is a SMALL MINORITY. A small minority is not a large faction as you had laid claim to at the start.

There's nothing wrong with disagreement and opinion, but outright lying after you've been corrected and engaging in intellectually dishonest posting will not advance the argument. Please stop.
 
tessaesque said:
And to be honest, I'm not sure what they would actually do for welfare-moms or dads who test positive for drugs..

My birth mom is an addict. When she was pregnant with my little brother we moved to Michigan, where she had to apply for Medicaid/WIC in order to receive prenatal care (which she neglected for 7 months of the pregnancy). During her first doctor's visit, she tested positive for drugs...a few, actually. She received a "warning" that further positive results would lead to consequences. Two positive tests later and she was placed on bed rest in the hospital, with monitored visits. She stayed there for the last month of the pregnancy (can't even imagine the cost!). At no point in time did they ever even look at the fact that she was a single mom and I was only 11, or provide information or resources for drug rehab. It's like plugging a hole in a boat with bubble gum, ya know?
Click to expand...

Definitely. Unfortunately, in circumstances like that, that's really all they can do... given the current culture. A culture that has pitifully few resources for addicts, most of them out of reach anyway. Saying "stop" to an addict is like saying "stop" to a charging rhino. I'm totally not surprised it didn't work. And it's pitiful that medical professionals are still so uneducated about the issue that they say things like that.

The whole system for dealing with addicts essentially needs to be rebuilt. And it may take a generation or so for it to do any good. Where to even begin with that is a big question. Honestly, if we're really dealing with the system as a whole rather than sticking a band-aid over a bullet hole, I think it starts with drug laws. Decriminalize and de-shame. Take the power away from the cartels. Then it goes to harm reduction and rehab facilities. Then it goes to things like welfare where there may be a sort of "add-on" for dealing with addicts (who are apparently a tiny minority of welfare recipients anyway, from what I've read of other poster's links).

How to stop situations like yours, and your mothers? Well, doing the above should help from what I've seen of countries that are doing things like that. But can we ever totally stop it? No. Sad reality.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom