• 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
Ikari said:
There certainly are jobs that don't require drug tests. You try so desperately to create scenarios that paints the drug user as a lazy incompetent who can't do anything for themselves or hold down a job. But I personally know quite a few people who use various drugs and are quite productive. It's about quantity and effect. One can use certain drugs reasonably and have little to no impact on their abilities. Other drugs are worse and in large quantities all produce negative side effects. Not everyone who uses drugs on occasion is an addict or dependent upon the drug.
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about people who can hold a job. We are talking about people who can't. Those people that don't have the will power to turn down drugs when there is a clear possibility that it will cause them to be turned down for a next job have a problem...even if it is a mild problem.
 
ksu_aviator said:
We aren't talking about people who can hold a job. We are talking about people who can't. Those people that don't have the will power to turn down drugs when there is a clear possibility that it will cause them to be turned down for a next job have a problem...even if it is a mild problem.
Click to expand...

Not sure your premise is accurate. It certainly depends on the drug and the drug problem an individual has. There are drug users who do hold down jobs. This is just a fact. So, testing psotitive is not in and of itself a sign the person can't hold a job.
 
Since the thread is about people who can't or won't or aren't trying to hold down a job (i.e. welfare recipients) maybe we can discuss the merits of that position. Should tax payers subsized the purchase of illegal drugs by granting welfare money to a recipient who tests positive?
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
We aren't talking about people who can hold a job. We are talking about people who can't. Those people that don't have the will power to turn down drugs when there is a clear possibility that it will cause them to be turned down for a next job have a problem...even if it is a mild problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you make the assumption that anyone on welfare who may have used drugs within the past year is incapable of holding down a job. Which is not correct, some are victims of circumstance and poor economics. The study you listed, which goes through and painstakingly identifies dependency states that those on welfare who are actually dependent upon their drug is a small minority.
 
tessaesque said:
Since the thread is about people who can't or won't or aren't trying to hold down a job (i.e. welfare recipients) maybe we can discuss the merits of that position. Sound tax payers subsized the purchase of illegal drugs by granting welfare money to a recipient who tests positive?
Click to expand...

You're going to pay for them somehow, either through hospitalization or jail or homeless shelter.
 
Ikari said:
You're going to pay for them somehow, either through hospitalization or jail or homeless shelter.
Click to expand...

Neither of those three options provides them with an illegal substance.
 
tessaesque said:
Neither of those three options provides them with an illegal substance.
Click to expand...

Well the jail one will if they're robbing your ass for drug money. The hospital one would be related assuming they're there on drug related issues. The homeless one is for kicking them off of welfare and into the streets.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, but you make the assumption that anyone on welfare who may have used drugs within the past year is incapable of holding down a job. Which is not correct, some are victims of circumstance and poor economics. The study you listed, which goes through and painstakingly identifies dependency states that those on welfare who are actually dependent upon their drug is a small minority.
Click to expand...

They are incapable of holding down a job, that's why they are on welfare! And being a small minority is irrelevant...if they are dependent then just a small minority will be kicked off the rolls. If they are responsible, upstanding citizens as you suggest, they'll recognize the importance of not abusing drugs and will stay on welfare. But there is no reason for Florida, or any other state, to pay people to be on welfare when they are on drugs.
 
Ikari said:
Well the jail one will if they're robbing your ass for drug money. The hospital one would be related assuming they're there on drug related issues. The homeless one is for kicking them off of welfare and into the streets.
Click to expand...

And the solution to avoid those issues is to just give them a handful of money every month to encourage the habit?
 
tessaesque said:
And the solution to avoid those issues is to just give them a handful of money every month to encourage the habit?
Click to expand...

If it's the cheapest solution, I'd take it. We're gonna pay one way or the other. One, we keep the system as it is. From the link KSU posted, the research indicates that if you implemented something of this sort you would see a decrease of 3-5% in welfare participation. So you're talking that level from the start. But we'll test everyone, which will cost money. If you kick them off welfare, then you're paying in other ways. If we're spending millions to save a net of thousands, I don't think it particularly makes sense to go down this road.

There is also the questionable use of government force in this area. The individual has the right to secure their person, effects, and property from unreasonable search and seizure. In my opinion, without reasonable suspicion as to the individual using illegal drugs, this particular search is unreasonable. Of course, that would need to be tested in courts and such; but it's at best questionable use of government force. In those terms I am even more hesitant then to endorse these actions.
 
ksu_aviator said:
They are incapable of holding down a job, that's why they are on welfare! And being a small minority is irrelevant...if they are dependent then just a small minority will be kicked off the rolls. If they are responsible, upstanding citizens as you suggest, they'll recognize the importance of not abusing drugs and will stay on welfare. But there is no reason for Florida, or any other state, to pay people to be on welfare when they are on drugs.
Click to expand...

There are circumstances in which individuals find themselves on welfare, not because they can't hold down a job but because of the circumstances around the industry and economy. Not everyone is on welfare for life, which is really how you make it sound.
 
tessaesque said:
Since the thread is about people who can't or won't or aren't trying to hold down a job (i.e. welfare recipients) maybe we can discuss the merits of that position. Should tax payers subsized the purchase of illegal drugs by granting welfare money to a recipient who tests positive?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far. Being on Welfare doesn't mean they won't get off of welfare. And when do we subsized the purchase of drugs? Couldn't we just monitor where the money goes?
 
Ikari said:
If it's the cheapest solution, I'd take it. We're gonna pay one way or the other. One, we keep the system as it is. From the link KSU posted, the research indicates that if you implemented something of this sort you would see a decrease of 3-5% in welfare participation. So you're talking that level from the start. But we'll test everyone, which will cost money. If you kick them off welfare, then you're paying in other ways. If we're spending millions to save a net of thousands, I don't think it particularly makes sense to go down this road.

There is also the questionable use of government force in this area. The individual has the right to secure their person, effects, and property from unreasonable search and seizure. In my opinion, without reasonable suspicion as to the individual using illegal drugs, this particular search is unreasonable. Of course, that would need to be tested in courts and such; but it's at best questionable use of government force. In those terms I am even more hesitant then to endorse these actions.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the recipients action of seeking out government aid qualifies them to meet specific requirements. If they can be required to release income records, rent records, and social security/birth information for dependents, then asking them to submit to a drug test is no more invasive and would therefore not qualify as a violation of any right.

As far as paying for it because it's "better" or "easier"...I disagree. Encouraging an addicted will only delay the inevitable. Another poster suggested that those who test positive be given an option to participate in rehab/education courses as a stipulation of receiving money. I have always been a proponent of specific funding through welfare (i.e. rent, utilities, transport costs) instead of free-reign spending on behalf of the recipient. If such a system were put into place it would be quite easy to eliminate the use of tax payer funds for drugs.
 
Boo Radley said:
I wouldn't go that far. Being on Welfare doesn't mean they won't get off of welfare. And when do we subsized the purchase of drugs? Couldn't we just monitor where the money goes?
Click to expand...

If we're giving a drug user a welfare check we're subsidizing their drug habit. How do you track money to a drug dealer? Do they file income reports?
 
Personally, I think drug tests should be required to post here... but that would bore the place up something fierce, huh. :ninja:
 
tessaesque said:
If we're giving a drug user a welfare check we're subsidizing their drug habit. How do you track money to a drug dealer? Do they file income reports?
Click to expand...

Aside from the loaded moral point we're making here... that check still stimulates the economy. The dealer likely buys munchies or other completely useless things to society that keep the economy rolling.
 
SE102 said:
Aside from the loaded moral point we're making here... that check still stimulates the economy. The dealer likely buys munchies or other completely useless things to society that keep the economy rolling.
Click to expand...

So that justifies the damage done by a drug user? The expense of medical treatments, imprisonments, child placements, etc. that often result from persistent use of drugs are all okay...because that welfare check we're giving them to subsidize their habits will flow into the economy eventually.
 
tessaesque said:
If we're giving a drug user a welfare check we're subsidizing their drug habit. How do you track money to a drug dealer? Do they file income reports?
Click to expand...

No, we're not. And you don't have to track it to the drug dealer, you have to track it to food and shelter and legitmate needs. I suspect buying drugs with the money is already against the law.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, we're not. And you don't have to track it to the drug dealer, you have to track it to food and shelter and legitmate needs. I suspect buying drugs with the money is already against the law.
Click to expand...

It's a check. Or a debit card. Either way, cash is easily available from the funds. Pretty hard to track cash. Buying illegal drugs is illegal regardless of whether it's money you earned by working or money you received from entitlements.
 
tessaesque said:
I would argue that the recipients action of seeking out government aid qualifies them to meet specific requirements. If they can be required to release income records, rent records, and social security/birth information for dependents, then asking them to submit to a drug test is no more invasive and would therefore not qualify as a violation of any right.

As far as paying for it because it's "better" or "easier"...I disagree. Encouraging an addicted will only delay the inevitable. Another poster suggested that those who test positive be given an option to participate in rehab/education courses as a stipulation of receiving money. I have always been a proponent of specific funding through welfare (i.e. rent, utilities, transport costs) instead of free-reign spending on behalf of the recipient. If such a system were put into place it would be quite easy to eliminate the use of tax payer funds for drugs.
Click to expand...

Well instead of kicking people off welfare, perhaps there is a way to better serve the people while preventing against this form of fraud, as you have suggested. I think that some records may be necessary to address eligibility, but those would have to be isolated to financial records only. If you have no reasonable suspicion that the person is doing drugs, I don't see a reasonable way to use government force to enact the search.

In the end, we all pay for a lot of things, from welfare and Medicare to subsidies for huge oil tycoons, to allowing the super rich to not list their bonuses as income, etc. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and every break is accompanied by some other share being used to fill in the gaps. Yet we're only worried about the poor people, they're the one's that need to be tested. No one else. Well I think that's bunk. All or none. And in this specific case, I'm supposed to be concerned with 3-5% of welfare recipients? Naw, not on my top list of things. Sure in a perfect world this all exists nice and cozy; but perfect doesn't exist. We must deal with the realities of the imperfect world. And in an imperfect world, if it costs us more than it saves to identify that 3-5% and kick them off welfare, it doesn't seem to me to be an entirely rational decision.

I think your last suggestion to welfare would go well further in not only curbing this perceived problem, but also preventing excessive growth of government force.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, we're not. And you don't have to track it to the drug dealer, you have to track it to food and shelter and legitmate needs. I suspect buying drugs with the money is already against the law.
Click to expand...

And how are we not subsidizing their drug habit? We're giving them money. The money is spent on drugs. Subsidizing drug habit....tada.
 
Ikari said:
Well instead of kicking people off welfare, perhaps there is a way to better serve the people while preventing against this form of fraud, as you have suggested. I think that some records may be necessary to address eligibility, but those would have to be isolated to financial records only. If you have no reasonable suspicion that the person is doing drugs, I don't see a reasonable way to use government force to enact the search.

In the end, we all pay for a lot of things, from welfare and Medicare to subsidies for huge oil tycoons, to allowing the super rich to not list their bonuses as income, etc. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and every break is accompanied by some other share being used to fill in the gaps. Yet we're only worried about the poor people, they're the one's that need to be tested. No one else. Well I think that's bunk. All or none. And in this specific case, I'm supposed to be concerned with 3-5% of welfare recipients? Naw, not on my top list of things. Sure in a perfect world this all exists nice and cozy; but perfect doesn't exist. We must deal with the realities of the imperfect world. And in an imperfect world, if it costs us more than it saves to identify that 3-5% and kick them off welfare, it doesn't seem to me to be an entirely rational decision.

I think your last suggestion to welfare would go well further in not only curbing this perceived problem, but also preventing excessive growth of government force.
Click to expand...

They're the ones asking for the government to pay for them to live. So yeah, it "targets" the poor. Then again, do jobs that require drug tests "target" the unemployed?
 
tessaesque said:
They're the ones asking for the government to pay for them to live. So yeah, it "targets" the poor. Then again, do jobs that require drug tests "target" the unemployed?
Click to expand...

We're the ones who offered to pay. I don't see how choosing to participate in an offered social program should ever come at the expense of our rights.
 
Ikari said:
We're the ones who offered to pay. I don't see how choosing to participate in an offered social program should ever come at the expense of our rights.
Click to expand...

It's an offered social program to help those incapable of currently helping themselves. It isn't money for whoever wants it. You have to apply and seek approval, meet qualifications to receive the money. Any qualification they want to put in place that does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, age, or religion is completely justified.
 
tessaesque said:
And how are we not subsidizing their drug habit? We're giving them money. The money is spent on drugs. Subsidizing drug habit....tada.
Click to expand...

No, the money is spent on food and shelter. You ahve to prove it is spent on drugs, which is already against the law, isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom