• 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
That isn't entirely true. If I am given a grant for school I am only allowed to use that money for school-related expensives. I can't go out and buy a pair of $500 shoes. There is no reason that welfare money shouldn't have the same type of restrictions placed upon it. Again, the point of welfare is temporary help, not permanent entitlement. It should be made hard to receive, inconvenient, and limited.

You may change how the money is handed out, yes. Perhaps that is the better avenue to explore. However, as it stands that is not the system we operate under. Under that system, there are consequences to having it built the way it is. One consequence is it does then become possible for people to sell their stamps or whatever for cash in order to feed a drug addiction. But the government is still restricted in how it can act against the individual; that too is a consequence of our system. It is restricted from performing unreasonable searches.
 
I agree about drug tests for welfare benefits. I became physically disabled, noo fault of my own. Even thenI was very reluctant to seek gov. aid. BTW does this post mean I lose my "bleeding heart liberal" label? LOL
 
Again, they have a choice. They are not being forced to piss in a cup. They are asking to receive a service, the government is asking them to meet requirements. They can choose at anytime to terminate the process.

AND if they fail said process, they can delegate someone else to receive the benefits on behalf of their minor children.
 
Again, they have a choice. They are not being forced to piss in a cup. They are asking to receive a service, the government is asking them to meet requirements. They can choose at anytime to terminate the process.

We made the decision to have this program, we acted in its creation and offering of it. Just because we made a government program does not mean we can then demand people to abdicate their rights because they choose to engage in it. The choice in the system was already made the minute we decided and acted upon the creation of a welfare state. The welfare state does not remove the restrictions placed upon government.
 
winston said:
No they should not be able to do that. If a man, woman, Hispanic, black can perform the requirements of the job they have an equal right to that job.

The bold part is why the statement fails.
 
We made the decision to have this program, we acted in its creation and offering of it. Just because we made a government program does not mean we can then demand people to abdicate their rights because they choose to engage in it. The choice in the system was already made the minute we decided and acted upon the creation of a welfare state. The welfare state does not remove the restrictions placed upon government.

You're using an argument that isn't working. They aren't abdicating any rights by agreeing to prove that they are drug free. Just like they aren't abdicating their rights by agreeing to prove that their dependents are legitimate dependents. The government has an obligation to ensure that welfare money is spent in the best manner possible. Ensuring that welfare recipients are not committing fraud or crime prior to qualifying is part of that obligation.
 
The bold part is why the statement fails.

Sorry I do feel people have a right sit at a lunch counter and be served. And I also feel people do have a right to a job that they can execute.
 
Last edited:
You're using an argument that isn't working. They aren't abdicating any rights by agreeing to prove that they are drug free. Just like they aren't abdicating their rights by agreeing to prove that their dependents are legitimate dependents. The government has an obligation to ensure that welfare money is spent in the best manner possible. Ensuring that welfare recipients are not committing fraud or crime prior to qualifying is part of that obligation.

Yes, they are being forced to abdicate their rights. You can accept this money, but you can no longer secure yourself against unreasonable search (abdication of a right), or you can live on the streets and not pee in a cup. That's the realistic scenario you are trying to employ. The government is under no obligation to ensure that welfare money is spent in the best manner possible. That is not written into the welfare code. They are under obligation to provide the program to people who meet the financial qualifications of it.
 
Sorry I do feel people have a right sit a lunch counter and be served. And I also feel people do have a right to a job that they can execute.

They certainly have the right to apply to any job they want.
 
winston said:
Sorry I do feel people have a right sit a lunch counter and be served. And I also feel people do have a right to a job that they can execute.

I know you do.

That's the easiest way to identify a liberal - they think "right" and "privilege" are interchangeable.
 
They certainly have the right to apply to any job they want.


An account can apply to be a heart surgeon. It doesn't mean he will get it.
 
Sorry I do feel people have a right sit at a lunch counter and be served. And I also feel people do have a right to a job that they can execute.
A "right" to a job? Or "entitled" to a job?
 
We made the decision to have this program, we acted in its creation and offering of it. Just because we made a government program does not mean we can then demand people to abdicate their rights because they choose to engage in it. The choice in the system was already made the minute we decided and acted upon the creation of a welfare state. The welfare state does not remove the restrictions placed upon government.

What rights are being "abdicated" ? Is this a liberal thing, that once you start a government program, you can't change it ? Stuck with it forever ?

You know, the more I think about it, you might be right. Democrats do seem to stick to stupid government forever.
 
What rights are being "abdicated" ?

4th amendment.

Is this a liberal thing, that once you start a government program, you can't change it ? Stuck with it forever ?

No, any program can be augmented or destroyed. In fact I do think that tessaesque did have a good and proper solution as to how funds are handed out that would solve the problem more elequently than pissing (no pun intended) on privacy rights.

You know, the more I think about it, you might be right. Democrats do seem to stick to stupid government forever.

Don't kid yourself, both the Republicans and Deomcrats stick to stupid government.
 
No. Its a question designed to determine what you mean.
Please feel free to respond.


These words "entitlement" and "right" have to many interchanges for me to answer your question with out understanding more about what you mean by the two.

In one respect I do think people have a right to a job and are entitled to a job so long as it is earned.
 
These words "entitlement" and "right" have to many interchanges for me to answer your question with out understanding more about what you mean by the two.
A right is a freedom you may exercise so long as you have the means to do so and that exercise does not run afoul of anyone else.
An entitlemeent is a benefit given to you, in accordance with the law, because, by law, you qualify for that benefit.
 
A right is a freedom you may exercise so long as you have the means to do so and that exercise does not run afoul of anyone else.
An entitlemeent is a benefit given to you, in accordance with the law, because, by law, you qualify for that benefit.

So what about the handicapped and those less fortunate?? Do conservatives ever consider them when discussing rights??
 
I know you do.

That's the easiest way to identify a liberal - they think "right" and "privilege" are interchangeable.

If you call living in poverty but working living in privilege then you are seriously mistaken!!

Which happens to be the easiest way to identify a conservative.. They think that if your working your rich and privileged.. Thanks to Bush, there are more people living in poverty than ever!!
 
Last edited:
So what about the handicapped and those less fortunate?? Do conservatives ever consider them when discussing rights??

As soon as income becomes a sex or race, it will be about civil right. :doh
 
..........
Don't kid yourself, both the Republicans and Deomcrats stick to stupid government.

As to what I did not include, you are completely wrong with everything Constitutional that you quoted. I think you just make stuff up and post it willy-nilly.

Those programs that tend to make folks wards-of-the-state, and which have been so overwhelmingly large, and underfunded, such as Social Security and Medicare, are hugely Democrat born-and-bred.

Don't kid yourself.

Add to it Obamacare.
 
Prove this statement. Prove that the majority of welfare recipients are selling drugs, driving two cars, working under the table, etc. That or don't make stupid comments that cannot be supported by reality.
Seeing is believing and I see it everyday. The people in question don't exactly keep records or answer to the government. That said the burden of proof is on you, prove that it is wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom