• 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

Oh I see, you are avoiding everything else in my post and honing in on the one thing you can try to be "right" with?

Please address the other points in my post so I can actually give you a weighted reply, otherwise stop wasting my time.

Wrong is wrong. If you make the decision to use drugs, you have made the choice to get addicted to those drugs. There is absolutely no way to defend drug addicts and act as if it is society's problem. Until that person has a REAL desire to rehabilitate themselves then there is nothing we can do for them. And I mean they really want to rehab, not they want to do some "rehab" program in lieu of going to jail because they were caught.
 
Oh well......I have no sympathy for people who ruin their lives with drugs. They made that choice.

True, I wonder what costs more though. Welfare itself or to put someone in jail. Personally I think prisons should enforce some kind of forced labor for serious felons to help offset the cost of prisons.
 
Wrong is wrong. If you make the decision to use drugs, you have made the choice to get addicted to those drugs. There is absolutely no way to defend drug addicts and act as if it is society's problem. Until that person has a REAL desire to rehabilitate themselves then there is nothing we can do for them. And I mean they really want to rehab, not they want to do some "rehab" program in lieu of going to jail because they were caught.

Wrong is subjective. Your morals against mine.

A "real" desire to rehabilitate has to coincide with the rest of their life. If the rest of their life is ****, then it's going to be much harder to get off the drugs. Most people are on street drugs in the first place because they either have undiagnosed psychological problems that they are self-medicating or they are seeking escape from some life situation either past or present.

Maybe some are wasting welfare money on drugs, but at least with the welfare there is the continual opportunity to change their surrounding environment. They can afford a place that isn't in a crack den, even if they're still using crack; they can buy food and afford heat, instead of having to pimp themselves out in exchange for basic necessities. At least with welfare their lives are better, if even marginally, and the door is always open to change.

I mean really, what is it that you want? Do you want the underground to grow larger and larger, and become the primary provider for more and more people who are living off the grid? Because that is exactly what happens in nations without welfare. Desperate people become even more desperate, then sink deeper. If you care so little about the strength of your nation, then maybe you should move to nations where the governments either cannot afford entitlement programs whatsoever or they just have no middle class.

I'm not disagreeing that some people abuse the system. I am saying that without the system they will be even worse off, and that is directly your problem once it starts to affect the rest of society. I swear, the right wing only thinks in one or two degrees of separation. They don't see the greater scope of how the downfall of individuals can lead to the degeneration of a nation.

The solution is not to continue punishing addicts. The solution is to end the unjust war on drugs and use the exorbitant waste of money involved in that dismal policy failure for programs that can restore people's lives to balance. There is more than enough money in the war on drugs to do all of that and still have a huge surplus left over. The solution is not to cut entitlements.
 
Wrong is subjective. Your morals against mine.

A "real" desire to rehabilitate has to coincide with the rest of their life. If the rest of their life is ****, then it's going to be much harder to get off the drugs. Most people are on street drugs in the first place because they either have undiagnosed psychological problems that they are self-medicating or they are seeking escape from some life situation either past or present.
And as much as we have tried to educate people about the dangers of drugs, they still do it, and thus they still become poor bums dependant upon their next fix for an only marginal level of happiness. I just don't see how throwing money at them to support their habit is helping at all. I think throwing them to the wolves and forcing them to handle their problems on their own is the only way to really help them. Instead, people have no desire to attain self sufficience because they know that in today's political climate, they will always be protected in one way or another. Someone is trying to buy their vote in exchange for them to make these ignorant mistakes. "Survival of the fittest" is no more thanks to welfare programs.


Maybe some are wasting welfare money on drugs, but at least with the welfare there is the continual opportunity to change their surrounding environment.
No there is less opportunity to change their surrounding environment. They have no incentive to quit. Their lives are artificially better.


I mean really, what is it that you want?
I want people to realize that if they become addicted to drugs and cannot continue to sustain themselves while still affording their habit then there will be no help for them from the rest of society. I want people to think long and hard about the decision to do a drug for even the first time if there is a chance that they may become addicted and dependant upon the drug. I want people to start thinking about what they are doing, and realize that the mistakes they make are THEIR responsibility, not society's. I want mother ****ers to start taking personal responsibility for the situations they put themselves into and realize that only THEY can fix the problem, we aren't going to do it for them.
If you care so little about the strength of your nation, then maybe you should move to nations where the governments either cannot afford entitlement programs whatsoever or they just have no middle class.
We can't afford to keep shelling money out to crackheads so they won't rob us either.


I'm not disagreeing that some people abuse the system. I am saying that without the system they will be even worse off, and that is directly your problem once it starts to affect the rest of society. I swear, the right wing only thinks in one or two degrees of separation. They don't see the greater scope of how the downfall of individuals can lead to the degeneration of a nation.
The system is what MAKES them worse off. They don't have to take personal responsibility for anything, so why even bother trying to make the right decisions?

The solution is not to continue punishing addicts. The solution is to end the unjust war on drugs and use the exorbitant waste of money involved in that dismal policy failure for programs that can restore people's lives to balance. There is more than enough money in the war on drugs to do all of that and still have a huge surplus left over. The solution is not to cut entitlements.

The solution is to end the war on drugs AND cut entitlements.
Personally I think we should end prohibition of drugs, but we shouldn't continue to artificially prop up people who become dependant upon said drugs either. If someone wants to spend all their money on alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, crack/cocaine, heroin, meth, vicodin, etc then they should have to pay for that **** out of their own pockets with no government assistance whatsoever.
 
So let me get this straight, Orrin Hatch wants to increase Welfare spending?

How conservative. :2razz:
 
Wrong is subjective. Your morals against mine.

A "real" desire to rehabilitate has to coincide with the rest of their life. If the rest of their life is ****, then it's going to be much harder to get off the drugs. Most people are on street drugs in the first place because they either have undiagnosed psychological problems that they are self-medicating or they are seeking escape from some life situation either past or present.

Maybe some are wasting welfare money on drugs, but at least with the welfare there is the continual opportunity to change their surrounding environment. They can afford a place that isn't in a crack den, even if they're still using crack; they can buy food and afford heat, instead of having to pimp themselves out in exchange for basic necessities. At least with welfare their lives are better, if even marginally, and the door is always open to change.

I mean really, what is it that you want? Do you want the underground to grow larger and larger, and become the primary provider for more and more people who are living off the grid? Because that is exactly what happens in nations without welfare. Desperate people become even more desperate, then sink deeper. If you care so little about the strength of your nation, then maybe you should move to nations where the governments either cannot afford entitlement programs whatsoever or they just have no middle class.

I'm not disagreeing that some people abuse the system. I am saying that without the system they will be even worse off, and that is directly your problem once it starts to affect the rest of society. I swear, the right wing only thinks in one or two degrees of separation. They don't see the greater scope of how the downfall of individuals can lead to the degeneration of a nation.

The solution is not to continue punishing addicts. The solution is to end the unjust war on drugs and use the exorbitant waste of money involved in that dismal policy failure for programs that can restore people's lives to balance. There is more than enough money in the war on drugs to do all of that and still have a huge surplus left over. The solution is not to cut entitlements.


All 100% spot on. :applaud
 
I would be for this testing on one condition. That is that all government officials, up to the president, get drug tested as well.
 
Then I am sure they will not try for welfare so money will indeed be saved.



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.

That's what prison is for.


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.
 
That's what prison is for.

Just as well this is not going to be law in the UK then. We don't have enough money to keep more people in jail.
 
Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Normally I disagree with most things this guy does but I applaud this move.

I like most forms of welfare and I believe they serve a necessary function for our society (even though they are going to need to be scaled back because of budgetary considerations, unfortunately), but there is no purpose in spending money where it does not produce any positive benefits for the individual getting the money or for society.


The premise is alright I suppose, but in the end, it is just another layer of government on top of what I view as a mostly failed program. In Louisiana this was proposed in the State government, and met pretty heated opposition, we will see what happens nationally.
 
And also expand the government into peoples lives.

Oh, well, in that case, lets shrink the government out of people's lives and completely do away with welfare.

Problem solved.
 
Why limit it to welfare recipients? Why not everyone who gets government money?

Why not corporate CEOs who get bailouts? Students who get student loans and grants? People who actually work for the government, from those in the military on down to the clerk at the DMV?

And how about people who get money from the government indirectly, such as through government services? Why not test everyone who wants to borrow a library book? Can't get your mail until you piss in a cup. If you use the highway, roadside test could become a common thing.

Or maybe this is just another way for politicians to attack the most helpless among us without any real concern for consistency or logic? After all, these people never vote anyway.

I see your point, but looking at it more closely, the welfare recipient is taking and not giving back.

All the regular working citizens, or students, or CEO's, contribute or will contribute to society in some way in the present or future.

Most able-bodied welfare recipients collect welfare and supplement the welfare with money they receive from working a job under the table.

Using drugs is like saying, na-na-na-na-na, ha, ha I'm taking you stupid workers money, and having a gay old time doing absolutely nothing, while you dummies have to get up, and go to work all day. It is annoying to those of us that work hard to keep ourselves alive.

I do see why many have lost interest in helping welfare recipients. It's a losing battle. Many of them do seem to just get lazy from their situation. It becomes a lifestyle.
 
i would absolutely agree with this as long as members of congress are tested as well. after all, they suck the gov't teat too.
 
Prison is more expensive than welfare.

Yes.

To prove your point I just watched a news segment about a 70 million dollar prison in california that is brand new that can not be used because california does not have enough money to staff it.
 
Back
Top Bottom