• 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

The food card is fairly limited. Sure you can buy junk food, but not smokes and other such things. And it depends on the individual and the drug in question. Someone who uses pot is different than a crack adict. And some manage their drug use better than others. Some use alcohol, which is legal, and not likely subject to your testing, but might be a larger problem.
 
SE102 said:
So people freak about having their DNA stored by law enforcement, having a SSnumber etc. But statism in the name of punishing poor drug users (would be millions) is alright?
Click to expand...

There's a lot of inconsistencies with the argument against the poor here. We subsidize a lot, from the individual to companies to countries. But the only call for searching the individuals or entities who are receiving the subsidy is against the poor people on welfare. 3-5% of the welfare recipients, and I'm supposed to be worried about that? No one has shown once that I'm going to save any money on this; we may end up paying more. If we're paying more, it's functionally stupid because why waste more money on the problem when it's not really going to address any root problem of poverty and economic participation?
 
Ikari said:
Once the money is given to the individual, it is no longer the government's money. It now belongs to the individual to whom it was gifted.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Any monies previously received before the individual fails a drug test is a sunk cost. I wouldn't argue that they should pay it back.

They can stop the payment though. It's essentially a voidable contract.
 
Ikari said:
Once the money is given to the individual, it is no longer the government's money. It now belongs to the individual to whom it was gifted.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. Considering it a gift. It shouldn't be a "gift", but a portion of money handed out with specific obligations. "Gifting" anything to anybody only encourages entitlement mentalities. It should be inconvenient to be on welfare, not easy and free. The premise should encourage people to see alternate options, not stagnate on a "gift" that I pay for.

Aren't you the same one whining about paying for the education of other people's children?
 

Nonsense. As has been pointed out numerous times, drug testing is required as part of many employments, memberships, etc.

The government is merely requiring some basic standards before you get free-stuff that other people have to pay for.
 

Freedom is a bitch. We have a restricted government. Accepting federally offered money does not abdicate rights in the least. Consequence of freedom.
 

Welfare doesn't address any root problem of poverty and economic participation.
 

As I have said, private business and government are under different restrictions.
 
Ikari said:
As I have said, private business and government are under different restrictions.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that private employers can violate our rights but the government can't, since you believe requiring drug tests prior to being granted a award of service/employment/etc violates rights.
 


So you mean government has rights?
 
Ikari said:
Freedom is a bitch. We have a restricted government. Accepting federally offered money does not abdicate rights in the least. Consequence of freedom.
Click to expand...

You're 100% right; accepting it does not abdicate the rights. However, it doesn't mean that they can stop offering it - and, as a fellow libertarian, I know you agree that nobody has a right to welfare.

Stipulations on public funds isn't a bad idea to me.
 
If 'Hulking Momma Blowpipe' is still getting loaded and knocked up by every Bubba, Jose and Jamal to sniff along her trail, she shouldn't get welfare to further enable her. No frig'n way.
 
winston said:
So you mean government has rights?
Click to expand...

Hell yeah they do. Only an anarchist would argue otherwise.

Their rights should just be unspoken, understood, and invisible...and it should tread as little as possible.
 
tessaesque said:
So you're saying that private employers can violate our rights but the government can't, since you believe requiring drug tests prior to being granted a award of service/employment/etc violates rights.
Click to expand...


Yes a private employer can violate your rights. For example a topless bar can discriminate based on gender where as the government can not.
 
winston53660 said:
Yes a private employer can violate your rights. For example a topless bar can discriminate based on gender where as the government can not.
Click to expand...

And you feel that the requirement to prove you are drug free is a violation of rights?
 
winston53660 said:
Yes a private employer can violate your rights. For example a topless bar can discriminate based on gender where as the government can not.
Click to expand...

And actually, there's something to that. It isn't discrimination, it's a requirement based on the service provided. An example one person used was deciding not to audition asian women to play Malcolm X.
 
winston said:
Yes a private employer can violate your rights. For example a topless bar can discriminate based on gender where as the government can not.
Click to expand...

True, and it shows that we should be granted fewer "rights". A private employer should be able to deny service or employment based on damn near any factor.
 
winston53660 said:
Get a warrant.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. These people are voluntarily applying for aid. Requirements to receive aid that do not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, disability, or religion are completely acceptable and in no violation of rights. If you don't wish to provide the information required you forfeit your ability to receive benefits.
 
Last edited:

Gifted in terms of the money being given to the individual. Once they are given that money, it's theirs

And no, I wasn't whining about it. I was pointing out the fact that so many of the holier than thou folk coming down on subsidies in fact enjoy quite a fair share of their own subsidies at the cost of others. In fact in that thread I did say that in reality I have no problem with it as I see the funding of education to be an overall benefit to the Republic as any Republic needs an educated populace to survive.
 

It's certainly not a right to welfare. But we do offer it, and I'm not going to revolt over it. So it's the system I will work in. And under it, I can see no legitimate argument for those who choose to participate in this program that we offer to have to abdicate their rights and free exercise there of. If we offer it, we offer it with the knowledge that there are still things government is explicitly forbidden from doing and must accept those consequences as part of our choice and action.
 

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.
 
Gipper said:
True, and it shows that we should be granted fewer "rights". A private employer should be able to deny service or employment based on damn near any factor.
Click to expand...

I believe this to be a correct statement. It's their business and property.
 
Gipper said:
True, and it shows that we should be granted fewer "rights". A private employer should be able to deny service or employment based on damn near any factor.
Click to expand...


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.

When applying for the job of playing the role of Malcolm X in a historical sense being Asian, Caucasian, female, etc. does not fulfill the requirements of the job anymore than an accountant applying for a surgeons job.
 
Last edited:

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…