• 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 you pass a drug test to receive food stamps?

Should food stamp recipients be drug tested?

  • Total voters
    68
Deuce said:
What do we do about the fact that people have a biological drive to procreate and will act on it, yes.
Click to expand...

People also have this thing called a brain that will let them override their biological drives. But again, that's not something the left wants people to do, have self-control.

What are you willing to do about it? Just say the phrase "personal responsibility" a bunch of times? How's that working so far?
Click to expand...

Hold people accountable for their actions and stop giving them a constant "get out of responsibility" card. Actions have consequences. The way to stop people from taking bad actions is to require that they suffer the consequences for those actions. Liberals have removed consequence. That's why our society is falling apart.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's what these people indoctrinated into the entitlement mentality don't understand.

They should be ashamed to have kids when they can't afford them. But they aren't. The feel entitled...
Click to expand...

They should, but shame isn't in their vocabulary anymore. We live in a shameless society. That's why things have gone to hell.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It has an effect on some potential offenders. If it became shameful again to have children without first being able to provide for a family, you would see a change in statistical analysis.
Click to expand...

Well, keep on posting about that. I'm sure that'll solve everything.
 

Nope. It is saying that they set up the drug test rules after the fact. All it takes is a start over. Drop everybody. Change name. Add drug test rules. People sign up. People are tested. People get all back pay. Could even be continuous and nevrr miss a payment unless failure of test is revealed.
 
Cephus said:
They should, but shame isn't in their vocabulary anymore. We live in a shameless society. That's why things have gone to hell.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, rich folk shamelessly steal from the poor to give to themselves. If we're in the business of determining who deserves what, picking on the poorest folks meager shares is a complete waste of time. Therefore, let's subject rich people to drug tests and confiscate 99% of the wealth of anyone who fails. Far more effective.
 
Absentglare said:
Unfortunately, rich folk shamelessly steal from the poor to give to themselves.
Click to expand...
Steal?

Really?

Did you know that "words have meaning?"

Please look up the definition.

Like some help?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

Absentglare said:
If we're in the business of determining who deserves what, picking on the poorest folks meager shares is a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...
How is it picking on the poorest, to ask them to be responsible?

Absentglare said:
Therefore, let's subject rich people to drug tests and confiscate 99% of the wealth of anyone who fails. Far more effective.
Click to expand...
Wow...

And you think they are the thieves, but you advocate the practice.

I pity your sense of morality.
 
I just have to say some of you posters should be ashamed of yourself. Every human deserves dignity, especially children.

Our society should be helping the poor, not demonizing them. Jesus preached compassion.
 
Over 200 Posts and I haven't seen anybody factually address the only thing that matters. Cost and savings. If it doesn't save money or break very close to even why do it? It becomes a worthless idea pretty quickly. Does anybody have anything that shows it saves money? If it could be done while saving money Id support it especially if it also got those help that failed the testing but so far everything I have seen is it costs way more. Anybody?

opcorn2:
 

It is difficult to assess any savings, because the test itself keeps an unknown number of people from applying for the benefits. the numbers can only be speculated, and therefor subject to ridicule.

Tell me.

What does common sense tell you?

Do you think people knowing they will fail such a test, do so?
 

Licensing for all sorts of professions requires practitioners to be drug free and drug screens can be mandated. This is also true of most government jobs, driving trucks, operating heavy machinery, working in hospitals, and on and on.

Illegal drugs have had a devastating effect on poor neighborhoods. It's not imaginary.
 
Deuce said:
Incorrect, we just understand that whining "personal responsibility" over and over doesn't actually accomplish anything. The real world doesn't work the way you people wish it did. Liberals just get that.
Click to expand...

If you structure things around people having personal responsibility they will usually rise to the occasion. If you assume that they have no sense of personal responsibility they won't disappoint you.
 

Not just poor, and not just illegal drugs. Prescription drug abuse is one of our largest forms of drug abuse in this country. All true. Yet, I don't think the Constitution goes out the window just because one agrees for public support, and it seems that the courts involved with the Florida case agree with that, as posted previously.
 

Waaaaah.
 

1.) why would that make it difficult in anyway LOL
If I have been running a program for say 50 years, id say its probably pretty easy to see the total costs for those years and cross reference it to populations increase vs work force economy etc. That wouldn't even be hard for people that do that work.
Then after that, you look at the NEW numbers, do that same crunching and if there was some type of significant drop off like you say that could easily be seen and a savings based on that very easy to hypothesize on. It wouldn't be difficult in the lease to the people that do that stuff. If 10000 people used to be on support based on the current economic status, employment rate, growth rate etc then all of a sudden only 5000 people are on it because you say they simply wont show up that would be a VERY obvious thing to see. Sorry being an engineer in manufacturing and test my whole life there's nothign that makes assessing what you are talking about difficult at all to those that have access to the info. It would actually be a easy and common task.

2.) common sense tells me some of those people are usually not right in their thought process and the rest will figure it out. A large percentage of them will be clean for testing, a small percentage wont even try and just not get help, a larger but still small percentage will get themselves caught and a smallest percentage will get clean.

What do I base this on? what we see in real life everyday from waiting staff all the way up to multi millionaire sports stars. :shurg:
Do you have any reputable stats that show a huge decrease in participation and its because of the testing? that would actually equate to savings . . . .
IF of course it didn't cause some other programs or state costs to skyrocket.

Tell us

what does common sense tell you

do you see somethign different happening and what do you base it on if so?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Steal?

Really?

Did you know that "words have meaning?"

Please look up the definition.

Like some help?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal
Click to expand...

The lies are used to manipulate the poor into supporting tax cuts. The effect is theft whether you are aware or not. The government, and by extension the rule of law, derives its power from the people.

Lord of Planar said:
How is it picking on the poorest, to ask them to be responsible?
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about a drug test, not a request.

Lord of Planar said:
Wow...

And you think they are the thieves, but you advocate the practice.

I pity your sense of morality.
Click to expand...

Nope, i outlined a specific condition:

Absentglare said:
... If we're in the business of determining who deserves what, ...
Click to expand...

I believe we should do what we try to do well.
 
shrubnose said:
Or if they would all just do the job that they're being paid to do,eh?
Click to expand...

i support giving them the national average pay, vacation, and benefits. bet the average worker would see a change if that happened.
 
Or, hey, how about in order to receive tax cuts or subsidies? :roll:
 
Mac77 said:
Its our time and our money

No food stamps for druggies
Click to expand...
Yep. Sure is. And I would love to see it stop. :roll:


Drug Testing Welfare Recipients Is A Popular New Policy That Cost States Millions. Here Are The Results.
 

Hold people accountable by.... making them lose their homes or struggle to feed their children?

Great plan!
 
Deuce said:
The problem is that McDonald's doesn't pay you enough to feed and house yourself.

A lot of the people collecting TANF/SNAP have a job already.
Click to expand...

They pay by the hour, so work more hours, it's simple math. Or go get two jobs, or three? Should be enough for rent and food. And I believe most McDonald's will feed you during your shift for free or at a discount.
 
Drug testing people for food stamps generally doesn't pencil out financially. There are other easier and more straightforward ways to reform food stamps that would save money and/or reduce waste, such as by stopping the practice of allowing food stamps to be redeemed for virtually anything and everything.
 

That is probably the best place to start.
 
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…