• 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!

Welfare drug testing, maybe I was wrong

It stands to me as a no brainer that drug testing, which is a requirement for ALL public service employment, and most private employment, should also be a requirement for ANY safety net benefits.

I'm a public servant and I don't have to be subjected to drug testing.
 
I'm against government workers being drug tested too. As I already stated, I'm not into the totalitarian type thing.



The use of drugs in the workplace creates a greater potential for accidents, lost time due to accidents, reduced productivity and the result of all of these in higher costs to the employer.

There is no difference on a profit and loss statement between theft and lost time due to accidents.

Do you also support theft?
 
Really? You seem to support the totalitarian idea of robbing the productive to fund welfare and food stamps. Yet you oppose those whose wealth is confiscated the right to place any rational limits or standards upon those who are recipients of this free cash. Something is amiss in you thinking here.

Right, because someone who robbed me from Wall Street is more productive than the piss poor old lady using food stamps. I'll remember that next time I see how much more value my house has lost.
 
I'm a public servant and I don't have to be subjected to drug testing.



Are you saying that it's not required or that you have not been tested?

In my work place, drug testing is triggered by the incident. However, there is a zero tolerance policy so a positive is also a termination acting as a stop loss.
 
Right, because someone who robbed me from Wall Street is more productive than the piss poor old lady using food stamps. I'll remember that next time I see how much more value my house has lost.



How does this have anything to do with the discussion?
 
I don't think anyone should have to be subjected to drug testing by the government. I don't care if you are rich and famous or piss poor.



I would agree.

However, if you want to get something for nothing, then you need to be willing to pay for it in some way.

What do you think the purpose of government support is?
 
The use of drugs in the workplace creates a greater potential for accidents, lost time due to accidents, reduced productivity and the result of all of these in higher costs to the employer.

There is no difference on a profit and loss statement between theft and lost time due to accidents.

Do you also support theft?

I don't support the notion guilty until proven not with drug testing. Too many people can get around the drug testing thing anyway.
 
I would agree.

However, if you want to get something for nothing, then you need to be willing to pay for it in some way.

What do you think the purpose of government support is?

How about making them pay back by doing community work or training for a job?
 
Is drug testing a requirement for a great many jobs? Do most employers have a zero tolerance policy towards illegal drug use?

Is it then not logical to require people receiving funding UNTIL they find employment to be ELIGABLE for said employment?

Like, I can't even believe this is a debate, it's such a no brainer...
 
The point is that is the way they become productive is to work in the community or train for a job not pee in a cup.

But they also have to be clean in order to get a new job, because if they aren't, they'll fail the pre-employment drug screen, remaining on the dole.
 
Is drug testing a requirement for a great many jobs? Do most employers have a zero tolerance policy towards illegal drug use?

Is it then not logical to require people receiving funding UNTIL they find employment to be ELIGABLE for said employment?

Like, I can't even believe this is a debate, it's such a no brainer...

Yeah, sure and all people who come out clean are actually clean. Here something that may shock you, there are people who are working right now that may have used an illegal substance. Should we fire them all or just the ones we catch?
 
But they also have to be clean in order to get a new job, because if they aren't, they'll fail the pre-employment drug screen, remaining on the dole.

Right, because people can't get around those things.
 
The point is that is the way they become productive is to work in the community or train for a job not pee in a cup.


Peeing in a cup, or on their sleeve as the case might be, would be a good way to see if they are actually going to show up.
 
Yeah, sure and all people who come out clean are actually clean. Here something that may shock you, there are people who are working right now that may have used an illegal substance. Should we fire them all or just the ones we catch?

In this day and age, it's really, really difficult to cheat a drug screen. Most people, probably 99.9% of the population, don't have the wits or the resources to pull it off. Now sure, once they get the job no one is going to stop them from using drugs, but if they have an accident at work they'll be out on their ass, as companies test for drugs after all accidents, and they'll fail.
 
In this day and age, it's really, really difficult to cheat a drug screen. Most people, probably 99.9% of the population, don't have the wits or the resources to pull it off. Now sure, once they get the job no one is going to stop them from using drugs, but if they have an accident at work they'll be out on their ass, as companies test for drugs after all accidents, and they'll fail.

You think it difficult to cheat those screens? I've got a nephew who can prove you wrong. If someone is using and gets hurt because of it them, they deserve the nature consequence they will face.
 
You think it difficult to cheat those screens? I've got a nephew who can prove you wrong.

I'm calling bull. I've taken many drug screens, and there was absolutely no way for virtually anyone to cheat on them. If you mean that stuff that you drink to flush your system, that doesn't work because the drug screen detects that stuff too, and that's an automatic positive result.
 
I'm calling bull. I've taken many drug screens, and there was absolutely no way for virtually anyone to cheat on them. If you mean that stuff that you drink to flush your system, that doesn't work because the drug screen detects that stuff too, and that's an automatic positive result.

Do you do the drug testing on the spot?
 
Do you do the drug testing on the spot?

Mine have all been pre-employment drug screens, usually during the physical exam process, so I knew in advance, and there was no way to cheat.

BTW, not all drug screens are urine specimen tests. I've had a few where they clipped hair to test.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom