CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should wellfare recipients have to be drug tested?
Many wellfare users sell the food they get for drugs. If you want need help with food you shouldn't have money for drugs. Also, some drug users would might get off drugs to get wellfare.
I don't think its that big of a deal. Most republicans seem to think so though. I'm just sick and tired of them whining and bitching. I do however want people who are on welfare to find a job and not live off the government forever.
And that is a reason by itself to do drug testing. Make them meet the same requirements as the work place has and you have taken them one step closer to being fit.
Are you kidding me? Do you know how easy it is to pass a drug test when one knows it is coming?
This has been tried. Whatever the actual percentage of welfare recipients who have used drugs actually is, the number of people excluded from welfare programs due to testing positive represents a tiny, tiny minority. In every state that has tried it, more money has been spent on the testing program by FAR than was saved in denied benefits.
This kind of things might give people the warm fuzzies, but it is ineffective at what it sets out to do, and costs more money than it saves.
The problem is primarily one of perception. Media in the US in general tend to focus on sensational topics that get a rise out of people, due to a mix of it being good for ratings and it being good for whomever is bankrolling the media in question. One of the results of this is the perception that welfare is commonly abused, when the actual statistics regarding welfare recipients don't bear it out; the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients are on the program temporarily, as is intended- and abuse is pretty uncommon even amongst the minority of those on welfare long-term.
the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients are on the program temporarily
This implies that the system is working, when it isn't. Welfare is incredibly difficult to get away from. It's nice to say that people are only there temporarily, but if it is also repeatedly, then we have a different problem. This isn't about drug testing, this is about the nature of welfare, which is suppose is a different debate.
Welfare doesn't do a good job of covering the gap between employment and benefits. If you have a family, you may get a job and need welfare benefits before your 6 months. This means it may be better for you or your family for you to loose that job.
My intent was not to imply that the system is working so much as to point out that those abusing the system are a minority; one wouldn't generally expect somebody abusing the system to stop using it for any reason other than disqualification, after all.
The effectiveness of welfare is another discussion entirely, and probably a good one to have.
Why not? Why not make stricter laws for people receiving government benefits. Do people realize that if more than 50% of the country begins receiving welfare from the government, our system will collapse. Look that was happened in Greece. 60% of the country was receiving welfare-it's simple math. more money coming out of the government than is going into it. what is the latest number? something like 40 percent of Americans receiving some sort of government assistance? We are close to the threshold.
It is just your generation that considers work to be a waste and it is this generation that thinks welfare is an entitlement.
Secondly: In society when you want something, you have to earn it. One should do something to earn welfare and one thing someone can do that is on welfare is to obey the law/comply to accepted work practices.
Thirdly: Your body is not your own to do whatever you want to do with it. The reason there are laws against suicide.
Primarily because stricter laws surrounding substance abuse have repeatedly demonstrated their inefficacy. The entire "war on drugs" was an utter failure. Penalizing addiction is not an effective deterrent.
Regarding welfare, you are confusing a symptom for a problem. Greece did not collapse because 60% of its population was receiving welfare. 60% of the population of Greece was on welfare because the national economy was incapable of supporting enough jobs at living wage. It is worth noting that while welfare rates in Greece were symptomatic of underlying economic problems, a high welfare rate does not inherently signal economic instability (i.e. some nations aggregate their financial base through higher taxation and redistribute it more equitably, proportioning welfare expenditures according to tax and other revenue). I do not think that this is the case in the U.S. at present; our economic model is unstable and unsustainable at present and the prevalence of what is actually a rather ineffectual welfare system is symptomatic of that.
They should be drug test just because they applied for welfare. If one wants assistants, one should actually need it and not just want it. Let welfare be an example as to what it takes to be a responsible citizen. Employers require drug test and so how can someone on welfare taking drugs get off welfare. One has to be free of drugs and this is one step in the weaning process.
Tested YES, but indirectly. Welfare must be tied to work in order to be of any benefit to the recipient as well as society as a whole. Any employer who cares about their employees and their business does routine random drug testing. If the welfare recipient then chooses to by drugs, at least they earned the money.
I have been employed in multiple sectors, and never once have I been asked or required to undergo drug testing. Some of these employers treated me quite well, and ran very successful businesses. I challenge you to provide any evidence actually supporting your claim of this causal relationship.
I don't know how you could have been employed in multiple sectors and never had a drug test. All major companies at least in Ohio make you take a mandatory drug test. I'm guess that the fast food industry will hire anybody and hence the reason you have never had to take a drug test.
Actually, my experience with this was just the opposite. When I worked in fast food and retail places, I could almost always expect a drug test.
When I started out in an entry-level position in my field, I got drug tested.
But subsequent jobs, higher up the chain, even with different companies? Never since. I suppose the assumption there is that a person could not perform work at that level while maintaining a drug habit.
If you ask me, drug testing employees is a waste of time and money in any 'at will' state. If somebody is able to perform all of his or her job functions adequately, it really doesn't matter what he or she does on her own time. If somebody is NOT performing his or her job functions adequately, they should face disciplinary action up to and including being let go; whether that poor performance is due to drug use or something else is largely immaterial. I make an exception for prominent roles where PR is concerned, because public knowledge that a person in a key role has a drug habit can reflect poorly on the company.
But subsequent jobs, higher up the chain, even with different companies? Never since. I suppose the assumption there is that a person could not perform work at that level while maintaining a drug habit.
I'm guessing that you are a manicured, pedicured, chest-waxed woman want-a-be that sits in a cubical or office all day. Only somebody of this nature would use "higher up the chain" as all other jobs are lower down the chain.
The biggest reason why drug testing is done is do to insurance rates, Workman's comp, OSHA, EPA if applicable, it is called liability. If one falls off their chair or gets a paper cut, nobody cares. If an electrician who works for a company fries somebody with 440 volts, the company can be held liable for hiring somebody stoned. This applies to all those "lower down the chain" jobs were one must have skills and not golfing buddies.
I'm a network administrator/engineer. Manicures, Pedicures, chest-waxing? No, not for me. A beard that isn't maintained as well as it should be? That's for me- and for you too, it would seem :b I do have a cubical, but as often as not I'm not in it, but rather in the datacenter or in some meeting or other. "The chain" in my field would generally range from call center support positions, through desktop support and server administration, and generally top out where I'm at, unless one wants to shift gears into a management role, ostensibly with a director or VP position in mind in the future.
But of course, I wouldn't be likely to cause anyone any injury if I were working intoxicated, given the nature of my role. Possibly, if I were intoxicated and in the process of racking equipment, that could cause me to drop something and injure someone, but that's a stretch, really. No, botching my job is only going to cost money, not put anyone in physical danger. So your justification does make sense, it just isn't really applicable to my particular field, which would explain the differences in our observations, I suppose.
The suggestion that skill isn't a factor in my role, or that I play golf at all (much less regularly) is laughable. It would be entirely in keeping with your character to overvalue blue-collar skills and downplay the role that those above perform.
I can understand your assessment of the situation, given that between this and numerous other posts, it seems you're most familiar with entry level (or just above) blue collar positions, but those are hardly the only form of job out there; one can't reliably draw conclusions about all employers and fields based on such limited observations, wouldn't you agree?
The suggestion that skill isn't a factor in my role, or that I play golf at all (much less regularly) is laughable. It would be entirely in keeping with your character to overvalue blue-collar skills and downplay the role that those above perform.
You do think highly of yourself, but I have never heard or seen where an administer being absent for any length of time has kept a company from producing a product. If management went on strike nobody cares. Please show me where office staff causes a plant to shut down by striking. Next you'll be telling me that it is by divine right that you have a pansy job.
You do think highly of yourself, but I have never heard or seen where an administer being absent for any length of time has kept a company from producing a product.
I have never heard of or seen a case where an automobile manufacturer being shutdown temporarily has prevented those who have already purchased their vehicle from driving. But if somebody wants a new car, there needs to be someone to build it, now, doesn't there?
I have never heard of or seen a case where a mechanic being out for any length of time has kept someone from driving a car that said mechanic serviced. But that mechanic sure becomes vital when the car breaks down, now, doesn't he?
I built the network that my company works on, and I maintain and upgrade it day to day. If I think highly of myself, it's because of the effort I put in in unskilled jobs to bankroll my education, and in the effort I've put forth to become an expert in my field.
Please point me in the direction of all of the management and office staff strikes you're referring to. I'm not aware of any of those, primarily because these positions generally don't have problems with undercompensation or poor work conditions- one of the reasons those lower on the chain tend to aspire to them.
Next you'll be telling me that it is divine right that you have a pansy job.
I don't believe in divine rights, nor is my job a pansy one by any means. But if calling it such makes you feel better about the shortcomings of your own career, then by all means, call it such and give yourself a pat on the back.
But be quick about it- you'll get fired if you don't get that tire rotation done in time, and I know you don't want to go back on unemployment given what you've said about various forms of welfare on here.
Reading comprehension is not your strong point at all, it is a good thing for you that your company uses the Dilbert Principle.
I have never heard of or seen a case where an automobile manufacturer being shutdown temporarily has prevented those who have already purchased their vehicle from driving. But if somebody wants a new car, there needs to be someone to build it, now, doesn't there?
Address the issue at hand. Producing a product, manufacturing, making, etc.
I'm done. What company do you work for? The office staff needs to be drug tested. You have no comprehension skills and are making arguments to things never said.
But be quick about it- you'll get fired if you don't get that tire rotation done in time, and I know you don't want to go back on unemployment given what you've said about various forms of welfare on here
I pegged you right on by having a cubical but you have missed the mark a long ways when it comes to me. Graduated from Ohio State University with a degree in mechanical engineering, went to work for McDonnell Douglas being a paper weight for a seat cushion such as yourself. While working there one of those Blue collar workers befriended me and long story short, I ended up on his parents farm repairing equipment. I spent a little over 10 years there and then started working on Heavy equipment at a Caterpillar shop. I left there after 9 months (couldn't stand the stench of office staff) started my own heavy equipment repair shop also an excavating business.
Reading comprehension is not your strong point at all, it is a good thing for you that companies use the Dilbert Principle.
Project much? Seriously.
Address the issue at hand. Producing a product, manufacturing, making, etc.
That's not the issue at hand. The big issue at hand is drug testing, and the smaller issue was you making an erroneous comparison, based on a poor understanding of what my career entails. I merely corrected you with better comparable examples.
I'm done.
If only.
What company do you work for?
Safenet, I built and maintain and administer the network that our engineers use. It's in fact directly related to production, as the company produces software; the network in question is comparable to the factory floor. So I suppose I have address the 'issue at hand' as you stated it.
The office staff needs to be drug tested. You have no comprehension skills and are making arguments to things never said.
If you say so, buddy. If you say so. Hurry up on those tires.
I pegged you right on by having a cubical but you have missed the mark a long ways when it comes to me. Graduated from Ohio State University with a degree in mechanical engineering, went to work for McDonnell Douglas being a paper weight for a seat cushion such as yourself. While working there one of those Blue collar workers befriended me and long story short, I ended up on his parents farm repairing equipment. I spent a little over 10 years there and then started working on Heavy equipment at a Caterpillar shop. I left there after 9 months (couldn't stand the stench of office staff) started my own heavy equipment repair shop also an excavating business.
Oh, really? It wasn't so long ago that you went on a long spiel with me about your work as an auto mechanic, particularly regarding your experiences working for certified shops vs otherwise. I suppose you're just a blatant liar then, and I can dismiss all of this out of hand as well, eh?
Your inability to provide any actual evidence upon explicit request speaks for itself. I consider the argument ceded on that basis, since all you have is your biased assertion.
For the record: I have actually never worked in the fast food industry, although I see nothing wrong with those who have or do. Thanks for your erroneous assumption however.
I'll provide evidence by showing the cause and effect logic supporting my argument.
It is known that in a given population of employees, statistically some will use drugs. It is know that drugs can impair mental and physical performance of employees making them unreliable on the job. It is known that employers prefer reliable employees.
Employers will attempt to employ reliable employees AND random drug testing may detect employees who are using drugs SO employers use random drug testing to identify employees using drugs.
Please challenge this logic if you see any invalid causality connections.
While drugs may impair mental and/or physical performance, it is not necessary to administer drug tests to identify that impairment. If an employee is unreliable they are unreliable, and that alone is enough to terminate employment; the reasons for impairment are really quite irrelevant. Drug testing is an unnecessary additional cost to employers, which explains why so many do not use them.
Unilateral drug-testing of welfare recipients is a presumption of individual guilt on the basis of a tenuous generalization. Even if the assertion were not a huge fallacy riding on the back of an even larger assumption, drug testing would not be the solution. Poverty is one of multiple risk variables for substance abuse; further exacerbating financial insecurity by penalizing those with existing substance issues is not going to ameliorate that risk and it will likely drive potential recipients away from obtaining benefits on the premise of conscientious objection.
The welfare debate itself is entirely misdirected. The rising prevalence of welfare is not the problem, it is one of many symptoms pointing to a deteriorating economic system.
Many wellfare users sell the food they get for drugs
Seriously..what sort of drug dealer accepts food for drugs? "Pssttt.. I'll give you a slice of this homemade steak and ale pie if you give us a couple of ounce of weed".
Absolutely not. For one, if drug users are covering the cost of their habits with money taken in from social assistance, then that is money they do not have to find elsewhere (i.e. illegally: theft, prostitution, and the many, many other ways junkies have of finding money (they are quite ingenious people, with the right stimulation)).
On top of this, it is quite a generalization to subject everybody who is down on their luck to this sort of treatment; people who are in need may fear to ask for help out of a belief they will be persecuted for having, say, taken a toke in the previous month, or for having eaten a poppy-seed bagel for breakfast that morning. Gluttonous alcoholics can, however, get around this quite easily, considering that drug tests do not incorporate alcohol in their screens. I am sure most thinking people are very understanding of the great distance that separates the healthfulness of marijuana (or even, I would argue, morphine and certain other drugs) from the common and commonly accepted, yet extremely damaging effects of alcohol and tobacco: physically, societally, and mentally.
Instead of treating all people in need of social assistance as criminals, as sub-human from those who tend to be better-off financially (thanks to a variety of reasons typically outside of their control, such as genetic & environmental factors, as well as inheritances and other familial claims on wealth which the poor very typically lack), effort should be put into lifting up these people from the gutter of their life's circumstances, and they should be given the tools with which they can make their life better.
I don't like the idea that people are using welfare for drugs. But drug testing will be very inefficient because heroin and meth doesn't take much to get out of our system. Florida once tried this, and it was a mistake. They actually spent more money instead of saving. (If the welfare recipient tested negative for the drug test, then the government would of paid for the drug test). If they tested positive they would no longer be allowed to receive welfare. ONLY 2.6% tested positive. So they spent way more money.
The government spends money on transportation infrastructure. Everyone who uses this infrastructure should have to submit to searches of their persons and effects, because some people use the infrastructure to transport drugs.
^ This argument makes the same amount of sense as the notion that those receiving welfare should have to submit to drug testing (which is to say, it does not make sense). The premise in both is that because a few people are guilty of a crime this warrants categorical revocation of everyone's Fourth Amendment rights. A presumption of guilt supplants the Constitutional mandate for the assumption of innocence, and the legal standards of probable cause and reasonable suspicion are rendered ineffectual.