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.
Drug testing for government assistance programs?
Should people receiving or trying to receive government assistance be required to take a drug test? I think they should and this guy said it pretty well plus he made me laugh.
No, it has been proven in Florida that it does not work. The main reason I am against it is that it is a clear violation of the fourth amendment. You cannot search a person (including their urine, hair, etc.) without having probable cause to do so, and obtaining a warrant. Because a person needs assistance does not mean that they are on drugs, so where is the evidence they have done anything wrong? I am all for helping those that need help, but they are already in a position where they are having to ask for assistance, what is the point of humiliating them further by telling them we think they are drug addicts as well? I am all for regulation for those that are convicted of a drug crime while receiving assistance, but without any proof of wrongdoing, then there cannot be a violation of their rights. If the same logic is continued, then how about using it for every government service? "before our fire department can put out your house, im gonna need you to pee in this cup", or the police " i'd like to investigate your house being burglarized, but first your gonna need a piss test, after all, your stuff could have been bought with drug money." Marriage license, drivers license, tax refund, all subject to any one of us for no reason other than we needed that service at that time.
"it has been proven in Florida that it does not work."
What happened in Florida? Why didn't it work?
"You cannot search a person (including their urine, hair, etc.) without having probable cause to do so, and obtaining a warrant"
Its not an illegal search its a requirement for services, there are tuns of jobs that require applicants and employees to take UAs why should it be different. Specially if they are already taking themselves out of the job market by choosing to do drugs in the first place. Testing positive doesn't have to mean that they have to get arrested or denied permanently.
"I am all for helping those that need help, but they are already in a position where they are having to ask for assistance, what is the point of humiliating them further by telling them we think they are drug addicts as well?"
I am all for helping people in need too that is why I don't think a drug test would be humiliating (except to those who couldn't pass). If I felt like I needed help and I was denied assistance, which I have been, and then saw someone else get it and go out and spend the cash (that they now dont have to spend on rent or food) on pot or crank or whatever, which I have seen, I would be pissed (and so I am).
Government assistance is not a right, it should be policed more and you should have to abide by its regulations, if you don't like the rules then go out and figure out how to take care of yourself.
"If the same logic is continued, then how about using it for every government service?"
I'm not entirely against that idea. I think that if the fire depo or police come to your house for something you have done ( put the couch to close to the heater, climbed up in a tree and couldn't get down, letting a party get to loud etc you should have to pay a fee). Its one thing to have authority's come to your house and demand a UA or sample of your DNA and another go to the government (the tax payers) and ask for money because you don't have a job without expecting to submit to a few inquiries as to why it is you don't have said job.
"You cannot search a person (including their urine, hair, etc.) without having probable cause to do so, and obtaining a warrant"
Its not an illegal search its a requirement for services, there are tuns of jobs that require applicants and employees to take UAs why should it be different. Specially if they are already taking themselves out of the job market by choosing to do drugs in the first place. Testing positive doesn't have to mean that they have to get arrested or denied permanently.
Drug testing for a job is also wrong, but allowed when it is a privately owned company. There are higher standards to meet when you are talking about a government entity wanting to search your person. You agree when you work for a company to submit to a drug test, it is your choice. For many people the use of "welfare" is not a choice so much as it is necessary for survival, there is a big difference between the two.
"I am all for helping those that need help, but they are already in a position where they are having to ask for assistance, what is the point of humiliating them further by telling them we think they are drug addicts as well?"
I am all for helping people in need too that is why I don't think a drug test would be humiliating (except to those who couldn't pass). If I felt like I needed help and I was denied assistance, which I have been, and then saw someone else get it and go out and spend the cash (that they now dont have to spend on rent or food) on pot or crank or whatever, which I have seen, I would be pissed (and so I am).
Government assistance is not a right, it should be policed more and you should have to abide by its regulations, if you don't like the rules then go out and figure out how to take care of yourself.
Government assistance is a right as we as citizens of the U.S. are all blanketed by the rules and regulations set forth by federal, state and local laws. Part of that system is the ability to ask for and receive the assistance that is part of the budget paid for by our government. There is no difference between assistance programs and police or fire, or public schools, it is there for you to use and you have every right to do so if you need it. I wonder about your particular situation...you were refused and then SAW someone go spend cash assistance on drugs? You dote on about being pissed about people doing this and yet you will follow people around to watch them buy drugs? This argument makes no sense.
"If the same logic is continued, then how about using it for every government service?"
I'm not entirely against that idea. I think that if the fire depo or police come to your house for something you have done ( put the couch to close to the heater, climbed up in a tree and couldn't get down, letting a party get to loud etc you should have to pay a fee). Its one thing to have authority's come to your house and demand a UA or sample of your DNA and another go to the government (the tax payers) and ask for money because you don't have a job without expecting to submit to a few inquiries as to why it is you don't have said job.
We do pay fees for services of the police and fire through our taxes, this is our "fee" for use. And there are inquiries as to why you need the services you are asking for, if there were not, anyone could walk in off the street and walk out with a check, which you yourself say you were denied. Bottom line, while there will always be scammers who want to work the system, there are too many honest people who need the help, and there is not a single reason to violate their rights, humiliate them, or make it any harder than it already is to get the help they need.
From all the reading I just did I didn't see where there was actually a definitive ruling on whether drug testing on welfare recipients was in fact unconstitutional. All over the country the debate is being discussed and ruled on but the case in Florida is actually still in court (temporarily halted) unruled on. I don't like that that the testing could end up being more expensive then not doing it but I would argue that it was worth it.
These are quotes from the link you left me that I consider to be reasonable questions to be considered in the debate: "Drug users, no matter their numbers, should not be allowed to use taxpayer money, they said. "
“The drug testing law was really meant to make sure that kids were protected,” he said, “that our money wasn’t going to addicts, that taxpayer generosity was being used on diapers and Wheaties and food and clothing.”
"Government assistance is a right as we as citizens of the U.S. are all blanketed by the rules and regulations set forth by federal, state and local laws. Part of that system is the ability to ask for and receive the assistance that is part of the budget paid for by our government"
I disagree, if government assistance is a right then the rich would be able to receive it to right, or are the rich not US citizens? It true every American can ask for assistance but not everyone is ELIGIBLE to receive it, why is it that the rich cant receive it but drug addicts can? It doesn't make sense to me.
"We do pay fees for services of the police and fire through our taxes, this is our "fee" for use"
This is true, but not everyone (actually alot of people don't) pay taxes. What "fee" do they pay?
"Bottom line, while there will always be scammers who want to work the system, there are too many honest people who need the help, and there is not a single reason to violate their rights, humiliate them, or make it any harder than it already is to get the help they need"
The argument that there will always be scammers so we shouldn't bother trying to stop them is ridicules. I guarantee you the people who honestly need help and are trying to better themselves, their families and their situation will be happy that there are honest attempts to make sure the money (the tax payers are required to pay) go to help the right people, the people that it is ment to help. If you or anyone els want to supply drug addicts with some extra spending money go start a donation for them.
"Government assistance is a right as we as citizens of the U.S. are all blanketed by the rules and regulations set forth by federal, state and local laws. Part of that system is the ability to ask for and receive the assistance that is part of the budget paid for by our government"
I disagree, if government assistance is a right then the rich would be able to receive it to right, or are the rich not US citizens? It true every American can ask for assistance but not everyone is ELIGIBLE to receive it, why is it that the rich cant receive it but drug addicts can? It doesn't make sense to me.
"We do pay fees for services of the police and fire through our taxes, this is our "fee" for use"
This is true, but not everyone (actually alot of people don't) pay taxes. What "fee" do they pay?
"Bottom line, while there will always be scammers who want to work the system, there are too many honest people who need the help, and there is not a single reason to violate their rights, humiliate them, or make it any harder than it already is to get the help they need"
The argument that there will always be scammers so we shouldn't bother trying to stop them is ridicules. I guarantee you the people who honestly need help and are trying to better themselves, their families and their situation will be happy that there are honest attempts to make sure the money (the tax payers are required to pay) go to help the right people, the people that it is ment to help. If you or anyone els want to supply drug addicts with some extra spending money go start a donation for them.
1. of course government services are a right and of course there are requirements. you cannot call the fire department to cook your dinner, you have to have a fire. you cannot call the police to wash your car, you have to use them for what they are designed for, so of course there are ELIGIBILITY requirements for all services, your argument that rich people can't but drug addicts can implies that anyone who uses government assistance is a drug addict. this particular government service has the eligibility requirement of "need", rich people do not have that need so they do not qualify, its really very simple, i dont understand why you have a problem with that.
2. alot of people dont pay taxes? really? i understand that you probably mean income tax, but do you live somewhere where there are no sales taxes? EVERYONE PAYS TAXES! whether you admit it or not.
3. I never said that there should be no effort made to stop those who would take advantage of the system and there are laws in effect to do that, some work well some dont. my point, once again, is that you cannot include innocent people in the limited pool of people who would violate the rules/laws. I would never donate to assist a drug addict in buying drugs and that argument not only ignorant but flamboyant. my suggestion is that you take a step back, review your real issue which appears to me a jealousy issue because you feel that someone is getting something for nothing (which is untrue), and realize while the system has flaws it is necessary. but it is unnecessary to continue to wage the war on the poor, by keeping a boot on their back, breaking their spirits to keep them in check.
"1. of course government services are a right and of course there are requirements"
I thought we were talking about government assistance (welfare), I do think that everyone should have access to fire and police and to my knowledge EVERYONE dose, but not everyone has access to welfare programs ( which I'm am glad for) therefore it isn't a right, If it was a right everyone could get it.
"your argument that rich people can't but drug addicts can implies that anyone who uses government assistance is a drug addict. this particular government service has the eligibility requirement of "need", rich people do not have that need so they do not qualify, its really very simple, i don't understand why you have a problem with that."
I'm not saying that rich people should get government assistance I'm trying to explain why government assistance isn't "a right". I think people who NEED it should get it but if I quit my job or cut back my hours and started buying pot and alcohol or other things with the small amount of money I had and then went to the human services department and filled out and received food stamps, section 8, health care, utility assistance and child care, I would be able to continue my chosen life style of drugs and self indulgence at the expense of not only the tax payers but the families that choose not to do drugs and honestly need some help getting on their feet. There isn't an endless amount of money you know. each state and county only gets so much given to them for these services once its gone people cant get it any more. I think the state should do what it can to make sure its helping the people who need help not the people who want to have someone pay for there drugs. (Please note: i mentioned many times the fact that people who don't do drugs apply for assistance, therefore not all recipients are drug users).
"2. alot of people dont pay taxes? really? i understand that you probably mean income tax, but do you live somewhere where there are no sales taxes? EVERYONE PAYS TAXES! whether you admit it or not."
Actually I live in Oregon where there is no sales tax. Its true there are state taxes on alcohol and cigarettes but I don't think that proves that everyone pays taxes. It is my understanding that people who make under 10k pay no taxes and actually get "refunds" if they have kids, whether they payed taxes or not.
"my point, once again, is that you cannot include innocent people in the limited pool of people who would violate the rules/laws"
So... the system requires that every applicant provide proof that they have a social security number, proof of income, how many children they have, where they work, live, proof of expenses, assets, they ask if you've been convicted of a crime and so on. Its okay to ask and demand proof of all these things from "innocent" people but asking that they prove whether they are doing drugs (aka putting themselves in a position to be automatically denied a job) is stepping over the line?
"review your real issue which appears to me a jealousy issue because you feel that someone is getting something for nothing (which is untrue), and realize while the system has flaws it is necessary. but it is unnecessary to continue to wage the war on the poor, by keeping a boot on their back, breaking their spirits to keep them in check"
I realize the system is helpful and possibly beneficial for the country, I am not waging a war on the poor I am asking for a system with accountability, and suggesting a potential solution to one of the problems plaguing the welfare system.
I don't think its that complicated, if a person is asking the government for support they should prove that they actually need it (if they can afford drugs they can afford their own food, shelter etc).