CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
4
Against For
Debate Score:8
Arguments:8
Total Votes:8
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Against (4)
 
 For (4)

Debate Creator

sierrastruth(524) pic



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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXO8DVMxpDw&feature=related

Against

Side Score: 4
VS.

For

Side Score: 4
1 point

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.

Side: Against
1 point

"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.

Side: For
twaggoner(31) Disputed
1 point

"it has been proven in Florida that it does not work."

What happened in Florida? Why didn't it work?

Here is the link from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html it shows not only is it not cost effective but there were only 108 of 4086 that tested positive.

"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.

Side: Against

It would be a waste of money to drug test people applying for Government Assistance.

Side: Against

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).

Side: For