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.
in principle - yeah, if they are taking money from the government and thus the collective people of the nation, they should have to demonstrate that they are responsible enough not to waste monies on non-necessary consumables like drugs. It doesnt even have to relate to the normativity of drugs or drug use, it has to do with the reasonability of non-necessary consumables being obtained and used when one is not fully self sufficient. essentially when one takes money, one is being subsidized, non-necessary behaviors should not be subsidized, especially the kind associated with criminality.
based on iamdavidh(3476)'s position (which i feel is pretty solid) i suppose the testing should be situational (depending on the criminal history of the individuals). Maybe the testing doesnt need to be for all people - i can see how the costs of doing this for everyone perpetually would be unreasonable.
I think so. There are SO many people who get to spend their money on booze and other drugs because the taxpayers flip the bill for their food. I even met some people who bought sugar yeast and fruit so they could use food stamps for booze
Of course why not... I dont care for the weed law as it should be legal.. but if I have to get er done so should they, at least for more sinical drugs.
To receive food stamp benefits there should be more regulations and testing, I do support drug testing for food stamps. There are many people who abuse the program, the first person to abuse the program did so not long after the first pilot of the program started. If you are receiving aid from the government you should be a law abiding citizen.
yes i don't want the money i have to pay to be given to a drug attics i under stand the need for food stamps but if you have money to spend on drugs you have money to spend on food and don't need it food stamps should be for throws who relay need it not for the druggies that have the money
This question doesn't fully elaborate in how it really is on the drug testing. The only people required to be tested are those who lost their job for refusing or failing the drug tests, and are now on support. This equates me to support the testing. Drugs are to be condemned, allowing them to continue their use of drugs would be to allowing them to hinder the progress of America.
But also I think there is a deeper meaning to this. If people are only using food stamps so they can buy drugs, then the tax payers are effectively paying for drugs, and that should stop. This could be more costly, but I think it has more benefits than meet the eye.
Okay, so in the restructuring you would include drug tests as part of the budget? Even should this mean that, say a single mother with three kids only gets 50 weeks instead of 60 weeks of unemployment should she work a part-time job that doesn't insure and she has an injury that takes about 60 weeks to mend?
Because the money for the drug tests has to come out of the budget somewhere (pretending for a second there are not a million and one ways to cheat), and scenarios like the above are just as, if not more common than actual drug addicts who sell their food stamps.
It is fascinating, going down the wish list of cuts concerning social programs, nearly all of them if enforced as described (this one particularly) actually cost more while at the same time decreasing benefits.
It is almost as if it is not the money, but the benefits which is the culprit. People would pay extra to not offer these things.
It's weird is all.
I'm not against a smarter way of restructuring any social program, so long as it is not reactionary and continues to serve the intended purpose.
It does depend on the un-employment of the state your in, and their are other things that support people with kids.
I do think the drug tests would be more then paid for by the cuts in un-employment payment time.
I do think this is also a duel wielded thing, meaning it is making stricter enforcement on drugs and also un-employment.This will act as a deterrent,it forces people to chose between a job, or drugs, and in-turn a choice between surviving and drugs. So in the long run it could make drug enforcement an easier thing, and in-turn make it cheaper. So again this bill seems to have two purposes, one as a drug deterant and also un-employment cuts.
"It is almost as if it is not the money, but the benefits which is the culprit. People would pay extra to not offer these things.” The extended benefits was enacted as a result of the recession though, and as the economy gets better, the government will allow the economy to be more of a free market, as it should. I do feel this is a cost saving measure, they must of checked the costs of each before finalizing this bill, i trust Obama, and hope this is the right thing.
... if you really think people would stop taking drugs based on this, than you don't know enough about human behavior to make an accurate argument I think.
And if the money "saved" would all go toward drug testing, I fail to see the point still. You are at best breaking even, more likely spending more than you would have otherwise.
Sorry, just looks like a witch hunt to me. This would cost more, and not deter a single person from using drugs.
The only thing it might do is leave a handful of children of drug addicts with even less than they already have.
Though probably not your intent (I do wonder about some who support these ideas) all you are really doing with this is making a few thousand helpless kids a little hungrier at night, while the parents find other, likely criminal means of buying drugs.
Firstly, i think we choose to look at this in two completely different perspectives; you in a more pessimistic and possibly realistic way, and me in a more optimistic and possibly less realistic way.
"while the parents find other, likely criminal means of buying drugs.”
This statement has so many variables to it; the level of addiction, the person and their support, and many other things. Some people, are less addicted to drugs then others, and have more moral supports in the form of family and friends, or other means of support. This law, when forcing them to choose between drugs and food, could force them to realize how insatiable their life really is, and then further encouraged by their friends and family, could get them off of drugs. You may see this as overly optimistic, but their are people who eventually come to grips with life and realize the destitute they have become, and are not ok with it, and their are others who just need a little encouragement to turn their life around.
Now before your criticize this, realize while i was growing up, my mother was a social worker, who worked with these people. I assure you, there were a few who were turned around, and i assure you, i know more than enough on human behavior.
No, even though people might now use their food stamps to buy food and then spend any money they have on drugs, if we didn't give them food stamps they just wouldn't eat as they would rather spend their money on drugs as the pull of drugs for them is so strong. You may say this is their choice but you can't have an MEDC full of weezling away people regardless.
No, it has already been shown in Florida that this type of program is not effective in curbing drug use and the users of the food stamp program had less than minimal participants test positive. The cost of this type of program is another waste of resources, not to mention that these people have a fourth amendment right that guarantees them the security against unreasonable search and seizure. This includes searches of their bodies. Since the food stamp program is run by the government it falls under fourth amendment protections. Unless the participant is convicted of a crime involving drugs / drug use (in which case it deems them ineligible anyway) there is no reason to test innocent people who have done nothing wrong.
