The Instigator
AHUGECAT
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
aparadis15
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

California should drug test welfare recipients

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,598 times Debate No: 22681
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

AHUGECAT

Con

There should be no drug testing for welfare in California because:

a) 96% of welfare recipients in Florida passed the drug test

This shows that there isn't enough of a problem to warrant drug testing - most will pass. (1)

b) Drug testing recipients violates the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a judge has ruled.

The Michigan drug testing for welfare recipients was also declared unconstitutional in 1999, as it violates the fourth amendment's "unreasonable searches and seizures" text. (2)

c) The costs in Florida are more than what they expected and drug testing welfare recipients costs MORE than not doing so

With these 3 reasons there should NOT be welfare drug testing in California. Anyone disagree? Debate here.

REFERENCES:
1. http://colorlines.com...
2. http://www.miamiherald.com...
3. http://www.rawstory.com...

("Welfare" meaning the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program)
aparadis15

Pro

The welfare system was supposed to be a way to help those in need become independent and get through a rough patch in their life. If employers can drug test any possible applicant, then how can we teach people to become better candidates for jobs if we allow them to use drugs?
Yes simply saying to drug test applicants.. if you are not clean we "won't give you benefits" would not work. I am saying, yes, drug test welfare applicants and recipients and create a set of guidelines they need to follow. We should not be allowing people to continue to live without self-responsibility and restraint.
By allowing this way of life to happen we are only continuing to let people destroy their families. Families is the key word. Most recipients are families with children. How is it fair to that child? Many people sell their food stamps, blow the rent money and then stand in a line for free food because the money that was given to help that child was used for something it shouldn't't have. This child then grows up watching the way he/she was raised and says its okay because that is how I was taught.
Not everyone on welfare is a drug addict or alcoholic. Say I had welfare, do most people sit at home and do drugs and get drunk every night? No, because most people want to have some self-respect at the end of the day and some know they will reach the point where they won't need any assistance at all.
So plain and simple I believe that if you are against it then you are probably receiving benefits and will not pass a drug test yourself, or think ignorance is an excuse to let people waste away the potential they have.
Debate Round No. 1
AHUGECAT

Con

Thanks for accepting.

"If employers can drug test any possible applicant, then how can we teach people to become better candidates for jobs if we allow them to use drugs?"

There's a difference - welfare is a government service, while employers are in the private sector. The government cannot force you to undergo "search and seizures" without probable cause as it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution 4th amendment in the Bill of Rights. Many judges have ruled on this, as I supplied evidence above of judges ruling that testing welfare recipients for drug use is indeed a violation of the 4th amendment. "Judge Mary Scriven issued a temporary injunction against the state, writing in a 37-page order that the law could violate the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on illegal search and seizure." (1)

Now you might say why can the government test government workers, isn't that violating their 4th amendment right? Not exactly. An analogy: The government can drug test a firefighter, police officer, or teacher as a condition of employment. However, the government CANNOT force you to take a drug test because you need your fire put out, were robbed at gunpoint, or need to enroll your child in school. The first three - firefighter, police officer, and teacher - are government employees, while the last three are government services. Testing welfare recipients is like drug testing people who want to go to a public park.

"We should not be allowing people to continue to live without self-responsibility and restraint."

Are you saying welfare recipients do not have self-responsibility? Many of them do not want to be in the situation at all. Just because they are welfare recipients does not mean they are more likely to do drugs. 8.4% of the U.S. population does drugs according to the US. Department of Health and Human Services, yet when Floridians were drug tested to get on welfare 96% of them passed (2), when Michigan tested their recipients 90% of them passed (3), showing it is not true that welfare recipients are more likely to get involved in drug use. If welfare users are more likely to use drugs, please provide evidence.

Many people sell their food stamps, blow the rent money and then stand in a line for free food because the money that was given to help that child was used for something it shouldn't't have.

Whether this is true or not it has nothing to do with drug use.

So plain and simple I believe that if you are against it then you are probably receiving benefits and will not pass a drug test yourself, or think ignorance is an excuse to let people waste away the potential they have.

Or you can be against it because it is unconstitutional, will cost more than it saves, and solves nothing because there isn't a problem with welfare recipients and drugs. If there is no problem, what is there to solve?

1. http://www.miamiherald.com...
2. http://colorlines.com...
3. http://www.pressandguide.com...
aparadis15

Pro

aparadis15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AHUGECAT

Con

AHUGECAT forfeited this round.
aparadis15

Pro

aparadis15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AHUGECAT

Con

Well this debate is pretty much dead.
aparadis15

Pro

aparadis15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
AHUGECAT

Con

AHUGECAT forfeited this round.
aparadis15

Pro

aparadis15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ghost911 3 years ago
ghost911
If you say getting drug test violates our 4th ammendment. Why in the 5uk are we getting drug tested before getting hired at a job? Answer that question, seems to never get answer properly, Always with half a22 answer.

There for the company should be taken to court and fined for breaking the law "Especially when the president has broken the law numerious times. Tired of welfare people sittin
sitting on there a22 amd doing drugs while we hard people wprk and pay for this 5hit

All and all fuk THE SYSTEM
Posted by Jblenderman 5 years ago
Jblenderman
Federal funding for any state welfare program is unconstitutional. Just because a judge says yes or no to anything doesn't make it the rule of law. Well it does unfortunately but it still violates constitutionality.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
i just wanna say, the florida law required recipients to pay for the drug test BEFORE they received welfare, meaning that they werent a secret test, people knew about then and about 1600 people refused to take the drug test.

Point is, numbers might be low because people knew if they paid for it that they wouldnt qualify and thus backed out rather than go through with it.

Despite that though I am still against drug testing because it is still very expensive
Posted by KILLUMINATI 5 years ago
KILLUMINATI
Living here in Florida I remember Comedy Central reporter Aasif Mandvi crashed a budget press conference in December 2011 to ask Rick Scott(FLA GOV.) to pee in a cup. It was very funny.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com...
No votes have been placed for this debate.