The Instigator
kasmic
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
LatinaGirl8894
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should those recieving welfare be drug tested?

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 1 vote the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 815 times Debate No: 65032
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

kasmic

Con

Should those recieving welfare be drug tested?

round 1 acceptance.

LatinaGirl8894

Pro

I accept. Looking forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Con

We should not drug test welfare recipients!

Drug use and welfare are not connected topics. We should stop trying to correlate them.

C1: Drugs are not just a poverty thing. Rich do drugs do. Are we going to drug test CEO’s of companies that get corporate welfare. Are we going to drug test Congress and the President?



C2: Children need to eat!

In the event that someone receiving welfare is on drugs… the effect is negative.

Let’s say a single mother with two kids applies for welfare for her and her kids. She is drug tested and fails the drug test, making her ineligible for food stamps. Now, not only does she not have food, her kids do not have food.

Or worse, say the mother knows that she will fail the drug test and fears losing her kids. So does not even apply because she will likely fail the test. Now she and the kids are starving.

C3: Adults too!

I suppose the idea of drug testing welfare recipients is meant deter spending money on drugs… however, people need food. Again, would we as a society rather that people starve and do drugs, than eat and do drugs. Drugs and welfare are seperate issues that need to be addressed seperately.

C4: Unreasonable search and seizure!

Such drug testing has been found to be unconstitutional.

“U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven ruled on Tuesday that Florida’s 2011 change to its welfare program, which mandates recipients undergo drug testing, violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure and is thus unconstitutional.” (1)

Conclusion:

Drugs are not exclusive to those who are in need of assistance. Such drug testing may lead to people going without food, including children. Drug testing for welfare has been found Unconstitutional as it a violation of the fourth amendment.

We should not drug test welfare recipients.

(1)http://www.salon.com...

LatinaGirl8894

Pro

"Another reason for mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients is that it is fair. People who are working have to take a drug test in order to conform to the employee standards of the company that they work for. Many companies mandate drug tests as a condition of employment. Many colleges require physicals (including drug tests) before a student begins his or her studies at that institution. The military performs drug tests. Professional sports teams perform drug tests. Throughout our lives, the vast majority of people are required to take a drug test at one time or another for various reasons, in order to ensure that they are complying with the law. Welfare recipients should be held to the same standard as everybody else in this regard." (1)

While reading this statement I am inclined to agree 100% with it. All of these people have to be drug tested to get what they want, whether it is to get on a team or even go to school. So why should people who are taking money from the government and tax payers not being tested to get what they want? This seems unfair to me. If we are to trust those who are using this service we should be able to see if they will misuse it.

If that single mother fails a drug test and therefore she can"t buy food for her kids, then maybe she should think about buying them food and not worry about trying to get her next fix.

Buying food is way more important than buying drugs. You should be using the money you use to buy drugs and take it to buy food instead. Why should the government help you support your drug habit? If people know that they can still get welfare even if there are on drugs then they will continue to do it.

If the people needing to use welfare have nothing to hide them they would not have a problem with being drug tested. It is only those who know that they will fail that are throwing a fuss. Not sure what the fourth amendment has to do with being drug tested.

(1)http://theconcordian.org...
Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Con

Pro says “Another reason for mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients is that it is fair.”

It is not fair. Fair would be drug testing all citizens, or none. Fair would be having probable cause to administer such a test… suspicion of drugs etc.

“People who are working have to take a drug test in order to conform to the employee standards of the company that they work for….”

Not all companies require this. That aside, it is entirely different for a private company to drug test their privately employees then for the government to do the same.

For example: The government may allow someone to own a gun. However, I have the ability to not let my friend into my home with that gun. Another example being that the government may allow people to drink alcohol, could not I not allowing drinking on my private property. Likewise, a private company can set its own restrictions for employment that the government would have no business copying.

“ Welfare recipients should be held to the same standard as everybody else in this regard."

They are, if someone wanted the same job that another had to get drug tested for, they would have to be drug tested.

Pro says “If that single mother fails a drug test and therefore she can"t buy food for her kids, then maybe she should think about buying them food and not worry about trying to get her next fix.”

True, but addiction is a much more complex problem than my opponent seems to think. Addiction can become uncontrollable.

Pro says “Buying food is way more important than buying drugs. You should be using the money you use to buy drugs and take it to buy food instead.”

Again, I agree. However, drug addiction is a much more complex issue than this. As I have struggled with addiction in my life, I can tell you that someone addicted may intend to do that, and then fail.

Pro says “If the people needing to use welfare have nothing to hide them they would not have a problem with being drug tested. It is only those who know that they will fail that are throwing a fuss.”

I have nothing to hide in my home, yet I don’t want someone watching me all the time. I have nothing to hide in my car, yet I would be unhappy if someone wanted to search it. I do not do drugs, and I would give a big fuss if I was to be drug tested for food, as it is a violation of the fourth amendment.

“Not sure what the fourth amendment has to do with being drug tested.”

The article I sited explains this. It is illegal search and seizer.

Truth is these issues could not be more separate. Would it make sense to drug test for a marriage license? Would it make sense to drug test to pay taxes? What about drug testing people before they vote? In all cases it would be inappropriate. Likewise, drug testing those who receive welfare would be inappropriate.

Truth is all people need food. Wether drug addicts, criminals in prison, or the poor.

LatinaGirl8894

Pro

Seeing as that drug use is a complex issue these days and addictions are hard to kick, I think this is another reason why we should drug test those who want help from the government. This may be the kick those people need to get the help they need to get off whatever drug they are on.

I do not believe this is inappropriate because if they want something for "free" then they should have to be clean to get it.

" Some countries run conditional cash transfer welfare programs where payment is conditional on behavior of the recipients." (1) This does not sound like a bad idea to me with the condition being that they are drug free. This way they have to chose whether or not they get it.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Con

Pro says of drug testing welfare recipients…

“I do not believe this is inappropriate because if they want something for "free" then they should have to be clean to get it.”

Pro goes on to state “we should drug test those who want help from the government.”

Again, this is a violation of the fourth amendment. It is well understood that for a police officer to search you home or car they have to have a substantial reason to do so. This should be true of drug testing. An extreme analogy would be for police officers to only serve and protect those who first allow the police to search there home. Then if you do not let them, you would not get their help in protection from crime. Sounds off doesn’t it. Drug testing welfare recipients is very much the same.

Conclusion:

Drugs are not exclusive to those who are in need of assistance. Such drug testing may lead to people going without food, including children. Drug testing for welfare has been found Unconstitutional as it a violation of the fourth amendment.

We should not drug test welfare recipients.
LatinaGirl8894

Pro

I believe getting the assistance that they will be getting is reason enough to be drug tested. You should not be getting help with things if you are going to just go out and buy more drugs. Why should we have to support their habit? That is for them to worry about.

Drug testing should be required for Welfare.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
One thing they should lose, is the privilege to vote. A freeloader should not be able to vote themselves more freebies.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
kasmicLatinaGirl8894Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ignored con's arguments and repeatedly made the same bare assertions, which he never answered the rebuttals for.