The Instigator
arielle
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jarhyn
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Why shouldnt people with government aid 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 3 votes the winner is...
Jarhyn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 850 times Debate No: 31228
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

arielle

Con

Can you give me some reasons why people with government aid shouldn't be drug tested? and why they should?
Jarhyn

Pro

First, I accept, under the very important rule that my opponent is entirely responsible for fulfilling their burden of proof that people SHOULD be tested for government aid. I will, below, give some reasons why government aid should not be contingent upon drug testing. Namely, it is cheaper to spend money on drugs than on fancy food, video games, computers, and music.

The need for pleasure

It should be noted that all people have some need for recreation at regular intervals. Depriving people of this clear need is often detrimental to the mental health of those people and often to society as a whole. Depriving people of drugs leaves people in the position where they need some other form of recreational outlet, often one that is more expensive and less effective at resolving the issue at hand.

For example, going to a movie with friends generally costs up to 30 dollars for a single person, counting food and drinks. This 30 dollars provides enjoyment for all of 2 hours, and if the movie is bad, there's the very real possibility that the money is entirely wasted. For a single 'nice' meal in a restraunt, it can cost 30 dollars per person. This does have the added bonus of not having to clean up after or prepare the food before, but this total of effort sums to about the same total time as the movie. A video game may purchase a weekend of enjoyment for 30-60 dollars, or even an entire month's worth, however this is only after a person has put down upwards of 150 or more dollars of their hard earned money, sum which many poorer families do not have disposable access to at any given point in time, and many people are not capable of enjoying video games for such a period of time. Even sex has its associated costs, and is not availabe for everyone. A poor couple may not often be in "the mood" due to their abject poverty and the other stresses in their lives. Alternatively, alcohol costs only twenty dollars for enough Woodchuck Hard Cider for two people to get slobbering drunk for an entire weekend. Marijuana, only slightly more expensive at 30 dollars, will get two people high for two evenings straight, at only 15 dollars a bowl. Marijuana becomes even MORE cost effective if used sparingly. As a bonus, many drugs such as THC and Alcohol can increase the instance of sex, which itself further serves to increase the effectiveness of the recreation involved in drug use, and makes other 'free' activities effectively stimulating and novel.

Indeed, if allowed as completely legal, various drugs such as THC, LSD, and MDMA may very well be the single most cost effective form of enjoying some given period of time. It has long been understood that the reason various primates attempt to control access to such substances is not because it is detrimental to the work ethic, but rather because there is an impulse among primates to control access to pleasure for whatever misguided and counter-productive Darwinistic evolutionary end. This reduction in the cost of recreation for our poorest individuals gives them and their families lower overall costs to maintain their sanity and make life tolerable, and that means more money in their pockets for other things such as education and a higher standard of living.

I certainly know for myself that I never would have made it through college without some weed from time to time to take the edge off of the austerity of my life. Two hundred dollars of weed would last me well through the course of a semester of classes.

The need for placation

Among the lowest in our society poverty and inability to access recreational outlets generally creates unrest. It has long been known among ancient cultures that, far from being the problem, drugs were actually the solution to disgruntled workers. In many cultues, alcohol was the currency with which the workers were paid (ie, ancient egypt, for which the hiroglyph for "wages" was the hiroglyph for barley). When people are happy and drunk, they are generally not rioting. The same, gladly, applies to other recreational substances such as THC and MDMA. I have personally known many stoners... while some may be angry drunks, and some may be angry when sober, I have yet to meet a single stoner who is angry when stoned.

By giving our poor and downtrodden access to the teat of Alcohol and THC, it is easy to recognize that they will be more inclined to be peaceful and calm of demeanor, even while seeking better circumstances in life.

The need for control and freedom

Not only do the poor need access to affordable recreation and placation to ease their unrest, the poor additionally need some feeling of control over their own lives. Lack of control is generally the instigator of unrest, and while drugs may dull the unrest, inabiliy to make decisions for a person's life may lead that person to rebellion. There is a clear pattern that when someone feels that they are losing control over their life, they either give up living altogether and are broken, or they lash out against the system which they feel has deprived them of control. By instigating yet another draconian control upon the lives of our poor, it is inevitable that this enforcement will instigate some to violence. Whole wars have been fought for the desire of men to remain free from unnecessary control. Not only is drug testing unnecessary and even unwanted for the previously stated reasons, it will inevitably lead to greater instances of unrest.

Conclusions

Drug testing of those on government aid, ostensibly the poorest among us, is detrimental to both those people and society for various reasons. As my opponent has requested, I have provided reasons why drug testing would have negative effects, ostensibly reasons why people with government aid SHOULD NOT be drug tested. Regarless of whether there are reasons that they SHOULD be tested, I have satisfied my burden to provide such reasons. If my opponen would like support for any of the variou claims, I would invite him to request such support, else I will accept that he has conceded those points.
Debate Round No. 1
arielle

Con

arielle forfeited this round.
Jarhyn

Pro

Con FF. I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 2
arielle

Con

arielle forfeited this round.
Jarhyn

Pro

Con FF. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
arielle

Con

arielle forfeited this round.
Jarhyn

Pro

See previous...
Debate Round No. 4
arielle

Con

arielle forfeited this round.
Jarhyn

Pro

Finally...
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by arielle 3 years ago
arielle
Shut up. I didnt ask for your opinion :P Grantmac18
Posted by Grantmac18 3 years ago
Grantmac18
This is a debate not a forum.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
arielleJarhynTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
arielleJarhynTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Full 4 fit
Vote Placed by Magicr 3 years ago
Magicr
arielleJarhynTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit. Also, Con failed to capitalize "and" at the beginning of a sentence, giving Pro spelling and grammar.