The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Should we drug screen welfare recipients? Does the 4th amendment interfere?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
minfordgirl123 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 380 times Debate No: 111675
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




For my college class, we need to determine whether or not we should drug screen welfare recipients. Also, we need to include how the 4th amendment can be played for or against the situation. I would like to see multiple viewpoints rather than my own. I had to select a viewpoint, but I want to here multiple ways of interpreting the topic.


It"s unconstitutional
A Michigan law that is nearly identical to the Oklahoma proposals has already been ruled unconstitutional by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled in 2003 in Marchwinski v. Howard that Michigan"s policy of broadly subjecting all welfare applicants to a drug test violates the Fourth Amendment"s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. An analysis by the Congressional Research Service concluded in 2008 that state laws requiring drug tests as a condition of benefits, without suspicion of drug use, are susceptible to constitutional challenge. In fact, this is precisely what just happened to Florida"s new law, which is suspended pending the outcome of a legal challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
I meant to say that drug testing will not take place in the home!
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
The fourth amendment is neutral in this situation. It doesn't guarantee welfare recipients are protected from search and seizure because the required drug test most likely take place in the home, but it also doesn't guarantee law enforcement the right to perform testing without just cause. So in my opinion, the 4th amendment doesn't help either side. So we're just left with the fact that the cost of welfare will go up. If the intention of drug testing is to ensure that welfare recipients aren't wasting tax money on drugs, then it becomes kind of redundant because drug testing will most definitely raise the cost welfare.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago

Other than the question, which is form as an opinion, and that's fine. What is the position you are defending in the debate? If you're just seeking different view, you could submit the question under the opinions forum.

I myself would defend or argue the position that Yes, we should drug test and No it does not violate the 4th. I'm not a legal expert in no shape or form, but I believe it would fall under the same legal conditions that all employers to require random/mandatory drug testing.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
I would accept, but I am Australian and do not know the fourth US amendment haha, sorry! Is it the right to feel secure or something like that?
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Could I argue that welfare (as well as gov't) should be abolished?
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.