Should people on public assistance be tested for addictive substances?

Nope no job planned. I got into town on the Wednesday night and was working in a temp job by the Friday morning. I took the very first job i could get as a stepping stone to the job i wanted. Oh and you are going to love it when you get there too mate.

 

There's two forms of addiction: mental and physical.

Mental addictions are not limited to just drugs. ANYTHING can be mentally addicting to the point where it negatively affects you and others around you. So, obviously you're talking about physical addiction.

Many substances are physically addicting, even substances which are legal...really, anything that has withdrawal symptoms. Drugs like adderall, for example...or many other commonly perscribed medications are physically addictive. Even alcohol has withdrawal symptoms which technically makes it addictive.

So the answer to your question is NO. Addiction is a health problem and should be treated by a doctor, not by punishment.

 

For a long time I disagreed with drug testing for those who got assistance. My opinion has changed quite a bit in the last year or so. If you're accepting assistance from the government for food, housing, ect, then you need to use that assistance within the legal spectrum. Not to go out and get high. I should not pay for some crack head to smoke another rock. If you can't keep yourself clean, then you have no business asking others to help you. Simple as that.

 

Like i said Mak, we did it with only 500 dollars in the bank. will talk with you about that later if you want. I told you that you are doing the right thing in your circumstance, you at least are working a job to get to another job. Many out there would just sit on welfare while saying its all too hard.

 

Great post

 

Addiction to ILLEGAL drugs is a law issue and should be dealt with as such

 

Video games are addictive, should they be tested for that?

 

Haha, I've never heard of someone playing video games and then killing four people and stealing all their stuff to pay for a video game. However, I've heard of meth-heads doing that.

 

Addiction comes in many varieties.

 

Yes they do. Is there a law against video games? No?

Is there a law against, oh say, marijuana? Crack? Heroin? Yes?

So why would video game addiction be a reason to deny someone welfare?

 

All I did was ask what the limits were of the OP's suggestion. Frankly I don't think we should take welfare away from people because they smoke weed or play video games. I think we should take welfare away from people period, because it's immoral and ineffective.

 

The premise of the thread is addictive DRUGS, dont go making silly statements.

 

Now you are talking sane and good...lol

Getting rid of welfare and making each man stand on his own two feet is the best way to go.

 

Addiction can damage your life in any form it takes.

Since your mind seems to be closed to forms of addiction that you dont injest or inject, try gambling on for size. What about gambling? Somewhere I heard that a large percent of welfare is spent at casinos, isn't that morally reprehensible?

 

I dont think its an addiction its shear stupidity... But yes spending welfare money on it is totally wrong.

 

Well yea, determining which it is could be tricky.

 

Same with drugs, what kind of dumbass after seeing what drugs do goes" this looks like fun". Dumbass's like that are not worth having around aye.

 

You wouldn't have started this thread unless you thought people should be tested and denied.

People on welfare are a small minority of people and most of them are in true need of assistance. I fall into that category and why not- it'll cost $600 a month to heat my home and this is 75% of my income!

Being truly in need means you are truly in need. As in, you can't afford to keep your home at 65 degrees in the winter because you don't make enough money to afford it.

I am more worried about the children of these welfare recipients then the actual recipients themselves. Kids raised "on easy street" as you would put it- kids who turn to dealing drugs to make some undeclared income. And once again- this is a small minority of people with a small facet of them falling into this category with the overwhelming majority of them average Joes who just need a hand.

Test them for drugs? Might as well test EVERYONE for drugs while you're at it! Stop blowing up a tiny fraction of a percentage and affixing stereotypes to it and start understanding that there are people who don't have it as good as you do.

 

Should people on public assistance be assigned jobs? What if they're too stupid to show up for work?

 

You nailed it!

 

I hope this was a joke, because its harder for me to take people seriously who make wild, outlandish, and extreme interpretations like that. I think it was fairly clear where the OP was coming from.

Actually its for a class (college) debate, i'm assigned with supporting the argument and i'm fact/argument hunting. I wanted to hear both sides so i would know what sorts of arguments to expect from the other team.

Our family used to be on welfare as well, but in in a cruddy town like Newark Ohio (50% unemployment rate and massive dens) it was hard not to see the dire effects addiction had on the people and by extension the government (although the later came much later in life). With a crackhead Mother and a drunken Father i still progressed myself and got out within a year of turning 18. We all have a lot in life, but most of us are in the positions we are in now because of the choices we have made in life, good or bad. There are of course exceptions, and job loss due to no fault of the employee sucks. welfare is important assistance for people who need a temporary income supplement until they can get back on their feet. Just because someone makes poor life choices and are now stuck in a poor economic situation, doesnt mean society suddenly owes them, aint no such thing as a free lunch and no one ever owes anyone anything in the world. Plenty of people out there have had far less than you or I and have become far more sucessful.

[/QUOTE]Test them for drugs? Might as well test EVERYONE for drugs while you're at it! Stop blowing up a tiny fraction of a percentage and affixing stereotypes to it and start understanding that there are people who don't have it as good as you do.[/QUOTE]

Not everyone is on public assistance. If you can support yourself without the rest of the country chipping in, you can afford privacy. However when you suddenly start asking for another person's money then you subject yourself to additional scrutiny. Like its been said before, PA is a voluntary service-not a right. People on it have it so long as other people pay for it. Why shouldnt the people who pay for it, have the 'right' to know their money isn't being wasted? Personaly i think the Salvy does a lot better job than the Goverment because they are far more strict in their reqierments.

 

this was not a joke. I was merely making the point that other things can be addictive. if you think video games are hilarious, what about gambling? should we "test" for gambling? should people receiving government assistance really be spending that money at casinos or the horse track?

 

Only if every ceo and employee of the banking and automotive industry (and any other company that recieved gouvernement money) is upheld to the same standard.

I think it wouldnt be hard to guess where more drugs are used.

 

If you want to devise a method of testing that sorts that out, then be my guest. However playing video games, and gambling in most states (all?) are legal. PA should be efficiently used for necessities and not on pleasure. For you to say video games should (sarcastically) be tested for is absolutely extreme emotionalism, however gambling would be more of a practical statement. I don't think you should make outlandish examples such as video games if you are serious in the pint of view, because it was difficult for me to take you seriously when you did. Video games are not illegal, and provided the person has a job and meets the requirements i don't really care if they spend 8 hours a day gaming. Although its clearly unethical, they should use that time to sleep or get another job to get themselves off of PA.

 

Let's cut off the politicians who are addicted to spending money! Of course, that would be all of them.