It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

page: 11
33
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bloodcircle
 


Uh, sky diving isn't illegal, neither is coffee. Drugs are.

This is like "If you let gays marry whats next, animals?" Its a BS arguement because they have nothing left.




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bloodcircle
 


Taxpayers care.

Welfare is not a right. It is a privilege. And, if this legislation is put in place, then it will be one of the regulations that have to be met to partake of that privilege.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JMasters
 



It doesn't matter if drugs are illegal we have something in this country called probable cause. They need it to perform drug tests. Being poor is not probable cause, and I assume they are basing this stupid policy largely on the idea that drug use among the poor is prevalent, but probable cause is there to prevent innocent people from getting caught up in an unnecessary bureaucratic dragnet.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose

Originally posted by skeptic1

Why should there be a problem with people who are being supported/partially supported by the tax-payers being randomly drug tested?


I do like this idea, also.

In addition, I think that people who receive these benefits, should have to perform community service while they are getting money from the government, such as picking up trash from roads, working at food banks, or homeless shelters.

How is if fair for people on assistance of tax payer money to be sitting on their rears, getting paid for doing nothing, and not being held accountable for it?


Lol, yeah those scumbags should be punished for being unemployed.. How fair is it that they are living like kings while us hard working folk sacrifice our lives for them....

How do you expect people to LOOK for work, if theyre picking up your trash?

This threads an eye opener...



[edit on 3/26/2009 by bloodcircle]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bloodcircle
 


The problem is not the people who use welfare as it is meant to be used.

The problem is the people who use welfare and turn it into a lifestyle. Those people aren't out there, pounding the pavement looking for work.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by JMasters
 



It doesn't matter if drugs are illegal we have something in this country called probable cause. They need it to perform drug tests. Being poor is not probable cause, and I assume they are basing this stupid policy largely on the idea that drug use among the poor is prevalent, but probable cause is there to prevent innocent people from getting caught up in an unnecessary bureaucratic dragnet.



Is applying for a job probable cause? No? Then you don't need it for drug testing.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


But you are still talking about state services which by all measure must abide by the Constitution. Meaning that drug tests are not Constitutional if no criminality has been proven. This is different than private organizations which get to set their own rules because of property rights.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JMasters
 


You need to understand the Constitution. This isn't applying for a job in the PRIVATE sector. This is STATE assistance that MUST abide the the Constitution which clearly outlines how these things should be governed.

The private sector can decide to drug test employees but you sign that away because you are operating on their property for a wage they pay. State services and institutions must abide by the Constitution and cannot just drug test a person without reasonable and probable cause. A recent criminal history for instance would allow for probable cause for the state to drug tests for welfare. And that would be fine. But a blanket drug testing program for all those seeking welfare regardless of criminal history is not ok.

Parking tickets and other misdemeanors are not probable cause. Drug charges like trafficking, violent charges all within the last few years would be grounds for a drug test prior to servicing their requests for aid.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by skeptic1
 


But you are still talking about state services which by all measure must abide by the Constitution. Meaning that drug tests are not Constitutional if no criminality has been proven. This is different than private organizations which get to set their own rules because of property rights.


State workers are drug tested. So that throws that out the window.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
Yes, everyone should be tested, even the dependants of the people applying!


Dead god... how is that swastika hanging on your wall, lately?

Flabbergasted.. utterly...

this thread is doing my head in, such pure ignorance thrown around makes me sick.




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JMasters
 


But you're dealing with the general public here. And the standards set for the general public have to be Constitutional in nature. Did you know department officials can't incite public outrage for any issue while holding office? That's why that NASA employee is facing disciplinary action for telling people to take to the streets over global warming. Their positions are not political they're administrative.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
so u enjoy being humilated and given a cup to p in even though people can argue that smoking a joint at 11 pm in ur home on a saturday night has nothing to do with ur job on monday morn. funny that u can lose ur job for that then end up going to recieve assistance, fail that test, get no financial help, then lose ur house and car, then probably lose ur family because u cant support them all because of a lousy joint u smoked on a saturday nite. I dont think that punishment fits the crime ,potentially destroying someones life and indirectly ruining the quality of life of their children because u said no to drugs. People on welfare have a hell of a lot more problems than drug use, and probably use drugs to escape the reality of extreme poverty they're in. U dont want to help someone whos down fine, but dont kick them down either.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Lawmakers are getting public money. They should be the first ones to be tested.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ganjaraider
 


I don't have any problem at all helping people when they are down. I give to charity, even though, in reality, I can't afford it now. But, I give all that I can, anyway.

But, if someone is that down and out, the public assistance they get should be going to supporting themselves and their family by buying food and paying rent/mortgage and clothing themselves, not funding a habit that is still illegal in this country. Same goes for excessive drinking/smoking....legal, yes, but not what public assistance was designed for.

Can you all not see why people are upset by this?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
if someone has an addiction they will get the money from some other source,so i see this as a round about way of getting more people in to jails or camps,look forward to more crime and kids going without food and provisions.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
If you are on welfare, how would you afford illegal drugs?

Just how many people that get welfare, can buy that stuff when they need food, and other things.

Can there really be that big of a problem of welfare people on drugs.


Many people the the projects sell drugs and collect welfare at the same time.

This has been going on for years and the taxpayer have been footing the bill,

Many of these welfare drug dealer are getting subsidized housing because they are low income, then they sell drugs and are making a lot more money then people that work for a living.

A friend of mine that works as a EMT has seen people living in the projects and getting subsidized housing that have 57 inch flat screen TVs with expensive surround sound systems. $3000 plus systems.

all this with the taxpayers paying much of there rent.

At the same time many of the low income disabled veterans can not find housing because these drug dealing welfare lowlifes have made the projects a place that they will not live in due to the very high crime rates.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn

It doesn't matter if drugs are illegal we have something in this country called probable cause. They need it to perform drug tests.


Apparently you only need probable cause to drug test politicians. The rest of us are fair game.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...


(a) It is uncontested that Georgia's drug testing requirement, imposed by law and enforced by state officials, effects a search within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The pivotal question here is whether the searches are reasonable. To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. See Vernonia, 515 U. S., at ___. But particularized exceptions to the main rule are sometimes warranted based on "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement." See Skinner, 489 U.S., at 619 . When such "special needs" are alleged, courts must undertake a context specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties. See Von Raab, 489 U.S., at 665 -666. In evaluating Georgia's ballot access, drug testing statute--a measure plainly not tied to individualized suspicion--the Eleventh Circuit sought to balance the competing interests in line with this Court's precedents most immediately in point: Skinner, Von Raab, and Vernonia. Pp. 6-10.


A large part of the argument why THEY specifically should be exempt is that they can be trusted.


Examining the state interests involved, the court acknowledged the absence of any record of drug abuse by elected officials in Georgia. Nonetheless, the court observed, "[t]he people of Georgia place in the trust of their elected officials . . . their liberty, their safety, their economic well being, [and] ultimate responsibility for law enforcement." 73 F. 3d, at 1546. Consequently, "those vested with the highest executive authority to makepublic policy in general and frequently to supervise Georgia's drug interdiction efforts in particular must be persons appreciative of the perils of drug use." Ibid. The court further noted that "[t]he nature of high public office in itself demands the highest levels of honesty, clear sightedness, and clear thinking." Ibid. Reciting responsibilities of the offices petitioners sought, the Court of Appeals perceived those "positions [as] particularly susceptible to the `risks of bribery and blackmail against which the Government is entitled to guard.' " Ibid. (quoting Von Raab, 489 U.S., at 674 ).


We have a two tiered Bill of rights. One for the privileged, and one for the average and poor. And the reason this is the case is because people, like many who argue here for this testing program, need someone to scapegoat for their generalize malcontent with the system.

The outrage, the anger, the moral indignation over welfare. And what does it cost you? Around one cent out of every federal tax dollar paid.

www.apa.org...


Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed.


All that outrage, and just gut wrenching loathing of "those people" and what do you really spend?

What are you sacrificing that makes it worth allowing more unreasonable searches of us, the little people? Because when those court cases get on the books, they are used to justify other court cases.

You need to think about what you are willing to give up to punish someone for taking one penny of every tax dollar you spend.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
At first i thought this was a great idea but upon further reflection i've changed my opinion. If obama has his way, we will all be on some sort of welfare, be it in the form of a monthly check or in the form of national health care. I agree that welfare recipients shouldn't be spending our tax dollars on dope but if this is allowed to pass, eventually we'll all be given mandatory drug tests.

TheAssociate



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Very well stated. People need to understand that decision made in courts carry a lot of legal weight, sometimes regardless of Constitutionality. Such things could be applied to other aspects of your daily life simply by legal precedent rather than any actual legislation or Constitutional authority.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 



That's why I love my state...it's already passed here...just waiting on the govna to sign it in to law...

OOOOOOOOOOOKLAHOMA WHERE THE DRUGGIES DON'T GET MONEY FOR FREEEEEE.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join