States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Originally posted by aLiiEn
Unfortunately random drug testing is not the right thing to do.
If you think this is the right thing, then you should submit to it to.
All people should, which its unconstitutional.
So no one should have to.
Lets start drug testing Politicians and Police officers as well?
Or do you only get drug tested, based upon how you are judged and discriminated against by the wealthy elite pieces of garbage?

Huh? This is simple common sense that anyone wanting public money should not be a dope addict. Is that too much to ask? A lot of companies require it. If you don't want to be tested, don't work there. If you don't want to be tested, then don't expect government handouts. Why would you want to subsidize people destroying their lives and society?

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

Originally posted by aLiiEn
Unfortunately random drug testing is not the right thing to do.
If you think this is the right thing, then you should submit to it to.
All people should, which its unconstitutional.
So no one should have to.
Lets start drug testing Politicians and Police officers as well?
Or do you only get drug tested, based upon how you are judged and discriminated against by the wealthy elite pieces of garbage?

Huh? This is simple common sense that anyone wanting public money should not be a dope addict. Is that too much to ask? A lot of companies require it. If you don't want to be tested, don't work there. If you don't want to be tested, then don't expect government handouts. Why would you want to subsidize people destroying their lives and society?

marijuana is not addictive and you'd have to try really hard to ruin your life with it. it's much less harmful than alcohol, for example.

every other drug is out of your system in 1 or 2 days for a urinalysis so this is completely worthless. hair tests are too expensive to use. it's going to be impossible to catch any hard drug users because of this.

[edit on 3/27/09 by RedDragon]

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
How about if we all say no to the corporate machine drug testing any of us?

What business is it of theres what we do in our free time? Is this China? Or is this the land of the free?

I swear this country is full of stupid ignorant hypocritical people. FREEDOM!!!! Let it ring!

Do you call it "freedom" to have the government confiscate your hard-earned money so they can give it to someone who refuses to work so they can go get high?

I think you are being a little negative on the time various drugs stay in your system. Meth, for example, stays in the system perhaps twice as long as you indicate. Regardless, this is why testing should be RANDOM.

Even the threat of testing would scare many off from even applying for hand outs. And those who do use heavily are very likely to be caught even if they know a test is coming up. Why? Well, because they are drug addicts! So, could some light users get away with it? Probably. And so? That means because use light user MAY get away with it, that we shouldn't try to stop ANYONE from getting handouts and using the money to support a drug habit?

The sad fact of the matter is that people who rely on welfare may also have to rely on selling drugs to get by. Why do you think that you can go in to any town or city in America and buy drugs?

This sounds like an incredibly cruel measure against the poorest of the poor at a time when our government is giving away trillions to richest of the rich.

I can't believe how so many people who are anti-BIGgovernment are so pro-BIGgovernment drug testing citizens.

You have this idea in your head you are going to stick-it to the free loading drug user on welfare, when really what you are doing is sticking it to the hard working American taxpayer.

Who do you think is going to pay for all these drug tests? Sure as heck isn't going to be the person on unemployment.

I for one, am against big government, even if it means a slice of the pie gets high while on welfare.

Furthermore, this would shift the burden of drug testing from the private sector to government. For example, if you owned a business and you see an applicant is currently on welfare, then you would know that they are being drug tested by the government, so why double test? Let the taxpayers pay for it!!!

This is another in a long line of short-sighted, big government bills.

I vote NO. :down:

Originally posted by milesp
The sad fact of the matter is that people who rely on welfare may also have to rely on selling drugs to get by. Why do you think that you can go in to any town or city in America and buy drugs?

This sounds like an incredibly cruel measure against the poorest of the poor at a time when our government is giving away trillions to richest of the rich.

You think it's "cruel" to not support drug dealers with my money? ARE YOU KIDDING? Poor or not, drug dealers are scum. I don't care how poor I was, I would never sell poison to someone and say "here, snort this!"

Originally posted by harrytuttle
I can't believe how so many people who are anti-BIGgovernment are so pro-BIGgovernment drug testing citizens.

You have this idea in your head you are going to stick-it to the free loading drug user on welfare, when really what you are doing is sticking it to the hard working American taxpayer.

Who do you think is going to pay for all these drug tests? Sure as heck isn't going to be the person on unemployment.

I for one, am against big government, even if it means a slice of the pie gets high while on welfare.

Furthermore, this would shift the burden of drug testing from the private sector to government. For example, if you owned a business and you see an applicant is currently on welfare, then you would know that they are being drug tested by the government, so why double test? Let the taxpayers pay for it!!!

This is another in a long line of short-sighted, big government bills.

I vote NO. :down:

First of all, if there's testing many won't apply to begin with. That saves you and I money right there without any welfare or testing being paid for. Secondly, removing users will save even more money. Fewer people to be tested and given welfare. Third, so what if it saves a company a drug test for someone they hire? The company will pay for any drug testing after hiring.

reply to post by andy1033


Heh, you obviously don't know the people I do. Almost every one I know on welfare to a 'T', is either a smoker or a crankster. It really is that bad, your probably looking at 2/3's of the welfare recipiants being cut off if they fail drug tests. I say good riddance to drains on society, no more 'free' fixes for all them druggies. My only real problem is with the tests themselves, anyone in the know will tell you they pop false positives quite often, and there are a few people that actually aren't on drugs, that would lose out because of it.

Chrono

I wish i had seen this thread earlier so my post would have a better chance of being read.

For everybody that is saying i don't want my tax dollars going to support someone's drug habits. You might want to be a little more concerned with where your social security dollars are going.

Are any of you aware of the fact that many, many people are receiving social security disability benefits because they are alcoholics, or drug addicts?

This money is coming out of your pockets just like the taxes for welfare.

Edited for spelling error



[edit on 3/27/2009 by chise61]

Good, as long as they don't screw with them because they have medicinal marijuana.

Marijuana is not bad. Second line.

reply to post by chise61


There is more important places to worry about where your tax dollars go then a meth addict.

Try the one where your tax dollars go to the bullet the passed through a innocent child's head, or the one that is paying the guy that raped families in Iraq.

Yeah, I could care less if some tweeker is getting my tax money and shooting at other tweekers or smoking themselves to death.

reply to post by skeptic1


I'm sorry, but no i don't believe that because i lost my job due to cutbacks, due to the economy that i should be drug tested because i am receiving unemployment benefits, which i worked hard for.

I consider that an insult, as if they're assuming i don't have a job because i do drugs.

And might i remind you that not only did i pay my taxes while i was employed, but i STILL pay taxes while i'm unemployed. Unemployment benefits are taxable just like earned income.

If i lose my job because of drug use then they can test me all they want, but until that happens (which it won't) they have absolutely no right what so ever to test me for drug use.

reply to post by skeptic1


Recipients of food stamps should not be drug tested either. Food stamps are a different thing than receiving welfare, not everyone that receives food stamps is receiving welfare.

Senior citizens receive food stamps to supplement their social security benefits, should they be tested for drugs ? How many of our eldery people would then go hungry because they would rather give up the small amount of food stamps rather than be humiliated by mandatory drug testing?

Many people that work hard, and receive little pay receive food stamps to supplement their pay and help feed their families. They work and pay taxes just like you do.

So if a man or woman is working and just doesn't make enough to make ends meet and they receive food stamps to help feed their children should they be humiliated by being made to take drug tests to feed their children ? How many children will go hungry because a parent does not want to be humiliated by being forced to undergo drug testing ?

Originally posted by zappafan1
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

 

The fourth amendment has no bearing whatsoever in this matter. It pertains to matters which guard against unreasonable searches and seizures.
No "searches" or "seizures" would be involved unless, possibly, one tested positive, in which case the state would have just cause.
And, before you say it, it would not violate anyone's "right" to privacy, which is nowhere to be found in the Bill of Rights. It states that people have a right to be "secure in their papers and effects." (paraphrased)

Actually it does apply because they are seizing your bodily fluids and then searching them for drugs. Without a warrant or even probable cause. Dramatically affecting a persons life, when drug tests are proven to be no where near 100% accurate. You cant affect a persons life like that unless you are 100% sure.

just sayin...

The ego maniac psychopaths in this thread, obviously think its ok to tell other people what they are going to do in relation to there personal medical lives.
Of course, they think its ok, until someone does it to them

reply to post by skeptic1


Hi, I read through the 1st page, and before I read the rest, I gotta say this: (not sure if pages 2 - ? have any mention of it..)

Drug Tests are EXPENSIVE.

Where are they going to get all the money to pay for these tests to be performed? It's not like $ grows on trees anymore, not after we chopped 'em all down.

The only deterrent my parents had from giving me a drug test while I was growing up/high school age is the actual cost of it. And we were comfortable financially.

Not only how will they pay for the already massive amount of people on these Govt. subsidiary programs, but the GARGANTUAN horde of people just now having to apply for it/about to have to makes the final tab an outrageous amount.

....Oh wait, that's right: WE'LL GET THE BILL!

How cute.

It will never pass.
Drugs are too good of a weapon to take off the streets.

If the situation ever came to it that I found myself having to claim welfare, and submit to drug testing, I'd make damn sure I was totally 'clean' and then sell fresh clean samples to those who feared/would fail the testing to make an extra few quid to supplement my welfare income...

Thats another reason why implementing such measures will never work

Seriously, do you people have any knowledge of what our constitution says, or what has been said by the supreme court through legal precedence?

The (written) 4th amendment only applies to the federal government, not state. The Supreme Court ruled that the 4th amendment DOES apply to the state via the "due process clause" in the 14th amendment, however. As a result, the state cannot conduct searches that would ultimately result in the loss of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," which would be taken as searches without a warrant or probable cause in the attempt to prosecute a civilian. However, since welfare is not a right, and it is not "life, liberty, or property," the state can do whatever the Hell it pleases in regards to searches and seizures relating to the subject, as long as they don't try to prosecute. It's the state's money. If you don't want the political machine knocking at your door, don't take handouts from it.

It saddens me over the lack of knowledge you people have over current law and constitutional matters.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by Highground]