Welfare Drug Testing

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
ACLU case
Before you bother posting a comment, Read The Entire Thread!



The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida plans to challenge the state's law requiring new welfare recipients to pass a drug test.

I have always had reservations concerning the US welfare policies. One one hand, I am fully supportive of those who genuinely need the govt assistance (the conditions of 'who?' is a very gray debate and spurs many differing ideals). However, when I attempt to determine objectively, how I would make that decision if it were in my hands.

Personal story: Once upon a time, I was poor, jobless, and lazy. I was a moderate drug user. In hindsight, that is what crippled my life progress. Many times I thought to myself, 'If I collected welfare and never had to work, while continuing that lifestyle, I would never get out". I'm confident there are many other people out there who would feel the same. But, I digress. The article goes on to say:



The spokesman says Florida's drug testing law is unconstitutional, saying it violates the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure protections.


Woah! Hold on a sec. First of all, I believe that by collecting govt assistance, you give up some Constitutional rights.



4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


In my opinion, this is Not an 'unreasonable search'. I have a huge problem with the thought that my tax dollars are being used to enable somebody's drug addiction, rendering them a useless member of society indefinitely. And you should too!! Furthermore, nobody is trying to "secure" anybody's "persons, houses, papers, and effects".



As a result of these legislative changes, many researchers and program administrators began to declare that alcohol and drug abuse were widespread and would limit recipients’ ability to move from welfare to work. In 1995, one liberal advocacy group stated “welfare reform is doomed to fail if it does not address the needs of individuals with alcohol and drug problems”.

National Poverty Center

All this is trumped by the words 'upon probably cause'. Probable cause can easily be determined by recipients' records. If Joe has been arrested for possession, i see no problem with requiring drug tests in order to qualify for welfare. Jim, who has never been linked to drug abuse, shouldn't have anything to worry about. He will be reimbursed for the test fee if he passes. For the most part, only those who are threatened by this law would go through the trouble of filing suits. So, in essence, by supporting the movement to deem this form of drug testing unconstitutional effectively translates to supporting the use of welfare payouts for illegal drugs.

To put it in perspective, I work for the govt by proxy. I'm occasionally required to pass drug tests. If I fail, not only do I lose my job, benefits, 401k, etc, I could also face Federal charges. Now tell me how that is different. If anything, those who get their work done, don't cause mischief, and are productive members of society should have more lenience than those who are corruptly sucking the Federal teet.

Note: Kudos to the contributors of this thread. Many of you have responded with coherent, intelligible arguments. I am religious, and i recently authored a thread in the religion forum. The results were absolute poppy cock. Thank you all!
edit on 8-9-2011 by TomServo because: Note




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
So you're okay with the government egregiously violating the 4th because why? The victims are undesirables? Or wait, a kind of grade school reasoning about how you take one so someone else should?

So much for the love of freedom.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I fully and completely support drug testing for those receiving government assistance. I also think that reimbursement for test cost upon successfully testing negative is a fair way to do it. If I have to take a drug test in order to have a job so I can make money and then have it ripped away from me to be given to those on government assistance then by god they should have go take a dam test too.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
personally, it sounds like a good idea. you dont wanna get tested, dont get on welfare. you wanna do drugs on welfare? this still leaves it open to alcohol, coke, and many others that dont show up

so it sounds like a good idea, but why does the person who made this law have a stake in the company selling these test? its through his wife, but thats still a conflict of interest.

and this didnt even work out that well, a very low percentage was caught. i bet someone doing the math could point out that more was spent on the tests than was saved by cutting off the druggies

im curious why you didnt post the published results....interesting



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I"m personally against all forms of drug testing but you make some good points.

Two questions though: I live in a medical marijuana state...what about this "drug"? What about Prozac, Ambien and all sorts of abusable prescription drugs? If you test positive for Zanax would they take away your welfare?

Also, if we're going to drug test because its wasting money why dont we audit and micromanage people's checking accounts, credit card payments, water bill etc? I mean if we're really worried about money going down the drain why not actually manage the money, not the person and their personal choices.

But, like I said, you give up rights by taking money from the govt. I give up rights by taking money from the company I work for. Its the same thing.

But without legitimate treatment programs that are AFFORDABLE(!!!!!!!!!) for poor drug addicts this will just cause more crime. Drug testing welfare people can only work if we give them treatment too. You cant just cut them loose and expect crime rates to stay the same. We all gotta eat, even poor welfare drug addicts.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


It's not about freedom at all! It has to do with ensuring that our tax dollars are being used as they should. If someone needs money to buy food or keep the lights on then by all means give it go them. If they want money to buy crack then cut em off.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Venomilk
this still leaves it open to alcohol, coke, and many others that dont show up


Cocaine does show up. It just leaves your system sooner.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I understand the point here OP, but seriously, the government itself is bleeding the nation dry. Those who are down on their luck are contributing factors, but a drop in the ocean compared to the massive waste of money on the part of the politicos.

In condoning these invasive practices you fail. I am sorry, but its just my opinion.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Guys, your debating the wrong part of the story here. The Gov stands to make a mint off doing this, that is the only reason they are doing it. His wife owns a drug testing company, that's it. No need to debate right or wrong concerning wasting money, we waste billions everyday and I don't see anyone up in arms about that. Hell we lost trillions (dumbsfeld 9/10) enough to feed the world and or hand out free drugs for everyone. You guys are all fired up that some person might buy drugs with a few hundred dollars. The entire GOV is a form of welfare, how many meaningless jobs are there do you really care if the person at DMV relaxes with MJ at night. Oh I guess i would only have to wait two hours instead of three.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobaganoosh
I understand the point here OP, but seriously, the government itself is bleeding the nation dry. Those who are down on their luck are contributing factors, but a drop in the ocean compared to the massive waste of money on the part of the politicos.

In condoning these invasive practices you fail. I am sorry, but its just my opinion.


The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. It may be a drop in the bucket but we have to start somewhere. People need to be accountable and held to their decisions in all things. Too often it's said to be someone else's fault. This is a good first step for people to be responsible for their own actions.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TomServo
 


Here's a few Facts:

#1) Rick Scott's wife owns a large amount of stocks of the company that makes the urine tests.

#2) Rick Scott supposedly did this to save tax payers money. That was his lie.

#3) A whopping 2% of recipients actually failed the test.

#4) This program is a huge failure. You are treating 100% of the people as guilty that need to be proven innocent. 98% are actually innocent. You pay out the butt on unneeded urine tests and all of the paperwork/lab tests that go with it. All of a sudden, the Gov's wife is rich as hell due to the stocks in the company that makes the tests. BTW. Rick Scott used to own the stocks, but gave them to his wife once there was obvious conflicting priorities, which is hilarious because it's his wife.. it's not like he sold his shares.

How is bigger gov, smaller gov anyways? Answer that one. How is being proven guilty before innocent constitutional?

This was a SCAM to fill the pockets of Rick Scott and people like yourself bought it.
edit on 9/8/2011 by mudbeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamsnatcher
 


In this instance I do disagree with the blatant corruption and conflict of intrests involved here. I do however support the spirit of the whole thing, always have.
edit on 8-9-2011 by mus8472 because: Spelling



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TomServo
ACLU case
Before you bother posting a comment, Read The Entire Thread!


As a result of these legislative changes, many researchers and program administrators began to declare that alcohol and drug abuse were widespread and would limit recipients’ ability to move from welfare to work. In 1995, one liberal advocacy group stated “welfare reform is doomed to fail if it does not address the needs of individuals with alcohol and drug problems”.

www2.tbo.com...
if 2% in only one state is bad (supposedly one of the worst drug states) i still dont believe thats enough to "destroy welfare." so this was either based on faulty statistics, or our welfare system is very very brittle



National Poverty Center

So, in essence, by supporting the movement to deem this form of drug testing unconstitutional effectively translates to supporting the use of welfare payouts for illegal drugs.



ill believe it when i see the evidence. till then, i still think a MUCH higher percentage use our welfare money to buy LEGAL drugs, but this apparently isnt a problem
edit on 8-9-2011 by Venomilk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Woah! Hold on a sec. First of all, I believe that by collecting govt assistance, you give up some Constitutional rights.

apparently you haven't absorbed the simple fact that Constitutionally, these rights are guaranteed, not provided.


In my opinion, this is Not an 'unreasonable search'. I have a huge problem with the thought that my tax dollars are being used to enable somebody's drug addiction, rendering them a useless member of society indefinitely. And you should too!! Furthermore, nobody is trying to "secure" anybody's "persons, houses, papers, and effects".

are you serious ??? IF body fluids are not 'personal' property, then what exactly do you deem is ??
and, as you state, i'm no fan of taxdollars being used for drugs either but that begs the question, why do you pay Congress??
soooo, you are ok with paying a few hundred lumps of flesh to do whatever with your tax dollars but someone truly in need should 'prove' themselves to you ? Reallllly ???

perhaps you should read the 'outcome' of first round testing ...
apparently, a very very small portion of recipients failed ... so, what are you complaining about again?

your summary bites ... here's a better take on your perceptions
If you are unemployed and needing assistance, you Must be a druggie
If you are collecting state funds, you Must be a druggie
If you want any assistance, you must first PROVE you are not a druggie
however, since you are a govt representative, i'm willing to pay thousands to you to do with whatever you please
that about right ???
shame if it is cause you Must be referencing some Constitution that is NOT American.

what is different about your "random" testing is you volunteered for it ... AND you get paid to do it ... NO welfare recipient does either.
so according to you, if i work and am productive ~~ my drug use should be no one's business, right?
and also according to you, if my family collects benefits and one of my children gets busted in a test, we deserve to lose benefits ?? why ??
and lastly, why should anyone's past become part of their present merely by govt decision ??



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
The drug testing in Florida is nothing more than a scam. The lab the governors wife owns is the one that got the contract to do the testing. Only a small percent of the people tested came back positive not even enough to warrant the tests being given. On top of it the people being tested had to pay for it making a person on a fixed income have even less money. Real good idea.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Okay so what about if a person has drugs in there system from there friend smoking them up?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TomServo
 


The fourth amendment does not apply to this situation, and is why it will either be thrown out of court or never make it. When they introduced this legislation, they made it so that if you are applying for welfare you are consenting to a drug test to receive assistance.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I`ve always been against the drug test. It makes me give self incriminating evidence on myself and yes that is against my rights all the way. So more power to them.
I feel they should target money makers like movie stars and such they seem to always be overdosing and in trouble with their having to much money it seems. So Piss test for everyone or no one at all. I`m for the no one at all.

And lets look at some of the people I`ve known that seem lifers on welfare, born and raised and holding it as a career. Drinkers and on a daily bases so how are they covering that?

I prefer a time limit as mentioned in another thread here on ATS. That is so right all the way and doesn`t trample my rights as a citizen of this country.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by twistheknife
Okay so what about if a person has drugs in there system from there friend smoking them up?



Then you have the wrong friends.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
What I don't see is any inherent or given right for poor people to have access to other people's money thorugh taxation.

Sure, it's a government program, but I would hope that the government agency running the program has some method for determining whether the money they are using/distributing is being used properly.

People don't have to apply for welfare just because they're poor. It seems that in order to participate in a program, they would need to follow whatever rules are set by the program in order to gain the benefits of said program.

Still, I'm not sure why people feel that it's the government's business to take care of the poor in the first place. There used to be charity organizations doing this, but then there wasn't much point in duplicating services once the government stepped in. People used to donate funds to these charities because they felt compassion for those who were poor, but now that the government takes the taxes anyways and just gives it to the poor anyways, people feel less inclined to want to contribute to do anything for the poor.





top topics
 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join