Welfare Drug Testing

Mus, I am all for people taking responsibility for their actions, but how is starting with the lives of peons a good first step? Are these recipiants the biggest problem our country is facing? No they are not. Start with the biggest parasites and you will buy more time to handle the fleas later.

How is this not rational?

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.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


You picked one small piece of my argument at your convenience to make a clouded hypothesis, piled on a little sarcasm, then drove it home by attempting to appeal to human emotion. Poor form.

First of all, I state above why I believe this is not a violation of the 4th. It has absolutely nothing to do with seizing goods or people. The drug test serves as means to qualification, it does not become a punishment until you fail. That's not difficult to understand.
Second, I do not view any member of society as undesirable. I wish them a better quality of life. I do not support enabling their vices.

reply to post by mus8472

wrong ... ppl being responsible comes from within ... not via govt or laws or family influence for that matter.
anyone deciding what is best for me is wrong ~~ i was born with that ability and i'll exercise it at my own peril.
invasion of one's person is just plain wrong, on all levels, on all issues and concerning any govt desire, it is beyond their scope of authority, period.

Originally posted by TomServo
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.

Okay let me start off by saying I don't condone drug abuse. What the F you do in your personal time shouldn't be anyone's business..What if there was a test for masturbation and all the masturbaters had to be tested for welfare...it's like the same thing..you can be addicted to many things so why only test for a few why try to bias things more? Because we're in a recession. Would you rather an ill old man sit in his house and get stoned all day or masturbate all day? Hopefully most people don't care because that is why we live in America, to be "free". Anyways the drug subject in any light is never plainly black and white (is anything?) and there are far too many people that partake in drug activity of some kind to use this as a factor as to whether or not you should be "F-ed" by the government/society. If the gvt didn't have all these dang taxes maybe somebody in the lower class would be able to pay a f%&*$ bill!

reply to post by Juston


my point is that i bet that a good number had taken the test, probably did do coke with some welfare money, but have a high chance of not being busted. maybe i shouldve replaced coke with acid, shrooms, or that godawful spice crap

This is not freedom. welfare in of itself is not a doctrine of how to be free.

This is receiving temporary payment from your fellow US citizens until you can get on your feet. The check is merely written on behalf of the people for the people by way of the government. No different than if a lawyer wrote a check from an escrow account....it is certainly not the attorney's money nor is it the government's.

Here's where it gets tricky for me: employers certainly have the right to demand drug tests and it has never been found to violate a person's constitutional rights that I have heard of. However, this isn't an employer...or is it?

The truth is, one must perform certain tasks in order to receive money. For example, proof of trying to find a job, full income and asset disclosure, dependents, monthly bills, rent, etc. If the tasks aren't completed in a timely manner, the money is withheld until the person is compliant. This of course is the goal and I'm sure not all states are fully compliant-- but that's the exception not the rule. Kind of starting to sound like a job....if your duties are not performed satisfactorily, you don't receive a check. At least this is how I would argue it if I were the attorney for Florida.

Consider this: a man/woman has been turned down for three jobs because of failed drug tests. How many chances and how long do we support this person? We have no right to demand (s)he apply for a job without drug testing?

Bottom line:
If you want to be truly free, free yourself from the system.

As a final note: I would only support the requirement of drug testing for unemployment payments and temporary welfare assistance. Not for disability. Two different animals in my opinion. My reason is based on the simple fact that being a drug user makes one less employable. It doesn't take many brain cells to figure that out.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by mus8472

 

wrong ... ppl being responsible comes from within ... not via govt or laws or family influence for that matter.
anyone deciding what is best for me is wrong ~~ i was born with that ability and i'll exercise it at my own peril.
invasion of one's person is just plain wrong, on all levels, on all issues and concerning any govt desire, it is beyond their scope of authority, period.

The bottom line here is you can do whatever you want period. You just can't do whatever you want while receiving state or federal assistance. If you can afford drugs then you can afford food. Welfare is not a constitutional right, so they can adjust the mandate as they see fit.

reply to post by Bobaganoosh


Oh I agree the big ones need to be taken down don't misunderstand. Pay cuts, term limits and no lifetime benefits. But I think the reason they're allowed to get away with it is because people don't seem to feel personal responsibility in anything anymore. Put some of that back in there and things will change. I think this could be one step in the right direction to doing just that. As long as some government fat cat doesn't use it for his personal benefit, as is the case here.

reply to post by pattyngayle


That's a stretch. Show me one job requirement that says: one must not masturbate.

Are you really going to argue that all addictions are created equal? Do you not see the difference between illegal drug use and legal masturbation? Notice alcohol is not included, despite being classified as a drug. Why? Because it's legal!!

Further, are you really going to stand by the notion that a crack addict is as employable as a non-drug user? Imagine you are hiring a house sitter. Who would you hire: a crack addict always looking for another fix or a clean, sober person?

I think there is a general lack of understanding how these social aid system work. There is no more food stamps to trade for money, drugs, ect. Foods Stamps are now a card with said persons name on it. Food could still be exchanged for money, drugs, cigs, ect. I have never heard of any dealers accepting food for drugs but I am sure it has happened. Other forms of social aid like housing and utilities are in the form of credits x amount made out to x company.

The more likely scenario if you want to think alone these lines is that some people in these programs are making money in a manner they do not have to claim i.e. A drug dealer likely has no claimable income (again I am sure some do work a normal job as well) so welfare is a good method of looking like your in the system.

I also think there is a lot of people out there clueless about drugs and testing for them. Nearly every drug and toxin can be tested for. Some must be tested for specifically, many can be detected on broad spectrum test (different types of these as well) most common test checks for presences of Opiates, amphetamines, Cocaine and THC.

Text
reply to post by doctornamtab

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?

No, they have a prescription.

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.

I am simply stating my view of the concept. How it is managed is a whole 'nother issue. There often seems to be some degree of fraud, bias, etc in these kinds of programs. My wife used to work for a non-profit... Some of those are the worst because so much potential for fraudulent activity, but its masked by the upstanding image portrayed to the public. These people should also be held accountable for their actions...

reply to post by TomServo


The Simple Answer to ANY Type of Drug Testing in this Country is to just say NO In Masse . All are Blatant Violations of Our Constitutional Rights and have no Legal or Moral Ground to be considered Justified . Yes people , there are times to make a Stand , and other times to Step Back , but in this case we Must take a Stand Against this Tyranny Right Now or Suffer the Future Consiquences of the Loss of our Remaining Freedoms..........



RISE AMERICA !

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by mus8472

 

wrong ... ppl being responsible comes from within ... not via govt or laws or family influence for that matter.
anyone deciding what is best for me is wrong ~~ i was born with that ability and i'll exercise it at my own peril.
invasion of one's person is just plain wrong, on all levels, on all issues and concerning any govt desire, it is beyond their scope of authority, period.

Good, than exercise your own ability to decide your own life with your own dime. See, if you rent from someone else, the owner/landlord has the right to search your home anytime he wants so long as notice is given. Why? Because he owns it and you are merely paying to borrow it. Also known as: it's not yours.

Welfare money is borrowed money. It comes from someone else. It's not yours. Therefore, one should have to abide by the payor's rules or else don't be a payee.

Originally posted by SpaDe_
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.

ok, if the 4th doesn't apply, please specify what body components are included in "secure in their person"
last i checked, you can't access my bodily fluids on demand ... soooooo, everything beyond that is a request, is it not?
and thus, if i refuse your request, i should be punished ???
you sure about that ?

so, if i should be forced to submit my most intimate and personal fluids, against my will ~~ why do i have to concede to hijabs in public? my taxes pay for that space, if i don't want it, i shouldn't have to endure it according to your philosophy.

and btw, i've certainly signed an assistance application over the years and no where does a signer give consent to such an invasion. If you believe otherwise, please post proof ... i have seen this years' application and no such clause is contained in it.

Bottom line, if you want to mooch off my tax money then you should not spend that money on getting high. I don't condone drug testing if you are doing your job OK, but in THIS case it would be a wise way to get people motivated and clean enough to get a real job.

If i could overhaul welfare, I would make it a temporary measure 6 months to 2 years that you would get while being trained in a skill best suited to your financial needs and abilities. You would spend 2 days a week in classes or training and be actively looking for work the other 3 week days. As it is, sadly the welfare benefits exceed a realistic expectation of most job benefits packages especially in the form of health care allotments, and this is what causes the trap.

The whole tax/legal/welfare/healthcare/ system is so fake and unrealistic that it's beyond reform, it will need to crash and hit rock bottom and be redone from scratch IMO.

reply to post by lpowell0627


lpowell you have made my point more succinctly than I ever could. This I completely agree with and is really the root of my argument. My job brings me into close contact with people on government assistance, oftentimes in their homes. When I pass the brand new car in the driveway and walk in their living room to see the kids playing the newest xbox game on the 50" flat screen while mom is cooking steak in the kitchen it makes me sick. Especially when I go home in my car with the out of date registration that's 10k miles overdue for an oil change and eat ramen for dinner.

Originally posted by TomServo
First of all, I believe that by collecting govt assistance, you give up some Constitutional rights.

That's what you believe, huh? Upon what do you base this (mistaken) belief? Where do you get that people give up their Constitutionally protected rights when they collect government assistance?

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.

Now. How is a drug test not a violation of the person? And what is the probable cause?

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


What about colleges that require drug testing for consideration?
What about employers that demand drug tests?
What about people on probation or parole?
What about drug tests required to work for the government?
What about drug testing teachers?


All of this is unconstitutional??

While the answer to the above is, one has the choice to work there or not. The truth is, one has a choice whether or not to apply for welfare benefits or not. It may come down to a bad choice: to eat, to be homeless, to live off of friends & family....but ultimately it's still a choice.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
What about colleges that require drug testing for consideration?
What about employers that demand drug tests?
What about people on probation or parole?
What about drug tests required to work for the government?
What about drug testing teachers?


All of this is unconstitutional??

Yes. It is. It's all an invasion of the person. If there is probable cause, that's one thing, but just random testing? Yes, it's unconstitutional.

reply to post by mus8472


I paid into the systyym and it is suppost to take care of me when i i can no longer take care of myself! I paid mine and I expect a payoff! If You Can Pay The Bank,s In Triplicut? then i expect Mine Paid in Full Please. Thankyou