It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Georgia Republican Who Wanted Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients Gets DUI

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by TomServo
Where to draw the line? That's another discussion entirely.. But dont you think its pretty safe to rule out illegal substances? The bill wouldnt be pushed if there wasnt an obvious problem.

Where to draw the line may be a topic of another discussion, but I truly do believe it to be pertinent to this discussion, as I am of the belief that there is a segment of America that wish to do away with welfare all together. The illegal drug issue is only an issue because it is a way to get the ball rolling (i.e., something most people will support). However, as with anything the government does, illegal drugs use will only be the first of the eventual many disqualifiers that will be legislated and legislated until nobody qualifies anymore; thus, killing the welfare program.

In response to your 'bottom line', that is actually a federal offense "falsifying documentation". Basically you are lying about other forms of assistance you receive when applying for welfare, in order to qualify.

Am I missing something? What part of my "bottom line" included falsifying documentation? What other assistance did I mention?

1st section: Misguided fear of the possibility of a 'snow ball effect' is an invalid reason to impede any action. Reason being, couldnt you also say "we cant just hand out welfare checks willy nilly. before long, everyone will be on welfare and nobody will be paying the taxes that fund welfare". Is that a valid reason to end welfare? No

2nd section: I apologize, i thought you were implying that the recipient was living with a relative or something, and therefore didnt have a rent bill, while claiming need for full aid (which includes money for living, supposedly) on an application. However, that is the only situation i could imagine you could have Any money left over. My point is... If you are on welfare, there is a lot that you need more than a joint or hit, whatever. Shouldn't any possible money left over be used toward getting you off welfare. My point is... that money should Never under any circumstance be used for illegal drugs. My dollars shouldnt be used for illegal drugs. Guess what, I get drug tested at my job (btw that is the govt requiring me to pass a drug test). But do you hear me btchin about it? No! I took the obvious resolution and quit.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by TomServo

What are your thoughts on drug testing welfare recipients vs. the 4th Amendment. Does the constitution not apply to folks on public assistance? Is the mere fact that they are on public assistance enough probable cause to enforce this "search and seizure" policy of drug testing? I only ask, because I can almost guarantee that this will eventually make it's way to the Supreme Court.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:02 PM
reply to post by Muttley2012

Income tax , as well as privetly printed money is " unconstitutional " how about we fix those few issues ?
Why are all those in favor of giving drug money to the poor so agienst puting measures in place that could help these people break there habit , rather then feed it ?

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:05 PM
reply to post by Muttley2012

The plain and simple fact is that you are voluntarily giving up rights. By agreeing to get paid to perform my job, I give up the right to sit at home all day and gorge myself with bon-bons. If i exercise that right, i could get fired. Perhaps its not fair, but its a fact. Perhaps its not fair for me to abuse my good fortune. Perhaps its not fair for a welfare recipient to abuse his...

Since you just now referenced the 4th, is plain to see that you have just now started to research this. Please refer to my thread created back in August: ACLU case

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.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by Muttley2012

Income tax , as well as privetly printed money is " unconstitutional " how about we fix those few issues ?
Why are all those in favor of giving drug money to the poor so agienst puting measures in place that could help these people break there habit , rather then feed it ?

Ooh, Ooh, Pick Me! I know the answer Mr. Max!
If the answer isnt blatantly obvious, that person lacks the mental capacity to... Vote? Naw, I didnt really mean that (tongue in cheek). I wonder how some of these law making poly sci majors passed the Logical Reasoning portion of the LSAT...

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:30 PM

Originally posted by TomServo
reply to post by Muttley2012

The plain and simple fact is that you are voluntarily giving up rights.

Is that on the welfare paperwork? Is there a statement that must be signed by the recipient that indicates that they are voluntarily giving up their rights, or is that just your feelings on the issue?

Since you just now referenced the 4th, is plain to see that you have just now started to research this.

Nah, I'm very well versed on this issue. Only now am I bringing up the 4th because I felt that there are other valid reasons to be against testing.

Here are a few interesting facts brought up in an article I read a few months ago:

Nearly 1,600 welfare applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid July, but they aren’t required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test, and more than 7,000 have passed

32 positives tests vs. 7000 negatives.

Applicants must pay $25 to $45 for the test and are reimbursed by the state if they pass.

The cost of reimbursing those 7000 people = $175,000 to $315,000.

How much is a typical welfare check? $500? $1000? $5000?

Let's grossly over estimate here and say it's $5,000. So, we have 32 positives at $5k a pop; that's a savings of $160,000.

Of course, then we must factor in the cost of reimbursing all of the those who test negative. $160,000 - ($175,000 to $315,000) = -$15,000 to -$155,000.

Tax dollars well spent, huh?

Look, I'm all for helping the poor help themselves, but not at any additional burden placed upon me, the tax payer. Furthermore, I am not willing to allow the erosion of someone's constitutional rights because it suits my beliefs...once that happens, then the flood gates are open for someone to come along and deny me of my rights.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:35 PM

Originally posted by TomServo
I dont see your angle with this post. He broke the law and is paying the price. I dont see him asking me to foot his bill. There is the difference. Completely different from the sopa story. He is not on welfare, and he hasnt failed a drug test. I dont remember the welfare screening having anything to do with alcohol anyway...
Invalid point!

He was caught in a illegal act (Driving under influence) Alcohol might be legal but using it and driving is not and he failed the drug test namely the breathelizer since alcohol is still a mind altering substance which he abused followed by the very irresponsible behaviour like drunk driving which does not instill much trust in this person to healthy minded people i would say (healty minded people are also often on welfare btw). The same man that purposes to make people on welfare take a drug test or lose their financial support. Or in other words , treat them like irresponsible scum that cannot be trusted.

(It is also not very unlikely that he swilled himself on booze and footing the bill for his night out as a buiseness diner to the taxpayer.)

Anyone that tries to pretend there is no hypocrasy to be found in this need to have their brains checked for imbalances or even ,drugs.

(disclaimer: i am not on welfare)

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 04:54 PM
reply to post by Muttley2012

Agreed, that is a flaw that can easily be ironed out. Kudos to the 7000 who passed, they dont have to be tested regularly. However, let me help you out with your reasoning. Why do you think 1600 refused or 'could not' take the test? If you pass, you get reimbursed... right? If you are honest with yourself, i trust you know the answer. So, now you can take 1600 + 32 and multiply that by 250 per week (thats generous, but more in line with reality than 5000). That's well over $400,000. Oh, you forgot one critical aspect while misrepresenting statistics.
That's $400,000 Every Week. Already worth the trouble, right? So now, figure those who maintain a clean record have less regular testing = cheaper. Also, figure (assuming a 3 strikes your out for a year scenario) a guy who fails this week, well he can be guaranteed to get another test in a month. If he fails 'enough' that's a year of benefits ($13000 for one person) plus the cost of the 12 tests (at the average $35/test) he wont need to be taking ($420

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:43 PM

Originally posted by TomServo
In the end, the concept has the potential to improve the integrity of the welfare system. In the end, its a valid compromise between those who support and those who oppose.

To me, a valid compromise would be to require welfare recipients to do work for the state...pick up roadside trash, community improvement projects etc. and not require a drug test. It's a win/win scenario. No additional tax burden of the cost for the drug test AND the recipients are giving back in a tangible way.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:31 PM
Lets see.. house bill 464 which concerns drug testing welfare recipients..
Is Kip Smith on welfare? Not that I am aware of.
Is alcohol an illegal drug? Last time I checked it wasn't.

Really, what does this thread have to do with drug testing welfare recipients?
Its really not ironic. Maybe if he was caught with an EBT card in one hand and a joint in the other, that would be ironic.
He is stupid and completely irresponsible for driving while intoxicated by alcohol, no doubt. But that's a different subject, and in all honesty, has nothing to do with the house bill 464 which concerns drug testing welfare recipients. Which that shouldn't be a problem for people who need assistance, I mean they need the assistance to get by, I'm sure they would never abuse that assistance and spend the money they do have on drugs........Right?..........
edit on 17-1-2012 by kx12x because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2012 by kx12x because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:32 PM
He didnt fail a drug test, as far as I can tell. And it doesnt remove the point of what hes saying, and what he wants is actually pretty good. Its not hypocrisy, its not like he was smokin weed, he was drinking, which theyre allowed to do freely(even though its still bad, especially when driving, so i dont condone what hes doing).

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:03 PM
reply to post by Muttley2012

In my opinion it's not unconstitutional. It's the money from hard working tax payers that's going to the recipients of welfare, I deserve to know that the money I work my ass off for, isn't going to towards buying some freeloaders crack stash.
Way I see it, if you can't afford to make it by, you can't afford drugs either. If there wasn't a problem in America with recipients of welfare abusing the assistance they get, then maybe we wouldn't need to drug test.

I know this personally to be a fact. I'm currently in college, working at a local grocery store during the week, I drive all the way across town to where this grocery store is located, which happens to be in the low-income part of town.
About 90% of the customers that come in, use EBT (food stamps) to pay for their food.
So when I see someone walking up to pay for their things, twitching all over the place, jaws uh'grindin, moving around (signs of meth use) and they whip out their EBT cards, yeah, I get pissed.

But It doesn't matter though, I just have to do some work outside often, whether in the freezing cold when my hands and ears and face are numb or in scorching heat, EARNING every penny, I'm just happy that meth addict got their free food using the money I (and other Americans) earned.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:24 PM
reply to post by Muttley2012

That's a great Idea. But it wouldn't work, you think they'd actually do that?
The problem with welfare is that it gives people (not all) who have worked for nothing, everything, that the people who have worked for everything that they have. Except without, you know...doing anything. Why work for something when you can get it free, right?
That's the mindset allot of these people have that are taking advantage of welfare benefits. If only laziness was a real disability.
I'm in no way saying that all people that receive welfare don't need it, there definitely are people who need it, the elderly man or woman, the single mom or dad working two jobs trying to make it by day to day, people like that, those kind of people need it. Not the crack fiend who can't stop spending his money on drugs so then someone else has to buy it for him.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:20 PM
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

yea alchohal is a drug, but some people on welfare do worse drugs then that, I.E crack, meth, heroin, coc aine, PCP

i completely agree with this bill, if you are asking for government aid where tax payers are going to foot your bill then you should prove that you are a clean and sober person who will actually at some point give back to society

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Umm.. the only way this would be relevant.. is if this guy was receiving welfare. Which he wasn't. So I think I'm missing the point of the thread.

(and alcohol is not considered a controlled substance.. so .. double confused on the point...)
edit on 1/17/2012 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:04 PM
OK, just so I'm understanding this.
If you have a job, especially an elected post, you're free to do whatever you want even if you choose to get behind the wheel intoxicated.
If you don't have a job, you're automatically considered a threat to society.

If you have a job, your judgement calls are excuseable and you'd NEVER touch any drugs.
If you don't have a job, you're never to be trusted and we'll always suspect that you're indulging in some illicit substance.

Well, since alcohol is legal and nobody has a problem with alcohol. everyone with a job can keep their licenses, but those on welfare should not be allowed to drive since they'll probably be driving drunk the first chance they get.

Am I on the right track here?

In the fantasy world these politicians want, EVERYONE should be drug tested.
In the real world, NOBODY should be drug tested because we are all innocent until proven guilty.

This politician has been proven guilty. Maybe we should install a breathalyzer machine in his vehicle so he has to blow before it will start.
Let's all stop assuming that everyone on welfare is guilty and has to prove their innocence. When and if they are caught with illicit substance(s) and/or driving drunk, then we should have to drug test them.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:09 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

The point of it is to point out the double standard set by some holier-than-thou career politician, who himself draws a paycheck from your tax dollars, who is out boozing it up and driving down the highway. Maybe the guy who dreamt up drug testing non-criminals who have done nothing wrong should be held to the highest standard of all - which this lout clearly has failed to do.

Do we really need unwed teen mothers on food stamps to be forced into drug testing? What about the disabled who are on a strong medical regimen? Who is going to pay for that testing? It would be a boondoggle. Would we have the probation department do it? Might as well, were already one step away from being a full-blown police state.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:17 PM
OH, thank you, thank you, soooo muchly!
I haven't laughed so hard since I was in my thirties!
Whew! I needed that!

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:49 PM
Did he refer to that thing as an intoximeter.? hahaha, who else caught that.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:55 PM
For those participating in this thread who think drug testing people on public assistance is a good idea, keep in mind:

Food stamps are heavily controlled, and can only be used to buy certain food items - and not candy, beer, cigarettes, soda, or junk foods. The POS (point of sale) system at stores that accept food stamps (like EBT) will not accept food stamps for those items.

Disability is drawn from social security, and especially for those disabled from a work-related injury, should not have their integrity or lifestyle called into question by mandatory drug testing.

Welfare recipients are already dealing with a case worker, more so when children are involved, how much more bureaucracy do we need to throw at them? There's already a child services workers, a case worker, a social worker involved, not too mention if they were blowing their - let's face it - meager welfare check on crack, they'd be living in cardboard box pretty quick.


Another factor to consider, is that this 'drug testing welfare recipients' has already been done, in Florida - and failed miserably to live up to the hype - or to save the state ANY money.

96% of Florida Welfare Applicants Pass Drug Test, Discredit Tea Party Gov

Florida’s new drug-tests-for-welfare-applicants program just yielded its first batch of results: 98 percent passed [of those who took the drug test - 96% overall of all applicants passed]

Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who rode his own fortune and the tea party’s adoration to office last year, has stated publicly several times that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. So at Scott’s urging earlier this year, the legislature implemented a policy requiring all temporary cash assistance applicants pass a drug test before getting any help.

The Department of Children and Families says about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified, according to the Tampa Tribune.

The Tampa Tribune did some simple math and found out how much the governor’s assumptions about poor people going to cost the state:

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.

Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

About the only ones who would win in this scenario are the drug-testing companies who would be cashing in on those government contracts, at $30 per test administered.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in