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.

 

Again, Democrats Protest Drug Testing for Welfare and Unemployment Recipients...

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by PennKen2009
 





It has nothing to do with privacy. If you're on illegal drugs, breaking the law, why should you get assistance from the government or from my tax dollars?


How do I know you are not on illegal drugs driving on the roads I pay for with my tax dollars?

If you are breaking the law...why should I assist you? I'm sure you'll be willing to pee in a cup to prove you are worthy to drive on the roads that I helped pay for....right?




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by PennKen2009
 





It has nothing to do with privacy. If you're on illegal drugs, breaking the law, why should you get assistance from the government or from my tax dollars?


How do I know you are not on illegal drugs driving on the roads I pay for with my tax dollars?

If you are breaking the law...why should I assist you? I'm sure you'll be willing to pee in a cup to prove you are worthy to drive on the roads that I helped pay for....right?


Ill take it a step further than that. If you are on drugs, should you be denied the publicly funded police assistance that you may require in a particular circumstance?



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
There is way too much abuse with welfare.

-Single mothers have more kids just to increase their monthly allotments.

-Food stamps shouldn't include snacks, soda and other unhealthy food. Food stamps should be a necessity not a luxury.

-Welfare recipients should be working for their checks. How about cleaning-up parks, picking up trash or cutting grass for the city they reside in? How about janitorial work in government buildings? Maybe if they worked for their check, they would be motivated to find better work to support themselves and their families.

-Housing recipients should be drug tested. Too many housing projects have become outlets for drug dealings and drug related crime.

-Children are growing up in families that have known nothing but welfare. Welfare has become a way of life and an option to receive a living income without having to work for it.

-Instead of rewarding mothers with increase food allotments and an increase in their welfare checks for having another baby, maybe they should be limited to having 1. Maybe that would be an incentive for mothers to start using contraceptives and reduce the drag on the system.

-Housing recipients should also pay a percentage toward school taxes instead of burdening working taxpayers to cover the cost of their multiple children attending public schools.

-Illegals shouldn't benefit from a system that was created for legal Americans.

I'm not for removing the welfare system, but there has to be watch dog to protect the many abuses that continue to go unchecked. Maybe politicians need to be drug tested. With all their outrageous spending bills, and bills that infringe on our freedoms, maybe they're all on drugs!



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
we should get rid of drug testing all together.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Random drug-testing without cause is definitely unconstitutional. However, people are applying for benefits of some kind. They are not guaranteed those benefits in any way. The benefits are charity at the will of their fellow citizens and taxpayers, by way of the government. So, if they don't want to be drug-tested, no problem, don't apply for the benefits. Privacy protected. Everyone wins.


So why not have the legislators drug tested. As they are representatives of the people, they should stand up for the laws the people are held to, and by being tested, show that they are abiding by the same laws?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


Have you ever asked yourself why would it be cheaper to have someone on welfare than pay them a decent wage? Giving 20,000 a year is cheaper than giving 50,000. Especially if you get taxpayers to do it...



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Random drug-testing without cause is definitely unconstitutional. However, people are applying for benefits of some kind. They are not guaranteed those benefits in any way. The benefits are charity at the will of their fellow citizens and taxpayers, by way of the government. So, if they don't want to be drug-tested, no problem, don't apply for the benefits. Privacy protected. Everyone wins.


So why not have the legislators drug tested. As they are representatives of the people, they should stand up for the laws the people are held to, and by being tested, show that they are abiding by the same laws?


I am all for this! There was a bill, it might still be alive, but there was a bill to make Congress fully accountable to every law they pass, including making them participate in Social Security.

I work for the State Government, and we all agree to drug testing when we are hired, but the HR and Legal departments have decided we cannot drug test our employees on mere suspicion. As a supervisor I have been told specifically not to drug test someone unless I was 100% certain of what the results would be, or I had direct first hand knowledge of drug abuse by the employee.

I think we should drug test our Government employees and our Legislators.

It wouldn't solve all of our problems, I'm sure Obama and Romney can pass a drug test. In fact, when I used to be in the private industry I told my employees it was more of an intelligence test than anything else. There are ways to pass, and if you want to do drugs, and also be employed, then you better be smart enough to figure out how to make it work.
I'm afraid our legislators are probably smart enough to beat the tests.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by tonycliffs
 


As it should be protested. All that happens is either people that are receiving welfare or need it end up having to pay for the drug test (which I am sure includes Marijuana, which, who cares) OR the state pays for the drug tests and the drug users find a way to cheat the test and so the state ends up paying the money plus even more for all the drug test. Plus there is generally some corruption involved like there was when they started doing this in Florida.

Dumb plan, Dems are right on this one.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by tonycliffs
 


As it should be protested. All that happens is either people that are receiving welfare or need it end up having to pay for the drug test (which I am sure includes Marijuana, which, who cares) OR the state pays for the drug tests and the drug users find a way to cheat the test and so the state ends up paying the money plus even more for all the drug test. Plus there is generally some corruption involved like there was when they started doing this in Florida.

Dumb plan, Dems are right on this one.


It's not necessary to urinate in a bottle for testing.

All it takes is a strand of hair. Hair follicle frug testing maps out a drug user's pattern of usage for past years and years, if not decades.

Then the drug users records are put on the Obamacare National Database.

The cost is iminimal compared to how much can be saved on refusing welfare to perpetual drug users.

With a little time and money spent wisely, billions can be saved.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Random drug-testing without cause is definitely unconstitutional. However, people are applying for benefits of some kind. They are not guaranteed those benefits in any way. The benefits are charity at the will of their fellow citizens and taxpayers, by way of the government. So, if they don't want to be drug-tested, no problem, don't apply for the benefits. Privacy protected. Everyone wins.


Maybe you should re-read the IV Amendment.


AMENDMENT IV

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.


Especially the part that says, "and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation."

Where is the probable cause? Where is the oath or affirmation? Where is the warrant?

Now, could you be so kind as to show me where it states, anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, that being needy is grounds for losing your 4th amendment rights?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


There does not need to be probable cause, the participation is voluntary. Nobody is compelling them to take the drug test. It is entirely their own choice. They won't get any free handouts without the drug test, but it is still their own free will.

It doesn't violate the constitution if it is entirely voluntary.

The constitution doesn't provide any guarantee of welfare or social programs, those things are also voluntarily provided by the government at the expense of the tax payers, and applying for those benefits is also voluntary.

Nobody's rights are being violated as long as the rules and requirements are made known up front. Some will choose to still apply and submit to the requirements, and some will choose not to.

I honestly think this is a situation where everybody wins. If you want to do drugs, fine, go get a construction job like everyone else. If you want government handouts, then don't do drugs.
edit on 10-2-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Flatfish
 


There does not need to be probable cause, the participation is voluntary. Nobody is compelling them to take the drug test. It is entirely their own choice. They won't get any free handouts without the drug test, but it is still their own free will.

It doesn't violate the constitution if it is entirely voluntary.

The constitution doesn't provide any guarantee of welfare or social programs, those things are also voluntarily provided by the government at the expense of the tax payers, and applying for those benefits is also voluntary.

Nobody's rights are being violated as long as the rules and requirements are made known up front. Some will choose to still apply and submit to the requirements, and some will choose not to.

I honestly think this is a situation where everybody wins. If you want to do drugs, fine, go get a construction job like everyone else. If you want government handouts, then don't do drugs.
edit on 10-2-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)


Being needy is not voluntary and If drug testing the needy were voluntary, they wouldn't need to pass laws to do it. You're going to have to do better than that.

According to your philosophy, getting a job is also voluntary so if your employer demands that you sign a waiver of your constitutional rights as a condition of employment, that alright? Please! Without the issuance of a warrant under the conditions described in the 4th amendment, drug testing is clearly unconstitutional. Plain & simple.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Uh.. yeah, except we have to foot the bill one way or another.
It is just more money out of tax payers pocket. I am sure they will have some horrible plan like the intended recipient pays for the test and is reimbursed if they qualify. Awesome, so we pay for a test while people who do hard drugs that only stay in the system a few days pass and still get money and people that smoke pot lose their benefits.

Either way we end up paying more than we did before. The cost of testing everyone and still handing money to the majority will end up being greater than the money spared by weeding out a few (no pun intended).



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


So, you're saying all drug testing is unconstitutional, even the pre-employment testing at a private employer?


An employment relationship is indeed voluntary. No one is forced to work for any particular employer, and there are plenty that don't drug test, and there is also the opportunity to begin a sole propietership.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the majority of things should be illegal in the first place, and I definitely don't believe they should carry any jail time. BUT, even if they were legal, an employer would still have the right to ban there usage by employees.

Personally, I would like to be able to screen out smokers. Smoking cigarettes is completely legal, but my professional experience tells me smokers are much less productive, and therefore I would like to be able to only hire non-smokers. My HR department disagrees, LOL! I think they are wrong, because smokers are not a protected class, and it is perfectly legal to discriminate against smokers. Drug users are the same way, but they are easier to target because drugs are illegal.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Yes, that is happening in Florida. The big experiment failed pretty bad. So far it hasn't saved the tax payers any money, and it might even be costing them money. But, we'll have to give it some time to see how it plays out.

There have only been a very, very small percentage of positive screening results, so it has been an eye opener so far.

There are much bigger fish to fry. While I don't oppose the drug testing, I do see it as putting the cart before the horse. Why not fix the social and economic issues that create the welfare state in the first place, instead of just drug testing?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


It is borderline. I think in jobs where it presents a danger to others it should be considered pre employment in others it should be on suspicion. In government jobs it should be all or nothing. If an office worker gets tested so do police and politicians.

In all cases I wonder if it's not an invasion of privacy. If someone uses a drug like pot at home and are always sober at work I think it's kind of a problem. I guess one that is more easily solved by making pot legal rather than drug tests illegal though.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Don't forget the corruption in Fla where Scott's wife happened to work in/run the clinic where all the tests were done.
It was all a scheme to make money.

I knew that would happen though. They simply cheat to pass the test using another person's pee or by not using a few days prior to the test if they use a drug that metabolizes quickly. If there is one thing that we should have learned is that no matter what kind of plan the government comes up with they will always execute it poorly. They knew it wouldn't save money, but it was always to make them money in their private life. Saving tax payers money was just the line to get them to buy into it.
edit on 10-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
A high percentage of bankers who received tax payer bail out money are coc aine takers, a drug that makes them more aggressive and over confident with their clients money. Who was proposing testing these guys before we handed over billions



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Flatfish
 


So, you're saying all drug testing is unconstitutional, even the pre-employment testing at a private employer?


Absolutely! Unless the criteria as set forth in the 4th amendment is met, then the search of the person is indeed unconstitutional. That's why they're called "Rights," they're protected under the constitution. You notice they didn't call them "Options."



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Why not fix the social and economic issues that create the welfare state in the first place, instead of just drug testing?


Entitlement: Having a right to ‘something’. Is entitlement parallel to greed?
We are certainly using this word in a narrow sense – i.e. people collecting benefits have an ‘entitlement’ mentality.

Well, there is another side of this as well. Society has an entitlement expectation of those who are poor – they should flip burgers, be janitors, and whatever other jobs of servitude that are expected of these people. We think we are entitled to the servitudes of others. Is this right? Is it correct, moral and ethical? I have my doubts about that especially when that servitude is generally for the profit of others and does not guarantee that people will be better off because they flip burgers. Should they give up raising their families to be at the whim of any corporate endeavors? The corporations are ‘entitled’ to this labor after all, are they not? Entitlement- there are more sides to it than the continual negative stigma that is thrust upon those in poor positions.

The so-called industrial revolution has done a fine job of breaking up families by having both parents first to work to support the country during a time of war, but now it is common to think that both parents might need to work. I personally believe we as a society have largely grown to expect that.

Then, we wonder why kids do not have the parenting that they REALLY need to be good members of society. We only ‘like’ to give this ‘entitlement’ to single mothers, and give even more when they have more children – further dividing the family by making sure the father figure is not included, what is that about?

Can children be raised properly while both parents work? Sure, but there is some detraction of the parental guidance, and it’s inevitable and consequential. I remember many times giving up seeing my son’s football games because the company I worked for had projects come up that just had to be done – family be damned no matter what their corporate mantra was. Where do you draw the line? 50 hours? 60 hours? For my particular circumstance, I believe it was 72. When you work 72 hours a week, believe me that leaves little time for anything other than eat, sleep, and work. Labor laws ‘entitle’ my employer to this. I loved my job, and always made personal efforts beyond the norm to make sure it was done well. Damn you Horatio Alger.

I do totally agree there are severe instances of abuse of the system by those receiving ‘entitlements’ – nothing grinds my gears quite like seeing people with cartloads of food, paying with their ‘entitlements’ and then going out of the store and hopping into their Escalades.

As usual, a program such as this seems shortsighted and does not appear to address root causes of behavioral issues, and really, are a bunch of indigenous people in South America responsible for flooding this country with coc aine? Are the poor responsible for synthesizing all these fancy chemicals and bringing it to the masses? Some may be, since such knowledge has homogenized amongst certain groups, but I suspect the roots of such activity are in the ‘entitlement’ mentality – I am entitled to as much money as I can get. Entitlement aka greed if you will.

All men being created equal…except we are all born with societal ascriptions –born into poverty, born into luxury and so forth. To expect people to be able to live outside those ascriptions is IMO a pretty tall order. Social programs AFAIK, are in general, not known for their success and this drug testing is to me, a social program.

Entitlements – I think this word has parallels with greed, and greed is by no means a term that strictly applies to the poor.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join