Why drug testing of welfare recipients is a bad idea

reply to post by CobraCommander


Where in the Constitution does it say that the government has to give us money?

****

dbbl post

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

Where in the Constitution does it say that the government has to give us money?

Show me where in the Constitution is says the government has the right to sample my bodily fluids.

EDIT to add:

You want to shut down welfare, fine, make a motion. Meanwhile, this law is a travesty.



Second EDIT: If you were worried about the money you would not support this law. You have an emotional rehotirc appeal based in bias and discrimination.

So if the average fail rates of tests could be 5-10 % you are looking at 5000 - 10000 people families who could get thrown off welfare for a false positive.

Since I work I can pay for a secondary test or get a higher better type done . With these people they dont have the money to pay for the blood tests the hair test or a lawyer to fight it . Great way to lower the welfare rolls how many kids might go hungry for a false positive ?

Is it worth it ?

reply to post by Lostinthedarkness


Well, technically, the children are "protected." Someone else can assume custodial payment. Which basically means that if you hit a fals-positive, you have to hand over custody to the real crack-head welfare queen who knows how to get around the tests.

But of course, that also begs the question, what about real hardcore narcos, that send their kids out to sling dope who get jacked on drug addiction from maybe 11 years old. 7 years of addiction to dope and welfare, sorry kid, you're on your own now. Sorry we failed you.

reply to post by CobraCommander


The government isn't going around collecting bodily fluids from everyone. If you want government assistance, then its the government's call on how they give it out.

I think it's a great idea because if it gets overturned in court a lot of other manditory laws will too. I have long hair and it seems like I'm a target for new management. At least twice a year I have to go get a test. I've never failed but it's usually 2-3 paid days off for me so it's became a joke with everybody I work with.

reply to post by Lostinthedarkness


No, then would then send the same sample off to be retested at a lab if the person believes its a false positive. In your case since you brought up your asthma meds, did you request futher analysis? I've taken over 100 drug tests over the course of my life and never had a false positive. I'd have to do more research on this exact bill, but it should have steps to prevent false positives from causing one to lose benefits. The military have to summit to at least one drug test a year so why do people that collect welfare get a free pass. Both get paid by the government.

It's more about us maintaining or the continued transformation of our country into a zero tolerant society. It's not going to save us money, it just gives the government more control.

Just like three strike laws are leading to more violence towards police. Desperate people will do desperate things when there hands are forced.

Many here agree with governmental actions because they have some weird desire to dictate how one should lead there lives. They have some odd desire to dehumanize people.

All drug testing is bad and unconstitutional as it places guilt on all. I will only agree to drug testing when they start testing every one who gets a government check starting with gov employees, elected officials and law enforcement.

Funny how its been shown the governor of this state is going to personally gain financially from drug testing, yet people still support this cash cow.

Just like the electronic voting machines were made mandatory by law nationwide, all the while politicians made fortunes because they owned stock in the manufacturing companies that produced these same electronic voting machines.....

Let pick on those in our world that can take the heat, lets leave the impoverished alone and pay more attention to these situations:

The U.S. is providing hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid to some of the world's richest countries - while at the same time borrowing billions back, according to report seen by Congress.

The Congressional Research Service released the report last month which shows that in 2010 the U.S. handed out a total of $1.4bn to 16 foreign countries that held at least $10bn in Treasury securities.

Four countries in the world's top 10 richest received foreign aid last year with China receiving $27.2m, India $126.6m, Brazil $25m, and Russia $71.5m. Read more: nation.foxnews.com...

Fox news

You wanna complain about how your tax monies are being spent why not concern yourself with corporate welfare and these aid packages to foreign countries?

I don't care what a person does in there own living room or bedrooms, its none of my business and it should be none of yours......

reply to post by LDragonFire


Now drug testing should be illegal all together but if the one has to take a drug test to work, then one should have to take a drug test to collect welfare. Its either got to be no test or everyone. Personally I think drugs should be legalized. We have gotten farther and father away from personal accountability. If one wants to gamble or do drugs then have at it but don't come to the governement for financial help if you can't pay your bills. As far as corporate aid, the country's biggest problem is companys are moving their operations overseas because of regulations. Aid from the government is the only incentive to keep them in this country and hiring. Even then, companys still don't want to deal with the headache and red tape.

reply to post by CobraCommander


My addition differs from the article. Let us assume each test is$75.00. The welfare recipients are receiving aide every month (which is paying for their drug habit) plus the recipient is receiving hundreds in food stamps every month, (which can be traded for drugs). If 30% fail. (Which the # thar will faill will probably be way higher) within at least 2 years the abusers are off the system, the system will have already gained money. It is a win-win situation.
(How do I know all this you ask I personally know many many people abusing welfare) years back i tried to reveal them, but the system had no desire to listen.

reply to post by CobraCommander


I understand your cost of service VS. drug screening cost. But what is not factored in is the amount of those that use illegal drugs that will drop out of the welfare program and those that will test anyways and will be dropped as well.

This is very plain and simple. If you want someone to take care of you, you must abide by their rules.
Either don't use drugs and get welfare, or use drugs and don't get welfare.

reply to post by macman

This is very plain and simple. If you want someone to take care of you, you must abide by their rules.
Either don't use drugs and get welfare, or use drugs and don't get welfare.

Or...you just work and earn your own money, and spend it on drugs if that's what you desire...oh, wait a minute...

First of all, I know of no law mandating drug screening for people who work (except those employed in official capacity). Employers require drug screening to save money on insurance, period. I can also tell you that in my area of Florida, the largest abuse by far is prescription drugs such as Lortab and Xanax. Here's the kicker; many of those prescribed these drugs are on medicaire/medicaid, and never use them. They sell them on the street to working people to supplement their fixed-income. This to me is the real problem (at least in my area), and this law will not change it one bit. In addition, those who do this are committing felonies, whereas the average guy smoking a joint is only committing a misdemeanor, and he's the more likely candidate to get popped with a screening.
This law doesn't affect me, but I still think it is unconstitutional no matter how you look at it. As a twelve year veteran, my decisions will always be consistent with our Constitution and Bill of Rights as should any other American's in my opinion.
If our government was doing a good job managing this country (instead of trying to manage everybody else's countries), there would be fewer welfare recipients to be concerned with. Also if they weren't constantly attacking the Constitution, I might support some of their polices. The way things are currently, I ain't supporting squat...

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by macman

 

This is very plain and simple. If you want someone to take care of you, you must abide by their rules.
Either don't use drugs and get welfare, or use drugs and don't get welfare.

Or...you just work and earn your own money, and spend it on drugs if that's what you desire...oh, wait a minute...

I agree. I think that most drugs should be legal, as people are responsible for themselves. I think hard narcotics like Meth is just an evil on the earth.
Cannabis should be legal, sold and taxed.

But, don't expect the tax payer to fund it.

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
I may not agree with who is testing them, it is very shady but I agree 100% with testing them.

I am on what you call 'welfare'. Thanks be to God I am in New Zealand, and don't have to put up with lunacy such as this (yet.) I fear it will come, we have a fascist government in power right now.
No one on welfare does drugs. It's a fantasy, like the people who breed for the DPB (I believe the American equivalent is so low, that it means that American single parents have to turn to whoring or their children starve).
Your assertions are absurd. How can anyone buy drugs on what I believe is the equivalent of NZ $50.00 a month?

well at the risk of reiteration

People should have the right to choose for themselves whether or not they want to ABUSE a substance. That does not mean they have the right to sponge off others to abuse said substance.
Therefore, drug testing is fine by me.

Prior to the legalization of freedom (and that means all drugs from marijuana to heroin to percocet to vitamin B), something like this should be put firmly in place - otherwise we'll end up supporting everyone who chooses to be an addict.
And yes, although I do believe that addiction is a medical/mental issue, I also believe in this day and age there is absolutely NO excuse for being an "accidental" addict. Everyone knows that crack is addictive, HELLO, don't do it.

If you need to receive a check for a legitimate reason (including mental issues that turned you into an addict), you should at the very least be in RECOVERY, and not using. Also along these lines, we need better testing for alcoholism, since more people die from alcohol related illness/accidents than any other drug we know of. If you're an alcoholic, I don't want to see your addiction harbored either.

At the end of the day however, they can drug test all they want. Junkies will just get someone else to provide the urine.

QUICK DRUG DETOX.



If you think for one second that an initial drug test for welfare recipients is going to deter any drug users you are severely mistaken. I tried to put a dang hyperlink thingy in here to further my point and address what steps users WILL take in order to avoid losing thier free money. Now, if the testing was random...maybe more useful. But it's completely out of the question when you start talking about the fiscal applications of random testing on 100,000 people currently enrolled in the state of Florida.

My next question is whether or not any of us were able to confirm the governor Rick Scott's status as 70% owner of Solantic. Then, are they the proposed company for the testing or not?

Was anyone able to research the exact type of testing they propose to perfom? Dip? Blood?

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

The government isn't going around collecting bodily fluids from everyone. If you want government assistance, then its the government's call on how they give it out.

We are all beholden to the government in one way or another. If this precedent is allowed to stand, you can bet that in five years from now you will be peeing in a cup to get your DMV form processed.

...by U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts when she ruled ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients...

“...could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.”

The ACLU adds...

Indeed, any of the justifications put forth to subject welfare recipients to random drug testing would also by logical extension apply to the entirety of our population that receives some public benefit and/or that is a parent. It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well.

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by Lostinthedarkness

 

No, then would then send the same sample off to be retested at a lab if the person believes its a false positive. In your case since you brought up your asthma meds, did you request futher analysis? I've taken over 100 drug tests over the course of my life and never had a false positive. I'd have to do more research on this exact bill, but it should have steps to prevent false positives from causing one to lose benefits. The military have to summit to at least one drug test a year so why do people that collect welfare get a free pass. Both get paid by the government.

Military service or any other job is voluntary. Eating is not.

Double-checking for false positives will only double, even triple the taxpayer costs which could then run into hundreds of millions of dollars simply to save a few million by kicking drug users off of welfare