Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,618
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 9, 2011 16:41:17 GMT -5
Thank you FLORIDA and KENTUCKY!! Florida and Kentucky are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare, effective July 1st. Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's ok to drug test people who work for their money but not those who don't? Re-post this if you'd like to see this done in all 50 states Most folks, whether they are applying for a job or welfare, know when the drug screen will take place. Probably more so for the potential welfare recipient. You stop doing drugs to get your system clean. Unlike the worker who may be subject to random drug screens once employed, will the welfare recipient be subject to random drug screens in Florida and Kentucky once they are collecting? As for the children I am not sure what state it is but some state instituting drug screening for new recipients will give the money to another responsible adult to provide for the children if the parent fails the drug screen.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Aug 9, 2011 19:05:04 GMT -5
So, what happens when someone with children fails the drug test? The kids go into foster homes? Mom and the kids live on the street? Mom pimps the kids to feed her drug habit? I am not necessarily against this as long as there is a plan for the kids well being, if not forget it, it is not going to fix anything. Quite the problem eh? If people think one million children in custody and foster care is an issue now....just wait till this hits the fan. The current system can't deliver adequate services as it is right now.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Aug 9, 2011 19:09:08 GMT -5
"As for the children I am not sure what state it is but some state instituting drug screening for new recipients will give the money to another responsible adult to provide for the children if the parent fails the drug screen."
This will only work in a small number of cases. Being a rep-payee is a difficult and thankless proposition. For those who have less than altruistic reasons for providing this service, well, use your imagination.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Aug 9, 2011 19:12:56 GMT -5
Another nail in the coffin of individual freedoms (fortunately only in two states, so far). And this one courtesy of a guy who says he believes in small government, but acts completely contrary to that. I bet he's still enamored of the Patriot Act.
What a hypocritical jerkwad.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Aug 9, 2011 19:25:45 GMT -5
I see, Rick. You like the approach of the ends justifying the means. No, my interest has little to do with drugs; it has everything to do with the government requiring people to be forced into giving up their bodily fluids to satisfy some smug jerks who think they are on a Mission From God.
You can't get more intrusive than having the government force you to give up part of your body, or give up what the government provides. It is simple extortion by the state.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 9, 2011 20:00:06 GMT -5
Another nail in the coffin of individual freedoms (fortunately only in two states, so far). you got a kudos for this one, verrip. touche. you took it further than i did, but that is certainly where i was going. a person should be able to do whatever he wishes with his person or property so long as he is not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 9, 2011 20:05:31 GMT -5
Aside from the false positives, which are a problematic reality, there's the matter of the cost of such a program, Rick. It's going to cost a fortune to get all those people tested, and continue with random testing to ensure compliance. While you might catch some, I'm not sure you could catch enough to warrant the cost. I understand the motivation, but I don't think it's cost-effective, at this point in time. We're in enough monetary difficulty without adding something like this to the mix.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 9, 2011 20:11:16 GMT -5
Aside from the false positives, which are a problematic reality, there's the matter of the cost of such a program, Rick. It's going to cost a fortune to get all those people tested, and continue with random testing to ensure compliance. While you might catch some, I'm not sure you could catch enough to warrant the cost. I understand the motivation, but I don't think it's cost-effective, at this point in time. We're in enough monetary difficulty without adding something like this to the mix. i worry about where this stuff goes. when nobody minds his own goddamn business, what kind of nation do we have left?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 9, 2011 21:08:08 GMT -5
I can see both sides of the issue, dj, which probably explains why I'm a moderate! There's something to be said for those who resent being expected to support those who would sit on their backsides smoking pot when they could be productively employed, even if it was doing something to improve our infrastructure in order to earn their welfare checks. On the other hand, laws like this are definitely intrusive and that's something to take into consideration when formulating legislature. We don't want to go too far in either direction, but sometimes the middle road is difficult to find.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Aug 9, 2011 21:15:31 GMT -5
Another nail in the coffin of individual freedoms (fortunately only in two states, so far). you got a kudos for this one, verrip. touche. you took it further than i did, but that is certainly where i was going. a person should be able to do whatever he wishes with his person or property so long as he is not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other. You don't seem to advocate this for a persons money, because that is certainly property and you seem to be ok with taxes. I'm also not sure if these programs are practical, but I don't see them as invasions of privacy, why isn't it an invasion when the government wants to know how much money you make or how many kids you have before they give you welfare?
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Aug 9, 2011 23:55:47 GMT -5
it has everything to do with the government requiring people to be forced into giving up their bodily fluids to satisfy some smug jerks They arent being required, they can choose not to, they just dont recieve the hand out. It really is a simple concept "Simple". They are required to pass a drug test if they are to avail themselves of an agreed upon social benefit, a benefit which is completely unrelated to drugs. It's social extortion, and you are supporting social extortion by the state. It's a position anyone is allowed to hold. I don't know why you don't simply agree that that is what it is. You think that the government should be more intrusive into peoples lives if it's possible that drug users could be either identified or denied social benefits. Just say it and stop footing around.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Aug 10, 2011 0:09:51 GMT -5
I can see both sides of the issue, dj, which probably explains why I'm a moderate! There's something to be said for those who resent being expected to support those who would sit on their backsides smoking pot when they could be productively employed, even if it was doing something to improve our infrastructure in order to earn their welfare checks. On the other hand, laws like this are definitely intrusive and that's something to take into consideration when formulating legislature. We don't want to go too far in either direction, but sometimes the middle road is difficult to find. Try thinking of it this way. Say you wanted to evaluate various charities so that you could decide which one you want to give contributions. Charity A says they provide their services to anyone in their area based only upon their need for help. Charity B says that they have a screening committee of right-minded citizens to determine just who deserves help and provides services to those who pass muster. Charity C says that they support only the needs of the Romulan community when they need help. Would you base your decision to contribute on which of these you think is the 'middle road'? Or would you base your decision on your evaluation of how ethical you think the various concepts about 'giving' and 'need' are?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 10, 2011 6:00:26 GMT -5
I do think of it as you described, virrip. Still, while I'd choose to give to the charity that pledged to support all in need within the community, I can still see the other side's complaint. While I might not make the same choice as those who support withholding charity unless the receivers "measure up", I cannot fault them for their view.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 10, 2011 8:04:50 GMT -5
Most folks, whether they are applying for a job or welfare, know when the drug screen will take place. Probably more so for the potential welfare recipient. You stop doing drugs to get your system clean. That's a good point. Any druggie with an ounce of common sense knows how to beat these tests.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 10, 2011 10:49:08 GMT -5
you got a kudos for this one, verrip. touche. you took it further than i did, but that is certainly where i was going. a person should be able to do whatever he wishes with his person or property so long as he is not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other. You don't seem to advocate this for a persons money, because that is certainly property and you seem to be ok with taxes. taxes are by definition the public's money. how it is spent is up to the elected, not the electorate. perhaps i could have been more clear. if i want to get drunk or eat a $10/lb steak and caviar on the dole, i don't see why the state should have any say in it whatsoever. WHETHER i am on the dole or not is entirely the state's business. WHAT I DO while on it is none of their concern at all. let me know if that is not clear enough.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 10, 2011 10:52:16 GMT -5
The irony of this whole situation is that it will cost a mint. Hire cops and go after the places and situations most likely to yield drug users. Don't harrass every man, woman and child who receives benefits. Mark my words, before two years are out, people will realize that fewer people are being helped while the costs explode. This is a rich trough of political patronage. It will also send crime out of control as destitute people start selling drugs, turn to prostitution or prey on others. what makes drugs expensive is enforcement, which adds to risk. driving up risk will not drive down crime, it will drive it up. prohibition is a case study in this, but apparently nobody learned the lesson.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 10, 2011 10:57:05 GMT -5
Thank you FLORIDA and KENTUCKY!! Florida and Kentucky are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare, effective July 1st. Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's OK to drug test people who work for their money but not those who don't? Re-post this if you'd like to see this done in all 50 states
A very brave state Republican legislator tried to push the same bill in Sacramento CA a few months ago but this issue almost caused violent protests in the streets of San Francisco CA...so needless to say in the Golden State welfare recipients can do drugs with the money they get from the state welfare programs And how dare anyone try to make them be drug tested which is an invasion of their privacy, I think??
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Aug 10, 2011 11:00:58 GMT -5
"Simple". They are required to pass a drug test if they are to avail themselves of an agreed upon social benefit, a benefit which is completely unrelated to drugs. It's social extortion, and you are supporting social extortion by the state. It's a position anyone is allowed to hold. I don't know why you don't simply agree that that is what it is. You think that the government should be more intrusive into peoples lives if it's possible that drug users could be either identified or denied social benefits. Just say it and stop footing around. Ok, Let me ask you this question so you can understand it. Stay with me here. You have a 28 year old son. He doesnt have a job for whatever reason, that doesnt matter but he doesnt have a job. You as a loving father start paying his bills so he doesnt have to move home or live on the streets. You try to help him out. Ok are you still with me. So while you are helping him out, giving him money and food he decides he likes to do drugs. You continue to shell out large amounts of cash while he continues to do drug. He decides he doesnt even want to work now, or even worse he cant get work because the jobs he is interested in require drug testing. You continue to give the cash and you try to explain to him that the drug use is hurting his chances. He basiclly tells you to bad he doesnt care. You continue to shell out for his support and he starts taking the mone you give him to buy his drugs so he needs more money for rent and food and clothes and entertainment. At what point do you ge tired of shelling out the money while he takes no responsiblity for his support. And if you tell me you have no problem with his drug use while you support him then I know you are full of dog poop. You have absolutely no concept of what I have been saying. You are too hung up about drugs to be able to break out of your locked thinking patterns. Talk about dog poop!
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,618
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 10, 2011 11:11:51 GMT -5
Thank you FLORIDA and KENTUCKY!! Florida and Kentucky are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare, effective July 1st. Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's OK to drug test people who work for their money but not those who don't? Re-post this if you'd like to see this done in all 50 statesA very brave state Republican legislator tried to push the same bill in Sacramento CA a few months ago but this issue almost caused violent protests in the streets of San Francisco CA...so needless to say in the Golden State welfare recipients can do drugs with the money they get from the state welfare programs And how dare anyone try to make them be drug tested which is an invasion of their privacy, I think?? The newly signed up welfare recipient is clean of drugs the day they are approved and receive their first check (or food stamps). The following day they trade their food stamps for or cash their checks and buy drugs. What has society gained by screening these folks for drugs?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 10, 2011 11:20:43 GMT -5
Thank you FLORIDA and KENTUCKY!! Florida and Kentucky are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare, effective July 1st. Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's ok to drug test people who work for their money but not those who don't? Re-post this if you'd like to see this done in all 50 states I thought the consensus from the right and many from the left is there are to many government agencies, employees and programs already and they were doing all they could to ELIMINATE them yet this is another addition to that problem that will have a cost.. I am not even touching the illegality,. necessity of, a good thing , a bad thing..anyhing..just that if enacted it increases costs so whats the story regarding limiting government interaction.. Possible it shows, say you agree with this idea posted here on the testing, that all agencies , laws, departments are necessary and there in existence because of need, as now this one would be.. Possible there is no waste , or at least there are enough folks who favor all the agencies and their duties thus the reason they were put into existence, and if you don't support one or another, it just says one does not have to have unanimous consent to have these departments , just enough who do support them, thus we really are never going to eliminate any or cut their doings. There will always be some who support all of them and there lies our dilemma, who is it who makes the call to eliminate and cut back and what right do they have to do so with such support for all of them from someone, enough to keep them in existence? mmmmm, such a quandry, me thinks were screwed.[sigh]
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 10, 2011 11:37:44 GMT -5
Over 44% of the population currently is receiving a government benefit or handout. We are singling out people who work, play sports, and even animals that race for drug testing but not for recipients of welfare??? Liberals say NO to drug testing based on the Constitution but some states do require drug testing for welfare recipients because of the costs to their state budgets
FLORIDA and KENTUCKY may not be alone but we shall see how the challenges by the left on this issue play out, I guess??
Let see now both city cops and firemen are drug tested in my area of northern California but not welfare recipients because it is a violation of their constitutional rights even though many of them are doing drugs with their welfare payments that we pay for with our state taxes??? Something seems to be our of whack here but then again this is California or the left of the rest of the nation
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Aug 10, 2011 12:08:42 GMT -5
And you refuse to answer a simple question just like Toughtimes because you know it would make your stand on the subject counter productive Bottom line, you have your oppinion and I have mine, and Your oppinion will NOT make me change mine I refuse to answer your BS question because it completely ignores the issue of government intrusion into peoples' lives. You continue to obsess over your dislike of druggies and miss the relevance of the issue at hand, which ain't drugs. Your lame example has nothing at all to do with government intrusion. I guess that isn't an important issue to you. But you go right ahead in blissful ignorance and assume you 'won' something. It's an old and failed tactic: declare victory and leave the field proudly, but without having accomplished anything.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 10, 2011 12:10:41 GMT -5
Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? BECAUSE IT IS. No matter how much people want to yammer and cry about welfare abusers or drug users, none of that changes the fact that it violates the 4th amendment. It is a giant waste of time and money to try and score some cheap political points- and it will be tossed out of court swiftly.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 10, 2011 12:12:37 GMT -5
Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? BECAUSE IT IS. No matter how much people want to yammer and cry about welfare abusers or drug users, none of that changes the fact that it violates the 4th amendment. It is a giant waste of time and money to try and score some cheap political points- and it will be tossed out of court swiftly. Then how did Florida and Kentucky pass their bill if it is unconstitutional?? Thank you FLORIDA and KENTUCKY!! Florida and Kentucky are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare, effective July 1st.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 10, 2011 12:17:58 GMT -5
Let see now both city cops and firemen are drug tested in my area of northern California but not welfare recipients because it is a violation of their constitutional rights even though many of them are doing drugs with their welfare payments that we pay for with our state taxes??? Something seems to be our of whack here but then again this is California or the left of the rest of the nation No-it makes perfect sense. Certain public safety positions- police, transportation,etc. have a narrow EXCEPTION from 4th amendment protections- it is settled law. What you do not have is welfare druggies flying planes or enforcing laws.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 10, 2011 12:19:01 GMT -5
Then how did Florida and Kentucky pass their bill if it is unconstitutional? I imagine by vote.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 10, 2011 12:22:28 GMT -5
Let see now both city cops and firemen are drug tested in my area of northern California but not welfare recipients because it is a violation of their constitutional rights even though many of them are doing drugs with their welfare payments that we pay for with our state taxes??? Something seems to be our of whack here but then again this is California or the left of the rest of the nation No-it makes perfect sense. Certain public safety positions- police, transportation,etc. have a narrow EXCEPTION from 4th amendment protections- it is settled law. What you do not have is welfare druggies flying planes or enforcing laws. I don't know about flying planes but they do drive cars in my neighborhood and have been involved in quite a few accidents
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,618
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 10, 2011 12:30:33 GMT -5
Over 44% of the population currently is receiving a government benefit or handout. We are singling out people who work, play sports, and even animals that race for drug testing but not for recipients of welfare??? Liberals say NO to drug testing based on the Constitution but some states do require drug testing for welfare recipients because of the costs to their state budgets FLORIDA and KENTUCKY may not be alone but we shall see how the challenges by the left on this issue play out, I guess?? Let see now both city cops and firemen are drug tested in my area of northern California but not welfare recipients because it is a violation of their constitutional rights even though many of them are doing drugs with their welfare payments that we pay for with our state taxes??? Something seems to be our of whack here but then again this is California or the left of the rest of the nation Do you really want city cops and firemen fighting crime and saving lives while on crystal Meth? With civil servants it is a safety issue for them and the public they serve.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 10, 2011 12:34:02 GMT -5
Really? Was it on the news- 'welfare recipient on drugs crashes car'? Do police ask drivers if they are on welfare?
If you want to address the problem you could cut off welfare benefits for those convicted of drug possession. What you cannot do is have the government search your body on a whim. This is a gigantic waste of time, and everyone involved in passing this garbage should have to pay for the legal costs they are going to waste trying to defend it. The criminal douche bag extraordinaire in FL needs to pay out of his own pocket.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 10, 2011 12:37:52 GMT -5
[ Do you really want city cops and firemen fighting crime and saving lives while on crystal Meth? With civil servants it is a safety issue for them and the public they serve. That's the way the Scotus saw it- a compelling government interest to require an exception to the 4th. This is why said FL douche's idea to drug test all state employees failed.
|
|