NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 13:02:34 GMT -5
Question for the board: let's say a state passed a law that all welfare recipients have to subject themselves to public anal probing. Would that be considered Constitutional?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 12, 2024 3:01:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 13:04:26 GMT -5
pappy. I have to say, cereb.. it is quite interesting watching you cry over perceived personal attacks when I have been subject to MANY of yours for YEARS now. Cute.. and kind of funny in a twisted way.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 17, 2011 13:04:39 GMT -5
And when you go back to the illegal search and siezure thing - or unreasonable search (without probable cause) one looks how private industry skirted the constitution back then for drug testing of drivers (OK) for public safety but, the slippery slope was opened and drug testing started to spiral out beyond it's origional intentions and then we wind up with the patriot act saying that the probable cause thing don't apply. I am of the belief that you are innocent until charged and proved otherwise. Also, I consider a blood test being used as a qualifier for something else is a violation of our constitution - weather private or public - because there is no due process. Just off the top of my thick skull
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 12, 2024 3:01:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 13:05:13 GMT -5
Thank you. This is the bottom line. People that apply for aid are in no way compelled to do so. This is different from those that are required to pay. I work, and If I care to keep my job my employer requires that I submit to a UA on demand. Since I enjoy the paycheck each week that my employer provides, I do not use illegal drugs. My employer deducts taxes from the money that I earned and forwards it to the state as required by law, and the state takes my money and gives it someone that is not held to the same standard. As our fine president would say "That's not fair". I only ask that those that receive tax dollars be as accountable as I am. And you have made an excellent point. I appreciate your clear articulation on the matter. I am not exactly totally against the measure. I can simply see many, many problems with it's implementation, and I also feel that to do it across the board without cause isn't really the way to go. I feel that those who are suspected of drug use should be tested and if positive, their benefits suspended. See. You and I CAN agree on something. The only problem I see with 'SELECTIVE' testing is that ultimately someone is going to yell discrimination. If we have to have granny take her shoes off at the airport then a drug test shouldn't be out of the question if those are the rules. I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 13:05:22 GMT -5
I can't find the cut off eligibility levels? But to determine $ received, you take 30% of your monthly income and then subtract 200$ (for a single person) from it and then what you are left with is your benefit amount... so... if that is true, then a 235$ benefit for a single person would indicate an income of $17,400.... which is over 150% of the poverty level for a single person... ? ... I think someone's figures are wrong. In the state of MA, you must make with a comb SSI and SSDI less than a grand a month to qualify for a minimal amount of SNAP benefits. Less that 12K per year to get 40 bucks of food stamps a month. Your expenses are also part of that formula.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 12, 2024 3:01:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 13:07:24 GMT -5
Okay....let me rephrase my question: Which bully tactic do you think I used? I'm okay with having no power over you. I'm not a control-freak who can't handle differing opinions. Are we clear yet? That's funny that you talk about me trying to have some sort of cosmic message board power and then you (key word here) ATTEMPT to grab some perceived power over me as if you're important. I have attempted no such thing. I am fully aware I have no power over you perceived or real. I asked a question. "are we clear?" is a question meaning "do you understand?" If paranoia is an issue for you, perhaps we should end this exchange. I certainly would not wish to cause you undue stress that could lead you to harm yourself or others. ;D I'm totally RAGING like an elephant on a city street in India!!
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 13:08:20 GMT -5
pappy. I have to say, cereb.. it is quite interesting watching you cry over perceived personal attacks when I have been subject to MANY of yours for YEARS now. Cute.. and kind of funny in a twisted way. Hmm. I thought you just said you didn't lie Krickitt? Oh yeah, you did! I never personally attacked you. Never once. I disagreed about your politics. I made fun of your politics. It was never anything personal. Keep up the lying about it though and I could be persuaded to make an exception.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 13:09:13 GMT -5
I have attempted no such thing. I am fully aware I have no power over you perceived or real. I asked a question. "are we clear?" is a question meaning "do you understand?" If paranoia is an issue for you, perhaps we should end this exchange. I certainly would not wish to cause you undue stress that could lead you to harm yourself or others. ;D I'm totally RAGING like an elephant on a city street in India!! Peanuts?
|
|
pappyjohn99
Familiar Member
The driveway needs a little work.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 1:01:13 GMT -5
Posts: 928
|
Post by pappyjohn99 on Jun 17, 2011 13:12:22 GMT -5
cereb- implementation is not all that great an issue. There are companies that do this as their profession. I work for a fortune 500 company and these people come around about 2-3 times each year. The trick is an old one. you do not need to check each person each time. Once it is known that there are random checks and your number could be pulled at any time the risk of being caught outweighs the reward of using. But you must hit everyone once. That makes it real to everyone. When you apply, you pee. Starting right now. When people start getting refused benefits for being dirty, the word gets out and anyone that is even thinking about coming down to ask has to tighten up the ship. This system exists in the private sector now. It is workable. And to all- It is not my intention to be combative. No offense meant to anyone
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 12, 2024 3:01:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 13:12:44 GMT -5
I'm totally RAGING like an elephant on a city street in India!! Peanuts? They are delicious!!
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 13:12:55 GMT -5
"See. You and I CAN agree on something.
The only problem I see with 'SELECTIVE' testing is that ultimately someone is going to yell discrimination.
If we have to have granny take her shoes off at the airport then a drug test shouldn't be out of the question if those are the rules. I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is. "
Well, the way I see it, most of these folks are case managed. Case management would have a investment in the welfare and health of any kids involved. Suspect drug users are already tested for child removal in most states. We simply tie it to that. No cause for anyone to scream discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 17, 2011 13:13:31 GMT -5
Yes, peanuts, olives, beer, pool and some unadulterated Jamaican weed - of few good friends
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 13:13:45 GMT -5
Pappy, Do you think it would be OK to ask for an anal probe in addition to peeing in a cup?
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 13:14:14 GMT -5
cereb- implementation is not all that great an issue. There are companies that do this as their profession. I work for a fortune 500 company and these people come around about 2-3 times each year. The trick is an old one. you do not need to check each person each time. Once it is known that there are random checks and your number could be pulled at any time the risk of being caught outweighs the reward of using. But you must hit everyone once. That makes it real to everyone. When you apply, you pee. Starting right now. When people start getting refused benefits for being dirty, the word gets out and anyone that is even thinking about coming down to ask has to tighten up the ship. This system exists in the private sector now. It is workable. And to all- It is not my intention to be combative. No offense meant to anyone Sounds reasonable. Probation works much the same way.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 17, 2011 13:14:49 GMT -5
To clear this up- this is unconstitutional period. It is pretty much settled law. A drug screen is a search and invokes the 4th amendment- the argument that you are free to not apply is irrelevent- you cannot get around the Constitution by holding someone's legal benefits hostage until they consent. Scott just now backed off the state employee drug testing directive- as I knew he would once the ACLU filed suit- because it is settled law and in fact the same thing has already been thrown out in Florida before. He may try and fight this one- but he will lose. Nothing but pandering to the base.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 13:17:50 GMT -5
Yes, peanuts, olives, beer, pool and some unadulterated Jamaican weed - of few good friends Throw in some awesome single malt and you've got a date!
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 13:18:51 GMT -5
To clear this up- this is unconstitutional period. It is pretty much settled law. A drug screen is a search and invokes the 4th amendment- the argument that you are free to not apply is irrelevent- you cannot get around the Constitution by holding someone's legal benefits hostage until they consent. Scott just now backed off the state employee drug testing directive- as I knew he would once the ACLU filed suit- because it is settled law and in fact the same thing has already been thrown out in Florida before. He may try and fight this one- but he will lose. Nothing but pandering to the base. I would agree, and I'm really not surprised.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 17, 2011 13:19:07 GMT -5
Highland?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 13:19:23 GMT -5
To clear this up- this is unconstitutional period. It is pretty much settled law. A drug screen is a search and invokes the 4th amendment- the argument that you are free to not apply is irrelevent- you cannot get around the Constitution by holding someone's legal benefits hostage until they consent. Scott just now backed off the state employee drug testing directive- as I knew he would once the ACLU filed suit- because it is settled law and in fact the same thing has already been thrown out in Florida before. He may try and fight this one- but he will lose. Nothing but pandering to the base. Spot on!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 12, 2024 3:01:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 13:23:37 GMT -5
Yeah, i was moving backwards ? ... 200$ is the max benefit... and 30% of income is subtracted from that... so anyway, there is no way to get 235$ as a single that i can see... and if you got 200$, it would be because you were not working at all, and you would be limited to 6 months... so... i call stinky on that one...
|
|
pappyjohn99
Familiar Member
The driveway needs a little work.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 1:01:13 GMT -5
Posts: 928
|
Post by pappyjohn99 on Jun 17, 2011 13:23:59 GMT -5
bubbly- the testing is done with urine, no needle stick involved. IMO the war on drugs was won when employers were given this tool. Abusers will abuse regardless of the cost. I think you are applying legal concepts into civil matters. There is no duress- you may leave at any time. This will no doubt cost you the aid you were seeking, or the job you held. But no one is forcing you to fill that cup. It is a trade off. Prove you're clean and keep the job. Refuse the test or turn up dirty, and lose the job.
It's your choice.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 12, 2024 3:01:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 13:26:12 GMT -5
"See. You and I CAN agree on something. The only problem I see with 'SELECTIVE' testing is that ultimately someone is going to yell discrimination. If we have to have granny take her shoes off at the airport then a drug test shouldn't be out of the question if those are the rules. I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is. " Well, the way I see it, most of these folks are case managed. Case management would have a investment in the welfare and health of any kids involved. Suspect drug users are already tested for child removal in most states. We simply tie it to that. No cause for anyone to scream discrimination. Ah, but then you're inviting discrimination because you're going on a 'suspicion'. Unless you have concrete evidence of someone using drugs (pictures, video, dna evidence) then a clean person could yell discrimination based on their look, race, sex, origin. Again, I'm not saying it's right or warranted, but there are plenty that will "find" discrimination in anything.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 12, 2024 3:01:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 13:27:00 GMT -5
Do you know how many times my husband has peed in a cup for other people? I don't endorse it... but i know it happens...
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 13:27:24 GMT -5
Yeah, i was moving backwards ? ... 200$ is the max benefit... and 30% of income is subtracted from that... so anyway, there is no way to get 235$ as a single that i can see... and if you got 200$, it would be because you were not working at all, and you would be limited to 6 months... so... i call stinky on that one... That's what happens when all the info you believe in is what you heard while driving a cab...
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 13:28:39 GMT -5
Do you know how many times my husband has peed in a cup for other people? I don't endorse it... but i know it happens... Me and mine too. Thankfully my husband is the CEO and owner now and can do as he sees fit. We don't drug test.
|
|
pappyjohn99
Familiar Member
The driveway needs a little work.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 1:01:13 GMT -5
Posts: 928
|
Post by pappyjohn99 on Jun 17, 2011 13:30:31 GMT -5
Pappy, Do you think it would be OK to ask for an anal probe in addition to peeing in a cup?In your case Luna, I would have no problem with that, preferably with a five battery flashlight. But drug testing is non-intrusive. The pee comes naturally
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 13:30:55 GMT -5
"See. You and I CAN agree on something. The only problem I see with 'SELECTIVE' testing is that ultimately someone is going to yell discrimination. If we have to have granny take her shoes off at the airport then a drug test shouldn't be out of the question if those are the rules. I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is. " Well, the way I see it, most of these folks are case managed. Case management would have a investment in the welfare and health of any kids involved. Suspect drug users are already tested for child removal in most states. We simply tie it to that. No cause for anyone to scream discrimination. Ah, but then you're inviting discrimination because you're going on a 'suspicion'. Unless you have concrete evidence of someone using drugs (pictures, video, dna evidence) then a clean person could yell discrimination based on their look, race, sex, origin. Again, I'm not saying it's right or warranted, but there are plenty that will "find" discrimination in anything. This is the beautiful thing about CPS. They don't need proof of anything. They can confiscate your kids based on a complaint from your nosy neighbor. They laws support what they do as being in the best interest of the children. You have no legal recourse as a parent other than to do what they tell you to do if you want your kids back.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 12, 2024 3:01:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 13:37:13 GMT -5
Ah, but then you're inviting discrimination because you're going on a 'suspicion'. Unless you have concrete evidence of someone using drugs (pictures, video, dna evidence) then a clean person could yell discrimination based on their look, race, sex, origin. Again, I'm not saying it's right or warranted, but there are plenty that will "find" discrimination in anything. This is the beautiful thing about CPS. They don't need proof of anything. They can confiscate your kids based on a complaint from your nosy neighbor. They laws support what they do as being in the best interest of the children. You have no legal recourse as a parent other than to do what they tell you to do if you want your kids back. I see that as a bigger problem of government overstepping their power....whether it's local, stat, or federal. Proof should be required before CPS or any gov't entity should be able to do something as big as taking your kids away or whatever the scenario may be. Perhaps the "neighbor" doesn't like you and just wants to see you gone.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 13:42:04 GMT -5
This is the beautiful thing about CPS. They don't need proof of anything. They can confiscate your kids based on a complaint from your nosy neighbor. They laws support what they do as being in the best interest of the children. You have no legal recourse as a parent other than to do what they tell you to do if you want your kids back. I see that as a bigger problem of government overstepping their power....whether it's local, stat, or federal. Proof should be required before CPS or any gov't entity should be able to do something as big as taking your kids away or whatever the scenario may be. Perhaps the "neighbor" doesn't like you and just wants to see you gone. When I say " beautiful thing" I am being sarcastic. And you are correct. It certainly is government overstepping their boundaries, but that is they way it is. No proof of anything is required to remove your kids from the home. CPS gets all the time they need to make a case against you if a judge agrees to possible cause. This can go on for months. In the mean time, they make you jump through hoops and your kids are in state custody. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" with these people, but the opposite.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 13:44:24 GMT -5
Pappy, Do you think it would be OK to ask for an anal probe in addition to peeing in a cup?In your case Luna, I would have no problem with that, preferably with a five battery flashlight. But drug testing is non-intrusive. The pee comes naturally Ok, what if you are asked to masturbate in public instead? OK?
|
|