Bring on the lawsuit- welfare drug tests strike again

[EVT1]

www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/03/new-drug-screening-law-knocks-benefits-list/13536859/

Time to waste some of those tax dollars- way to go Tennessee.

Brought to you by Stacey Campfield- biggest douchebag in the TN senate to date.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

I see this as a positive, not a negative - it will "weed" out (pun intended) any people who are living on Gov't assistance and using that money to buy drugs, instead of using it feed themselves and their children and provide a roof over their heads - or get a better education/job to support themselves.

There's already too many living on the dole who are quite capable of working, but as long as the Gov't is going to provide them free handouts, they'll continue to sit around & use the system to support their habit and lifestyle - as bad as it is - meanwhile breeding the next generation who'll also be dependent on assistance because that's the only life they know.

Time to cut-off those who don't get a clean screening. The money isn't being used to better their conditions in many cases - it's being used to support their habit (whether that's drugs or alcohol).

I weep for the children who will continue the vicious cycle.

[Tennesseer]

Respond with 'no, no, no, no, no' to the questions.  Then go out and buy drugs with the money you received from the state.

Easy peasy.  

[EVT1]

Aug 4, 2014 18:47:23 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

I see this as a positive, not a negative - it will "weed" out (pun intended) any people who are living on Gov't assistance and using that money to buy drugs, instead of using it feed themselves and their children and provide a roof over their heads - or get a better education/job to support themselves.

There's already too many living on the dole who are quite capable of working, but as long as the Gov't is going to provide them free handouts, they'll continue to sit around & use the system to support their habit and lifestyle - as bad as it is - meanwhile breeding the next generation who'll also be dependent on assistance because that's the only life they know.

Time to cut-off those who don't get a clean screening. The money isn't being used to better their conditions in many cases - it's being used to support their habit (whether that's drugs or alcohol).

I weep for the children who will continue the vicious cycle.

How is it a positive for taxpayers to have to pay to defend a lawsuit they will lose?

I understand where you are coming from- but the evidence doesn't support your allegations. FL went down this road and it turned out there is no evidence these people are any more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.

But that isn't the point of this- nobody is fooled by Campfield- he loves playing to the base- and this time it is costing money TN does not have to waste.  He is trying to walk a tightrope on this because he knows what he wanted to do isn't Constitutional. 

[Tennesseer]

Aug 4, 2014 20:28:03 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 4, 2014 18:47:23 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

I see this as a positive, not a negative - it will "weed" out (pun intended) any people who are living on Gov't assistance and using that money to buy drugs, instead of using it feed themselves and their children and provide a roof over their heads - or get a better education/job to support themselves.

There's already too many living on the dole who are quite capable of working, but as long as the Gov't is going to provide them free handouts, they'll continue to sit around & use the system to support their habit and lifestyle - as bad as it is - meanwhile breeding the next generation who'll also be dependent on assistance because that's the only life they know.

Time to cut-off those who don't get a clean screening. The money isn't being used to better their conditions in many cases - it's being used to support their habit (whether that's drugs or alcohol).

I weep for the children who will continue the vicious cycle.

How is it a positive for taxpayers to have to pay to defend a lawsuit they will lose?

I understand where you are coming from- but the evidence doesn't support your allegations. FL went down this road and it turned out there is no evidence these people are any more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.

But that isn't the point of this- nobody is fooled by Campfield- he loves playing to the base- and this time it is costing money TN does not have to waste.  He is trying to walk a tightrope on this because he knows what he wanted to do isn't Constitutional.

Like so many other things he tries to pass ìn the legislature.

[Opti]

If it were cost effective to test for drugs, i.e., the cost to test is recouped by removing drug users

off drugs, it might have some merit from a tax-payer financial perspective.

From the moral one, I have mixed feelings about it. Cutting off drug users isn't going to make them

stop or take better care of their family if it includes non-drug users. Population participation in the work-force

is still at historic lows. Much of that is due to people not finding jobs, not being offered jobs because of

employer bias and frankly a historically huge labor pool.

I would fight is as a taxpayer, since Florida's program has shown it is a fiscally irresponsible and spendy

decision. There are tons of people in the working population that use drugs. Drug testing by companies

has either shifted where these people work or have made them more crafty to beat the test. Probably

both in some combination.

[EVT1]

I guess my bottom line is, ignoring the Constitution for a minute, that I refuse to force people in dire need of help to have to go through this bullshit and prove their innocence because a small percentage of them are abusing the system. 

I really really refuse to do it so some politician can be seen by the ignorant voter section as cracking down on the welfare bums- if anyone sees this as anything other than political pandering have I got some beachfront property for you.

This kind of crap is how you make your bones now.  Bachman just claimed the other day Obama is planning on using the immigrant children for medical experiments- I shit you not.  The problem is this crazy nonsense costs real money now. 

[mmhmm]

Aug 4, 2014 21:20:12 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I guess my bottom line is, ignoring the Constitution for a minute, that I refuse to force people in dire need of help to have to go through this bullshit and prove their innocence because a small percentage of them are abusing the system. 

I really really refuse to do it so some politician can be seen by the ignorant voter section as cracking down on the welfare bums- if anyone sees this as anything other than political pandering have I got some beachfront property for you.

This kind of crap is how you make your bones now.  Bachman just claimed the other day Obama is planning on using the immigrant children for medical experiments- I shit you not.  The problem is this crazy nonsense costs real money now. 

Do you have a link for Bachman's purported claim, EVT? I'd really like to read the whole article instead of something out of context. 

[zibazinski]

Time and past time for welfare to end anyway. All it has done is create a dependence that never ever should have started.

[Tennesseer]

mmhmm-this is what Bachmann is quoted as having said (among other things):

"Now President Obama is trying to bring all of those foreign nationals, those illegal aliens to the country and he has said that he will put them in the foster care system," Bachmann said. "That's more kids that you can see how - we can't imagine doing this, but if you have a hospital and they are going to get millions of dollars in government grants if they can conduct medical research on somebody, and a Ward of the state can't say 'no,' a little kid can't say 'no' if they're a Ward of the state; so here you could have this institution getting millions of dollars from our government to do medical experimentation and a kid can't even say 'no.' It's sick".

Michele Bachmann Worries Unaccompanied Children Will Be Used For Medical Experiments

[mmhmm]

Thanks, Tenn. I'd found it myself. I just wanted to read about the matter in its entirety.

[Tennesseer]

You're welcome.  

[Deleted]

Anyone that believes Bachmann is sane needs their own head examined (can't believe I rebutted in favor of Obama over anything! lol).

As to the OP: I am in favor of drug testing for government benefits (of any kind) as long as drugs are illegal. Don't want to drug test? Make them legal then.

[EVT1]

Aug 4, 2014 21:31:24 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Time and past time for welfare to end anyway. All it has done is create a dependence that never ever should have started.

Facts show welfare for the most part is temporary- at least for those that can work.

Are you suggesting disabled people be cut off?

(Meanwhile you vote for people that support dynastic wealth)

I have about a thousand times more respect for some woman serving me a burger than some douchebag with a rich mommy and daddy that has it all handed to them.  Want to talk about entitled dependent losers that have no fucking idea what work is.......

[EVT1]

Aug 4, 2014 22:28:17 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Anyone that believes Bachmann is sane needs their own head examined (can't believe I rebutted in favor of Obama over anything! lol).

As to the OP: I am in favor of drug testing for government benefits (of any kind) as long as drugs are illegal. Don't want to drug test? Make them legal then.

Nevermind you will shit on the 4th amendment- but what is a government benefit then? Time to drug test 90% of the population. That should save money

[Deleted]

Drug testing for welfare doesn't run afoul of the 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.

No one is forcing anyone to take a drug test. If they don't want to be tested... they don't have to be (they just don't get the free money then, if that's their choice).

For it to run afoul of the 4th Amendment... the drug test would have to be required... whether they were applying for any benefits or not.... just because some cop said "test them" (then points to person cop wants tested).

[EVT1]

Aug 4, 2014 22:52:45 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Drug testing for welfare doesn't run afoul of the 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.

No one is forcing anyone to take a drug test. If they don't want to be tested... they don't have to be (they just don't get the free money then, if that's their choice).

For it to run afoul of the 4th Amendment... the drug test would have to be required... whether they were applying for any benefits or not.... just because some cop said "test them" (then points to person cop wants tested).

Sure it does- ANY search by the government involves the 4th amendment. Or a better way to put it is that the government cannot do it without a demonstrable need that outweighs the rights of a citizen.  There has yet to be made a case why this would be allowed.  Settled law- case after case- the government has to show a compelling need to violate the amendment.  All evidence on drug testing welfare recipients so far shows there is no such need.  The burden is on the government.  So do you think we should drug test everyone on Medicare?  What would be the difference other than the target population?  No one has to take Medicare.  How about drug testing for SS benefits?  Don't have to take those either. 

 

[Value Buy]

Aug 5, 2014 20:22:39 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 4, 2014 22:52:45 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Drug testing for welfare doesn't run afoul of the 4th Amendment.
No one is forcing anyone to take a drug test. If they don't want to be tested... they don't have to be (they just don't get the free money then, if that's their choice).

For it to run afoul of the 4th Amendment... the drug test would have to be required... whether they were applying for any benefits or not.... just because some cop said "test them" (then points to person cop wants tested).

Sure it does- ANY search by the government involves the 4th amendment. Or a better way to put it is that the government cannot do it without a demonstrable need that outweighs the rights of a citizen.  There has yet to be made a case why this would be allowed.  Settled law- case after case- the government has to show a compelling need to violate the amendment.  All evidence on drug testing welfare recipients so far shows there is no such need.  The burden is on the government.  So do you think we should drug test everyone on Medicare?  What would be the difference other than the target population?  No one has to take Medicare.  How about drug testing for SS benefits?  Don't have to take those either. 

 

Any corporation that signs a contract with the government is expected to jump through hoops to be paid and must fulfill certain requirements. It has been established that corporations have civil rights such as citizens, hence, if a citizen signs up for benefits (a contract has therefore been established) the government can require specific requirements to fulfill the contract.

You can do the drugs, but forfeit the right to welfare payments.

Better yet, when they fail their drug screen, retest and if still found in the blood, book em.

[Deleted]

Aug 5, 2014 20:22:39 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 4, 2014 22:52:45 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Drug testing for welfare doesn't run afoul of the 4th Amendment.
No one is forcing anyone to take a drug test. If they don't want to be tested... they don't have to be (they just don't get the free money then, if that's their choice).

For it to run afoul of the 4th Amendment... the drug test would have to be required... whether they were applying for any benefits or not.... just because some cop said "test them" (then points to person cop wants tested).

Sure it does- ANY search by the government involves the 4th amendment. Or a better way to put it is that the government cannot do it without a demonstrable need that outweighs the rights of a citizen.  There has yet to be made a case why this would be allowed.  Settled law- case after case- the government has to show a compelling need to violate the amendment.  All evidence on drug testing welfare recipients so far shows there is no such need.  The burden is on the government.  So do you think we should drug test everyone on Medicare?  What would be the difference other than the target population?  No one has to take Medicare.  How about drug testing for SS benefits?  Don't have to take those either. 

Bolded:
Incorrect.

Any FORCED search involves the 4th Amendment. Don't want to be searched? Don't have to be. Your choice.

Taking the drug test is completely voluntary. You don't get arrested if you don't take it (you just don't get the free money).

Pop quiz: If you refuse to take the test, are you allowed to leave? YES! You are! Your freedom is not conditional on the test!



The rest:
I'd be o.k. with drug testing for anything that is unearned. (SS isn't "unearned"... you pay into the system to qualify for it... even if it's not "your money" coming back to you, it's already got a "qualifier". Medicare is also based on qualifiers {some of which are similar to SS}, and is also something an employed person has "paid into")

[EVT1]

There is no qualifier in the 4th amendment regarding force. 

And besides that- requiring a drug test to claim a benefit that is due is pretty much forcing it.

And on your SS argument or Medicare argument being you pay into the system, so do people applying for welfare- there is no difference.

Maybe there are some people that never have- but the majority have. Want to make the argument that people on welfare have never worked?

[Deleted]

Aug 5, 2014 21:07:19 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

There is no qualifier in the 4th amendment regarding force. 

And besides that- requiring a drug test to claim a benefit that is due is pretty much forcing it.

And on your SS argument or Medicare argument being you pay into the system, so do people applying for welfare- there is no difference.

Maybe there are some people that never have- but the majority have. Want to make the argument that people on welfare have never worked?

You keep confusing yourself.

Welfare isn't "due"... It's "available" There's a difference that you aren't accounting for.

People on welfare don't "pay into the system" as a REQUIREMENT to receive it. Yes, if they worked at any time and paid taxes, their taxes supported it, but it's NOT a requirement. You can go on welfare directly from entering adulthood without ever having worked a day in your life. The same cannot be said for SS or Medicare.

And yes, there actually IS a "force" qualifier in the 4th Amendment: the word "unreasonable". That's the "force" qualifier. The government can't make you submit to a search (without probable cause and/or a warrant). They can however ask you to consent to one of your own free will.

Question: Have you ever had (or heard of) a cop asking: "Mind if I look around?" The person he/she is asking is perfectly within their rights to say, without fear of legal reprisals: "Yes, I mind. You may not." (that doesn't mean the cop won't go GET a warrant, if he/she can, but you won't be penalized for making him/her get one).

It's the same thing with a drug test for welfare. The Office asks "would you mind taking a drug test?" You are perfectly free to say "Yes, I mind. I'm not going to." and they are perfectly free to say: "Fine. Have a nice day!" (and then they "toss" your application).

[EVT1]

Sure it can- people qualify for SS from birth and some get it.

Riiight- you tell the cop you refuse to consent to search- 50/50 you get searched anyway while your ass is in the back of a squad car.

But you are wrong- there is no legal basis to require a search- which is why these laws are unconstitutional.

You may not agree with it but it is settled law- if you don't understand read these two cases:

Indianapolis V Edmond,  Treasury Employees V Von Raab

It is a simple proposition that in order for the government to violate the 4th amendment it has to have a damn good reason. 

Your whole argument of choice is baseless and irrelevant- there is no authority for the government to require a search regardless of what it is for without invoking the Constitution. 

[Deleted]

Aug 5, 2014 21:55:40 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Sure it can- people qualify for SS from birth and some get it.

Riiight- you tell the cop you refuse to consent to search- 50/50 you get searched anyway while your ass is in the back of a squad car.

But you are wrong- there is no legal basis to require a search- which is why these laws are unconstitutional.

You may not agree with it but it is settled law- if you don't understand read these two cases:

Indianapolis V Edmond,  Treasury Employees V Von Raab

It is a simple proposition that in order for the government to violate the 4th amendment it has to have a damn good reason. 

Your whole argument of choice is baseless and irrelevant- there is no authority for the government to require a search regardless of what it is for without invoking the Constitution. 

No one qualifies for SS from birth. Their PARENT(S) may have qualified, and as a dependent of said parent they get it... but THEY didn't qualify all on their own. if THEY (the child) are receiving it directly they are receiving a "survivor's benefit" from the qualified PARENT'S account.

"settled law" is irrelevant. "settled law" changes all the time. The most famous "settled law" was prohibition. Is it still around? No. I didn't think so.

And I didn't say there was legal basis to require the search. I said there was no constitutional basis to deny the welfare office the right to require a drug test (and passing it) before passing out benefits. The fact that cases have been lost is more likely due to poor representation, or biased judges (and don't try to tell me that judges don't have/use their own biases when deciding cases. Hobby Lobby was recently decided on bias).


ETA: you may be confusing "Disability" with "Social Security"... "Disability" can start at any age, and is independent of Social Security (even though they are run commonly out of the same office, even by the same staff). But even there, "Disability" has qualifiers... one big one, you must prove your disability. Based on your opinion, they shouldn't have to prove a disability... because (according to you) "search is against the Constitution".

Requiring medical proof of disability is "search". I guess we should let anyone get disability that wants it though (even if they aren't disabled)... according to you.

[EVT1]

Wrong- and for the record I worked for SS as a disability examiner.  Some unfortunate people are born disabled and they will be covered regardless of who the parents are. 

Settled law has jack to do with amendments- and I am sure you are aware it took another amendment to fix that mistake- not the courts.

Last- requiring medical evidence of a disability is not a search.  I spent a few years doing this-I had the final say- I could allow or disallow benefits- I had so many crying people call me daily and I had to deny them.  You have no idea how bad some people have it I guess.  

[Deleted]

Aug 5, 2014 23:15:48 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Wrong- and for the record I worked for SS as a disability examiner.  Some unfortunate people are born disabled and they will be covered regardless of who the parents are. 

Settled law has jack to do with amendments- and I am sure you are aware it took another amendment to fix that mistake- not the courts.

Last- requiring medical evidence of a disability is not a search.  I spent a few years doing this-I had the final say- I could allow or disallow benefits- I had so many crying people call me daily and I had to deny them.  You have no idea how bad some people have it I guess.  

Disability is not Social Security. If you worked there you should know that. They have different requirements to qualify for benefits. If you worked there you should also know that.

I am aware it took another Amendment to fix that one... HOW it got fixed is irrelevant. THAT it got fixed is what matters.

"... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers..." IS part of the 4th Amendment... is it not? How is requiring proof of disability for benefits NOT a "search" (the same way that a drug test is)?

You want it both ways if you think that proof of disability for unearned benefits should be allowed to be requested, but drug free for unearned benefits shouldn't be allowed to be requested.

Either "proof of condition for unearned benefit" is acceptable... or it's not. Choose one.

[zibazinski]

If you have to be drug tested for a job, you should have to be drug tested to not have a job and expect others to support you. Unless you a physically or mentally handicapped, no one should be receiving welfare of any kind to begin with.

[jkapp]

Aug 5, 2014 21:55:40 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Sure it can- people qualify for SS from birth and some get it.

Riiight- you tell the cop you refuse to consent to search- 50/50 you get searched anyway while your ass is in the back of a squad car.

But you are wrong- there is no legal basis to require a search- which is why these laws are unconstitutional.

You may not agree with it but it is settled law- if you don't understand read these two cases:

Indianapolis V Edmond,  Treasury Employees V Von Raab

It is a simple proposition that in order for the government to violate the 4th amendment it has to have a damn good reason. 

Your whole argument of choice is baseless and irrelevant- there is no authority for the government to require a search regardless of what it is for without invoking the Constitution. 

OK, I'll be sure to tell that to the TSA next time I'm at the airport...we'll see if I make it on the plane

[EVT1]

Aug 6, 2014 1:08:17 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 5, 2014 23:15:48 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Disability is not Social Security. If you worked there you should know that. They have different requirements to qualify for benefits. If you worked there you should also know that.

I am aware it took another Amendment to fix that one... HOW it got fixed is irrelevant. THAT it got fixed is what matters.

"... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers..." IS part of the 4th Amendment... is it not? How is requiring proof of disability for benefits NOT a "search" (the same way that a drug test is)?

You want it both ways if you think that proof of disability for unearned benefits should be allowed to be requested, but drug free for unearned benefits shouldn't be allowed to be requested.

Either "proof of condition for unearned benefit" is acceptable... or it's not. Choose one.

Disability is a large part of SS.  There are DI claims- people that satisfy work requirements (that paid in if you will), and SSI claims- those that did not- including children.  Please tell me where you think disability payments come from if not the SSA- I gotta hear this.

BTW applying for welfare does require proof of need-but a search for drugs is not a compelling government interest.  A search to determine whether or not someone has a medical condition in order to validate a claim is a compelling government interest- as in there would be no way to administer the program if anyone could walk in and claim a check.

  

 

[Deleted]

A proof that the government supplied money is not supporting illegal activity most certainly IS a "government interest".

And I never said the SSA didn't allocate the funds for Disability... did I? No. I didn't. I said they were applied for differently and had different requirements and qualifications (My wife is on disability, so I am very familiar with it, including all the hurdles and hoops one has to jump over and through to qualify... unlike you who has supposedly worked there. Although... considering some of the interactions we have had with employees at the SSA, it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand things about it. It IS a confusing mass of bureaucracy {that's NOT an insult of/to you, it's an opinion of the inefficiency and general chaos of the SSA itself}).

You are trying (very poorly) to confuse the issue. But my inquiry still stands: Either "proof of condition for unearned benefit" is acceptable... or it's not. Choose one.

[EVT1]

Sure it is an interest- but one that is strong enough to overcome the 4th amendment-not at all. The only evidence out there is that drug use among welfare beneficiaries is no more than the general population.

So- drug testing 100 people to catch 6 is no where near medical testing 100 people to disqualify the 75 that do not qualify- apples and oranges.

And your wife is on it- for all you know I could have approved it (depending on the dates of course).  I assure you I know more about disability claims than you do- don't believe it- I could really care less.