Bring on the lawsuit- welfare drug tests strike again

[Deleted]

Aug 6, 2014 18:56:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

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.

It's not about "catching" them though. That's not the point. It's about not giving them money to use/buy drugs with in the first place.

That's why they have the option to not be tested if they want to take it (the option). But with that choice should come the loss of benefits.

As far as "catching" them... let the police do that in a "sting" or because they are out wandering the street in their underwear or whatever reason they get caught.

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

Go ahead. Choose one.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 4, 2014 18:31:05 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

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.

EVT-I just read Stacey Campfield lost his primary yesterday.  Lost big time.  Only garnered 28% of the overall vote.

[Deleted]

Aug 4, 2014 18:31:05 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

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.

Yes. Much better to waste those tax dollars by giving them to the drug pushers and users. 

[sesfw]

Hmmmmmm,

Drug testing for employment and EARNING funds

No drug testing and being GIVEN funds

Something very wrong with this picture.

I worked at a small manufacturing company years ago and the subject of drug testing employees come up. The howls of protest could be heard down the block. The loudest howlers were the ones that smoked a joint for lunch dessert ........ and one was the production manager.

The official reason for no testing there was the cost.

[EVT1]

Hmmm- cost Florida more than it saved to find out people on welfare are not anymore likely to be on drugs as the rest of the people.

And of course- something very wrong with ignoring the Constitution.   Why not search their homes as well- you know, looking for steak and lobster in the kitchen, alcohol, cigarettes, guns,etc.?

The only thing wrong with this picture is those that think your Constitutional rights end when you hit a bad patch and need help- that you are less of a citizen now. 

And of course- those that continue to pass legislation like this that only costs the taxpayers to defend a losing lawsuit so they can impress the base.

[EVT1]

Aug 8, 2014 22:59:52 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 4, 2014 18:31:05 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

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.

EVT-I just read Stacey Campfield lost his primary yesterday.  Lost big time.  Only garnered 28% of the overall vote.

So I guess the electorate isn't totally batshit- or is it? How in the hell did Desjarlais even tie?  We have an adulterer, a doctor that violated his professional oath having sex with patients, pushing one to have an abortion, etc. They like their tea in the rural counties I guess- even when it has shit in it.

 

[zibazinski]

Does the constitution have a place in there where the govt is responsible for welfare benefits? I missed that part.

[djAdvocate]

stupid idea.  drug use is lower among the poor than the middle class.  overtly classist legislation. 

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2014 14:28:36 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Hmmm- cost Florida more than it saved to find out people on welfare are not anymore likely to be on drugs as the rest of the people.

And of course- something very wrong with ignoring the Constitution.   Why not search their homes as well- you know, looking for steak and lobster in the kitchen, alcohol, cigarettes, guns,etc.?

The only thing wrong with this picture is those that think your Constitutional rights end when you hit a bad patch and need help- that you are less of a citizen now. 

And of course- those that continue to pass legislation like this that only costs the taxpayers to defend a losing lawsuit so they can impress the base.

How many ways must it be said? Requiring a drug test for an unearned "benefit" is NOT a violation of the constitution. NO one FORCES them to take the test. Also, the prohibition on "search" is against "UNREASONABLE search". There's nothing unreasonable about making sure taxpayer money isn't funding illegal activity.

Maybe if I say it in Latin?
Test medicamento requiritur ad gratuita donaretur «utuntur» non violationem constitutionis istius. Nulla sumere vires expertus. Item prohibitio "quaero" contra "irrationabile quaero." Non est autem inconveniens quod de pecunia non est faciendo sumptu illegal operatio ADSIDUUS.

What about French?
Exiger un test de drogue pour un "avantage" non acquis n'est pas une violation de la constitution. Personne ne les oblige à faire le test. En outre, l'interdiction de la «recherche» est contre «les fouilles, perquisitions". Il n'y a rien de déraisonnable à faire que l'argent du contribuable ne finance pas les activités illégales.

How about German?
Die eine Drogen-Test für einen unverdienten "Nutzen" ist nicht eine Verletzung der Verfassung. Niemand zwingt sie, den Test zu machen. Auch ist das Verbot auf "suchen" gegen "UNVERNÜNFTIGE Suche". Es gibt nichts unvernünftig darum, dass Geld der Steuerzahler ist nicht die Finanzierung illegaler Aktivitäten.

Or would you prefer Hebrew?

דורש בדיקת סמים ל" טוב ההנאה "שטרם הורווחו אינו הפרה של החוקה. אף אחד לא מכריח אותם לעשות את המבחן. כמו כן, האיסור על "חיפוש" הוא נגד "חיפוש בלתי סביר". אין שום דבר בלתי סביר על עשיית כסף משלם המסים בטוח לא מממן פעילות בלתי חוקית.

[EVT1]

Say a hundred different ways if you want- the courts disagree with you and so do I- which goes back to the original topic- bring on the lawsuit- you are paying for it too. 

      "Also, the prohibition on "search" is against "UNREASONABLE search". There's nothing unreasonable about making sure taxpayer money isn't funding illegal activity."

So expanding on your logic why can the government not search their homes?

But really you fail the basic understanding of the concept of what is reasonable and the balancing test required when the government intends to violate the 4th amendment.  Catching a few bad apples does not justify the intrusion into the bodies of everyone else no matter how much you can't stand them.  

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2014 22:49:19 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Say a hundred different ways if you want- the courts disagree with you and so do I- which goes back to the original topic- bring on the lawsuit- you are paying for it too. 

      "Also, the prohibition on "search" is against "UNREASONABLE search". There's nothing unreasonable about making sure taxpayer money isn't funding illegal activity."

So expanding on your logic why can the government not search their homes?

But really you fail the basic understanding of the concept of what is reasonable and the balancing test required when the government intends to violate the 4th amendment.  Catching a few bad apples does not justify the intrusion into the bodies of everyone else no matter how much you can't stand them.  

Are you suggesting that courts are infallible?

The government is not violating the 4th amendment by requiring drug tests for unearned "benefits".

Why is this simple concept so hard for you to comprehend? the drug test is NOT about "catching the bad apples". It's about insuring that MY money and YOUR money and EVERYONE ELSE'S money isn't going to pay for, or support in any way, illegal drugs.

And again I'll ask: Either "proof of condition for unearned benefit" is acceptable... or it's not. Choose one.


ETA: As to the "So expanding on your logic why can the government not search their homes?" question: You are not bringing your home in to apply for benefits... you are however, bringing yourself in.

ETA II: Peeing on a test strip or in a cup isn't "intrusion into the body"... If it is, you are doing it wrong.

[EVT1]

According to you- are you suggesting you are infallible?  You really have a convoluted way of looking at the law so that it allows what you wish it to.

Already been said- proof of condition to qualify for a benefit is fine.  Being 'drug free' while a fine goal, is not proof of a condition requiring aid.  I'm drug free- can I get a check?

But if you want to go down than path then I assume you back drug testing all recipients of 'unearned' government benefits right? That's a tall order- how do you plan to pay for that (assuming of course you convince the Supreme Court that you are right about the 4th amendment and they are wrong)?

 

[EVT1]

I think the problem here is you, like many others haven't the foggiest idea who is on 'welfare' and you are prejudiced by that long discredited welfare queen bullshit Reagan was selling- and you want to punish them however you can.

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2014 13:12:37 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

According to you- are you suggesting you are infallible?  You really have a convoluted way of looking at the law so that it allows what you wish it to.

Already been said- proof of condition to qualify for a benefit is fine.  Being 'drug free' while a fine goal, is not proof of a condition requiring aid.  I'm drug free- can I get a check?

But if you want to go down than path then I assume you back drug testing all recipients of 'unearned' government benefits right? That's a tall order- how do you plan to pay for that (assuming of course you convince the Supreme Court that you are right about the 4th amendment and they are wrong)?

I'm not suggesting I'm infallible. You were the one that postulated "Well the courts already settled this, so, it's settled". I'm suggesting that maybe the courts aren't as perfect as you believe them to be. Heck they made numerous mistakes with Obamacare (most recently the "Hobby Lobby" case).

"drug free" is a perfectly acceptable "proof of condition" when the benefit is money that's paid by the government and is in no way actually earned. And no, you can't get a check JUST because you are drug free. "Proof of condition" doesn't equal "this is the ONLY requirement".

And yes, I'm fine with drug testing ALL "unearned" beneficiaries. I believe I said something to that effect many messages ago.

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2014 13:14:54 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I think the problem here is you, like many others haven't the foggiest idea who is on 'welfare' and you are prejudiced by that long discredited welfare queen bullshit Reagan was selling- and you want to punish them however you can.

LOL!!!!!

You can think that all you want. Won't make you right about that either though.

ETA: Wanting them drug tested (and passing) has nothing to do with wanting them punished. It has to do with not wanting to support illegal activity with taxpayer funds (I believe I've said this several times).

[djAdvocate]

Aug 10, 2014 13:14:54 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I think the problem here is you, like many others haven't the foggiest idea who is on 'welfare' and you are prejudiced by that long discredited welfare queen bullshit Reagan was selling- and you want to punish them however you can.

the stereotype is typically "the other", when in fact is is middle class white kids that do most of the drug consuming.  and most of them are casual users, not addicts.  our drug policy misses the target in almost every conceivable way.