Let me get this straight.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by grunt11b, Oct 25, 2011.

  1. grunt11b
    Offline

    grunt11b VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,649
    Thanks Received:
    500
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    In Reality
    Ratings:
    +501
    I have to take a random drug test and pass it to keep my job with the gubment, but it's against the 4th amendment for entitlement receivers to have to take a drug test to keep receiving taxpayer dollars for welfare? This judge is pathetic, and wrong. If I was the governor I would rewrite the laws governing the receiving of welfare, I would make it mandatory that they sign a form stating that they agree to a drug test each month to receive the welfare, that would bypass this judges ruling by having the recipient either volunteer to take the test or not receive the money or stamps.
    Typical progressive bullshit, if you cannot get it done through legislation you go through a corrupt judge to legislate it from the bench.
    Judge Blocks Florida's New Welfare Drug Testing Law | Fox News
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
  2. AquaAthena
    Offline

    AquaAthena INTJ/ INFJ

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    15,453
    Thanks Received:
    11,061
    Trophy Points:
    2,265
    Location:
    ♥ TEXAS ♥ in Spirit
    Ratings:
    +12,342
    It is the judges and lawyers that have turned our country upside down, as they give deference to the takers.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2011
  3. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    Is there some good reason why you have to take a drug test to keep your job? Is your job one that would be seriously compromised if you were using, say, heroin or meth?

    (I'm not defending the practice, 'cause I think drug tests for employment suck balls, but just pointing out one key difference here.)
     
  4. naturegirl
    Offline

    naturegirl Silver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    4,416
    Thanks Received:
    862
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    NW Georgia
    Ratings:
    +862
    How is it different?? Especially when kids are involved. Shouldn't they have straight/sober parents to make sure they aren't hurt?? Aren't our children important enough to make safety a priority??
     
  5. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    What is the consequence if someone tests positive?

    I could get behind this if what's done is to get more information, find out if the drug use represents a serious problem (e.g. heroin addiction), and if so get the parents into rehab therapy.

    What I suspect, though, is that the consequence would be a denial of benefits, which would make the children's already-difficult situation that much worse.
     
  6. grunt11b
    Offline

    grunt11b VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,649
    Thanks Received:
    500
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    In Reality
    Ratings:
    +501
    I work for the DOJ with the Bureau of Prisons. The bureau does a bureau wide 5% screening every month. I have been selected twice in the last 5-1/2 years. I feel that if people out there have to take them to keep there jobs, then so should folks receiving entitlement benefits at the tax payers expense.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. grunt11b
    Offline

    grunt11b VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,649
    Thanks Received:
    500
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    In Reality
    Ratings:
    +501
    That and I know of people who get the stamps and sell them, the state tried to deal with this by issuing DBT cards, it didn't work either. Say they get $400 a month in stamps, they will turn around and take someone to the store and purchase them the $400 in food and that person will give them $300 cash for the food. Then the recipient turns around and takes that cash and buys drugs, alcohol and cigarettes with it.
     
  8. grunt11b
    Offline

    grunt11b VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,649
    Thanks Received:
    500
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    In Reality
    Ratings:
    +501
    I also know of stores who manipulate the keys on their registers so that DBT cards can be used to buy cigarettes and beer. They will set up a key that says "Milk" but it really is for cigarettes for DBT card holders. It's all corrupt.
     
  9. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    grunt, while I appreciate and understand your frustration, a few things come to mind here. One is these test's often are so ineffective and costly especially in the case of Fl. that the taxpayers are not saving a thing, but instead end up paying a heck of a lot more for the tests than they do saving on people who may or may not be gaming the system. A good example, would be, that out of the first 40 applicants in six weeks 38 were given their money back for passing the test and the state had to pick up the cost of the test, two failed, at 240.00 dollars and one of the two is court , and so far the court costs are higher than the 38 tests. This is just me, but if a state planned on spending money to catch those gaming the system they would be better off hiring "officers" such as yourself to do good investigation work rather than things such as this. This does a couple of things, one is it hires more Americans, and two is it actually catches those "gaming" the system.

    On a side note, as to drug testing in the work place, I thought you might like this, it's a good read.

    Court opinions on drug testing in the workplace have been based primarily upon the employee-at-will doctrine. The court considers the employee-at-will doctrine to be a necessary, but informal social contract, which assumes that the employee is there on personal will (ACLU 2002). The employment-at-will doctrine avows that, when an employee does not have a written employment contract and the term of employment is of indefinite duration, the employer can terminate the employee for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2001). Therefore, the court has ruled that the employment-at-will doctrine outweighs employees’ privacy rights (ACLU 2002).
    http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/Health/drugtesting.pdf
     
  10. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,680
    So a "Doctrine" outweighs the 4th Amendment? :confused:
     

Share This Page