Welfare applicants decline to take drug test, fueling debate over new law

[Inthemiddle]

they search the innocent by the thousands each and every day..

I guess youse never been on an aeroplane huh hunny?

I have, twice now, already explained in detail the constitutional application of airport security checkpoints. The fact that you're still trying to beat out this pathetically weak argument just goes to show that you're not here to say anything honest. You're just here to beat a drum. If you're not going to be honest, just stop. Go stand on a corner and shout the Gospel to cars passing by. Go babble to the Phelps family about the joys of gay sex. Go demonstrate in front of Congress. Either one of those those things would be slightly less a waste of your breath than to sit here and lie in this discussion.

 

[Jarhead]

I wonder how those that are for the drug testing would feel if the government started to drug test you before they let you through the security gates at an airport.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Truly, I don't get folks using the constitution as a means to justify illegal activity.

Nobody here is doing that. Why would you make such an accusation? The only thing people here are doing is affirming that the constitution guarantees us certain rights. For example, you have the right to legal council. If you commit a murder, your lawyer can argue your rights through the case. He might be able to successfully defend you from prosecution and gain a "not guilty" verdict for you, even though you did commit the murder. Based on your comment here, you seem to think that the constitution should cease to apply the moment an accusation is made. That is, however, not how the constitution works, and would leave the door wide open for the government to abuse its citizenry.

You also have no evidence of any significant amount of people being drug users. Based on the numbers that the article provided, only 0.005% of applicants were shown to have recently used drugs. You're thinking subjects thousands to unconstitutional invasions of privacy for the sake of 32 who used drugs recently.

Ya might consider putting down the bongs and come back to reality...brain cells are beginning to fade.

You might want to wake up from your totalitarian state dream fantasy and come back to reality. Your respectability is beginning to fade (anyone who willingly gives up their freedoms without a fight is not respectable).

 

[Uncensored2008]

Driving is a choice, not a right.

Bullshit. The ability to operate private property which I have legally purchased, to wit the vehicle, is a right, not a privilege granted by my rulers. You of the extreme left view government as your parent, to care for you, decide what you may do, allow you certain privilege and punish those who don't obey.

You cannot grasp the concept of liberty. You are a dependent.

Yet, it's a fourth amendment violation if police forced you to submit to a search, without probable cause, before allowing you to drive.

Really?

The California DMV does a very intrusive search in the form of a vision test, before providing a license to drive.

Er, yep, it is. You just don't have an understanding of how the fourth amendment works. Which is too bad for you, because you're quite vulnerable to having your rights trampled by an abusive government, because you won't recognize the abuse happening.

Izzaterite?

No Knock warrants are the favorite of the police state and it's leftist advocates, as the great constitutional you purport yourself to be, do these violate the right to be secure in ones person and papers?

This is an employment matter, and is about as comparable to this discussion as keeping a lion on a nature preserve is to keeping a pet cat in your home.

How does an employment matter fundamentally differ from a public compensation matter? Cite with case law.

At best, your arguing that our welfare system needs new reforms. But that need does not alleviate constitutional protections.

I think that he is arguing that voluntary submission to drug tests in order to receive public compensation fall into the same category as drug tests for military personnel.

His argument is quite convincing, yours not so much...

 

[Inthemiddle]

Come on people, do we really think there are not a lot of people who collect Welfare and use a lot of their Money to support Drug Habits?

I think that people who qualify for benefits don't really have the money to buy drugs even if they wanted to, even after receiving their benefits. I think that drug dealers won't accept food stamps as payment. I think that most other forms of welfare don't even pass through the recipients hands. I think that there's no way for a person on welfare to divert his own section 8 to a drug dealer to pay for drugs.

I also notice how the article's figures show that only 0.005% of Florida applicants used drugs recently before applying. I think that that goes to show that people like to indulge in prejudice on these things so that they can justify their class warfare agenda.

 

[Tank]

I think that drug dealers won't accept food stamps as payment.

Drug Dealer Accused Of Accepting Payment In Food Stamps And Welfare Benefits | Bossip

 

[Jarhead]

Truly, I don't get folks using the constitution as a means to justify illegal activity.

Nobody here is doing that. Why would you make such an accusation? The only thing people here are doing is affirming that the constitution guarantees us certain rights. For example, you have the right to legal council. If you commit a murder, your lawyer can argue your rights through the case. He might be able to successfully defend you from prosecution and gain a "not guilty" verdict for you, even though you did commit the murder. Based on your comment here, you seem to think that the constitution should cease to apply the moment an accusation is made. That is, however, not how the constitution works, and would leave the door wide open for the government to abuse its citizenry.

You also have no evidence of any significant amount of people being drug users. Based on the numbers that the article provided, only 0.005% of applicants were shown to have recently used drugs. You're thinking subjects thousands to unconstitutional invasions of privacy for the sake of 32 who used drugs recently.

Ya might consider putting down the bongs and come back to reality...brain cells are beginning to fade.

You might want to wake up from your totalitarian state dream fantasy and come back to reality. Your respectability is beginning to fade (anyone who willingly gives up their freedoms without a fight is not respectable).

I may think as you do as it pertians to the drug testing....

But I completely disagree with you as to why it is wrong.

You will have a hard time in court showing how it is unconsitutional to drug test for the opiton of applying for welfare when, as one pointed out, the government insists o an eye test before approving your personal decision to get a drivers license.

In my eyes, this is a humanity issue.

Why should we humliate the masses with a drug test becuase of the action of a few.

 

[Inthemiddle]

One big Problem with their Constitutional Argument. The Constitution Does not say anything about requiring Drug tests as a means to get something in Return.

Under this line of reasoning, there would be nothing wrong with the police requiring you to take a drug test before you file a police report. When you file a police report you're receiving services from the government, paid for with tax money.

Constitutional protections against search and seizure are not predicated on any concept of receiving anything in return. If the government could require you to forfeit your constitutional rights based on "receiving in return" then what would stop them from entering your house every day and searching your home under the guise of receiving your freedom in return? What would stop them from quartering soldiers in your home under the notion that you are receiving protection in return from foreign invaders?

If constitutional mechanisms operated in this fashion, they would in fact bear little value or meaning. Any interpretation of the constitution that would allow the constitution itself to become meaningless cannot be maintained.

Our Right to not be searched or Drug Testes is Given up, when we apply for Assistance funded by Tax Payer Dollars.

Er, no, not true. You want it to be true because you don't want people you don't like having constitutional rights. You want it to be true because you want to engage in class warfare and to have the government do the same, and the constitution is an obstruction to that goal. But that's about it.

The entire Argument is Bogus, and clearly nothing but a way to protect people who use drugs and claim welfare.

Actually, the argument is sound, based on the long standing interpretations of fourth amendment rights that the federal courts have long maintained through history, with the intention to protect innocent citizens who have done nothing wrong, as demonstrated by the figures. Your argument would require undoing 200 years of case law, abandoning a clear reading of the constitution, and inserting new text. All in your effort to engage in class warfare.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

This amendment is to be used against forced search and seizures. When the drug test is voluntary, the 4th amendment is not applicable.

No one is forced to accept welfare, nor take the test.

What you all continue to either not understand (in your case) or deliberately ignore (in some other people's cases here) is that the VOLUNTARY is not a magical word that you can write on a piece of paper and make it true, or remove constitutional problems.

The courts have long maintained that simply calling a search voluntary is irrelevant when a quid pro quo circumstance arises, or when the government acts in a way as to imply submission is mandatory, or when the government is acting in such circumstances as a person might reasonably expect that their submission is required.

There have been cases hashing out these issues many times. One that comes to mind (I can't remember the name but I'll try to look it up) involved a man who had been under investigation for smuggling drugs into the country. He was approached by police in an airport, he was "asked" to come with them to answer a few questions. He was then escorted to a room, and "asked" to hand over his briefcase and to produce the key. This lead to the discovery of several kilos of cocaine in his possession. Ultimately the Supreme Court suppressed the evidence as a fourth amendment violation.

This is what it comes down to: When the government suggests in any way that submission is mandatory, or when they rely on quid pro quo to elicit a "voluntary" submission, then any ensuing search is not in fact voluntary for the sake of the fourth amendment.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You know, it doesn't matter if you believe in the bible or not, but roughly 2000 years ago some wrote down that the poor will always be with you. Or words to that effect. So far they were right, no matter how much you give to the poor there are always more poor. So how much are you willing to give? I give to at least 3 local charities and 2 national ones, along with half a dozen veteran organizations.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Wow, long thread and here I am jumping in at the end. I've seen very little concern for the kids of those receiving government assistance. Don't they have a right to have parents that don't do drugs?? Why would anyone think it's OK??

Who ever said it's okay? I don't think anyone here feels it's okay for children to have to be raised by parents who are unable to provide for them in the first place and then who are habitual drug users on top of it. But then again, why are you assuming this scenario? You're raising a hypothetical. Based on the figures only 0.005% of applicants had recently used drugs. There's nothing to even suggest that those applicants were parents.

Kids need help, kids need food,kids need a place to live and sleep, kids need clothes, that's what those checks are supposed to take care of, not their parents drug habits, drinking habits or smoking habits.

Again, show evidence that this is happening on any substantial scale in Florida.

If you can afford drugs, booze and cigs you can afford to feed, clothe and give your kids a place to sleep. I should not be responsible for your drug habits.

I'd agree. Except show me evidence that it happens that Floridian welfare recipients buy drugs, booze, or cigarettes while failing to feed and clothe their kids or give them a place to sleep.

It's going to cost the same for me to support those kids in your home or in a foster home.

Well, that raises an interesting question. Do we want more or less government intrusion into people's lives?

4th amendment rights do not apply when you are asking for help.

Yes they do. If you go to the police station to report a disorderly neighbor who is harassing you, do you think you should be required to submit to a drug test?

I give a lot to charity, I've given a lot to friends and family that needed help. But you know what?? I pay the gas bill, go buy the groceries, and pay the landlord so the kids have food, heat and a place to live. I don't give the $ to the adult to do with what they want, why should I expect less of the government assistance they get???

Please, do not say this again until you provide evidence that what you're saying actually happens.

 

[Inthemiddle]

BUTTTTT, if i were to venture to guess, the reasonable cause for drug testing the military is they have very dangerous jobs, or can be sent to war on a dime, they operate and fix machinery and arms....some positions hold secrets that need to be kept, and all of those kind of things would be ''reasonable cause'' to drug test.

Not to mention, the example confuses receiving government services with government employment. Requiring military recruits to take a drug test is an employment issue, and is permissible in the same manner as any other employer might do the same.

 

[Inthemiddle]

simple, they refuse the testing they lose their handouts. then investigate them for drug use and fraud, charge them if warranted and throw them in prison, where they still get free benefits.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BECAUSE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS ARE MEANT TO PREVENT THE GOVERNMENT FROM BEING ABLE TO EXECUTE SUCH ABUSES.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Inthemiddle]

it IS our money...that is a given.
Dont spin it to win a debate.

I'm asking Willow what makes it her money, because I don't think she lives in Florida, yet she seems to take the issue rather personally.

 

[Jarhead]

it IS our money...that is a given.
Dont spin it to win a debate.

I'm asking Willow what makes it her money, because I don't think she lives in Florida, yet she seems to take the issue rather personally.

Becuase it is quite obvious that she is referring to welfare recipients nationwide....the debate originated from Floridas law, but the debate was AND STILL IS a national debate.

WOrd of advice...if you are going to parse words and spin in an effort to win a debate....you are showing a sign of weakness....and a sign that you are not completely comfortable with the position you hold.

Win a debate on your own sentiments....dont look for your opponenet to leave an opening.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You of the extreme left

Welcome to my ignore list, where terrorist extremists plot their attacks against the government, only to get destroyed by the glorious US of A! Rot in Hell.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You will have a hard time in court showing how it is unconsitutional to drug test for the opiton of applying for welfare when, as one pointed out, the government insists o an eye test before approving your personal decision to get a drivers license.

Actually, I think it would be pretty easy. As I mentioned a while back in the thread, fourth amendment questions largely rely on a balancing test, where the infringement of an individual's liberty is weighted against the public interest at stake. In the case of driving licenses, there is a huge public interest at stake, since drivers with poor visibility would be a significant danger to the public. Also, the vision test you receive at a DMV is not a full vision test. It's a very small test that is meant to ensure minimum basic vision. This narrows the scope of the search and as such minimizes the infringement.

The drug testing question, however, would fail to provide an actual or compelling public interest. The figures available show only 0.005% of applicants using drugs recently before completing the application. There's no evidence to show any actual pressing concern. The state would only be able to argue a hypothetical concern, which is not even being supported by the discovered facts of its own program. Accordingly, I simply cannot see any judge seeing the balance tip in favor of this infringement.

In my eyes, this is a humanity issue.

Why should we humliate the masses with a drug test becuase of the action of a few.

I actually agree that it's a humanity issue. In my eyes that's what is at the very heart of the fourth amendment. People should not have to be subjected to such humiliation without a good reason. And a marginally small minority do not make it a good enough reason.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Welcome to my ignore list, where terrorist extremists plot their attacks against the government, only to get destroyed by the glorious US of A! Rot in Hell.

Ignoring me won't save your messages form the utter lack of reason they display. Your cowardice is on display for all to see.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not the same at all.

Using government service is not at all the same as receiving a government check

Wow, that was stupid!! They're they exact same thing!!!

No thinking they are exactly the same is stupid.

No one can get high and endanger their kids by calling the fire department or the cops.

See the difference dip shit?

 

[Gadawg73]

I think that drug dealers won't accept food stamps as payment.

Drug Dealer Accused Of Accepting Payment In Food Stamps And Welfare Benefits | Bossip

The grocers are just as bad as the dope dealers.
They had a good distribution plan set up years ago that would distribute the foodat wholesale.
The grocers lobby fought that and lobbied for food stamps.
Retail.
Fraud in the food stamp program isat least 50%.