Let me get this straight.

[paulitician]

Yea it's crazy. You can't even get a Micky D's job without first passing a drug test. I think this welfare drug testing was a fair law. No one is forced to accept welfare therefore no one is forced to take these drug tests. I don't think it's a violation of anyone's rights. If you have to pass a drug test to gain employment,i don't see why people can't pass a drug test to receive taxpayer-funded benefits. Now if you want to argue the merits of drug testing all together,i'm willing to jump in that argument.

 

[candycorn]

I am not complaining one bit about taking the test, I would take one every week if they wanted me to. I dont see how it would be any more expensive making these people take a tests for there welfare, the money you would save by not giving some of them welfare due to drug use would shore up the costs. And the test can be given in a test kit that takes only minutes to read. Of course when it hits hot it would have to be sent to a lab for verification. Point being, if they have money for drugs, then they have money for food and everything else and do not need tax payer dollars.
In this case, the cost is not the issue, apparently the Florida governor knows they can afford it which is why they implemented it. The real issue is why does a Federal Judge rule on this in the way he did but not also enforce the same thing as far as workplace drug screening goes? It's hypocritical and he should be impeached from the bench for not enforcing the law equally on all citizens.

grunt, Judges and Courts all the way up to SCOTUS do that all the time and it's frusting beyond belief. On the main issue though, an this is just my opinion, while it may be true that some on welfare do such things, I tend to believe based on the available data of such things, that just doesn't apply to most on welfare. In fact if you look at it, most on welfare are not much different in terms of drug usage as those in the work place. Yes, those that game the system should get "slammed" and to be quite honest, I for one think that opportunity and jobs and a path to that is a much better welfare program than just a "here's your check program". Think about it a moment, all these idle Americans many with skills thay can be used in say, repairing roads, assisting in the class room, or for that matter whatever task needs to be done. To me at the very least, rather than just a check, everyone benefits.

If most don't do drugs illegally and what not, then they should have no issues taking the test. Just my 2 cents on it. It is what it is though, and will not change until people start voting with common sense.

So if the parent of 2 kids tests positive; the kids don't eat?

 

[candycorn]

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

You volunteered for military service or whatever governmental job you now have. In doing so, you agreed to forego your 4th amendment rights and submit to random UDS.

Ordinary citizens don't volunteer to forego their 4th amendment rights to receive assistance.

So there goes your non sequitur and blaming a "corrupt judge" or "judicial legislation" is moronic and misses the point.

Oh, and governors are not Vice Roys. They don't get to make their own laws and bypass the legislator and judicial branch.

Did you sleep during civics class or something?

I disagree. He has a point. There is not a right to welfare.

So, someone can follow procedure to get that welfare or not.

There is not a right to a job, either - follow the procedure or don't take the job.

There is not a right to receiving grant money, either - follow the procedure or don't get the grant.

When you have no choice, then there is a 4th Amendment violation. For example, if I'm just driving along on a highway and I get pulled over for a drug search for no reason but for my being on that highway (no tip about drugs being transported in a car like mine or by someone who looks like me - that probable cause requirement), that is likely a violation.

That's what I am seeing now. I wouldn't mind if someone brings up a point that would change my mind.

Still, I'm against this idea, but for different reasons.

The only thing I would argue is that government is meant to be the final safety net; unlike a job where if you don't want to take the test because Company A has a drug test policy, there is usually companies B-F. If you want to qualify for said grant, yes you must adhere to the grant's stipulations.

But as the last line of assistance (or it should be anyway), I think it gets into a different category than the private sector models that were being bandied about.

 

[Si modo]

grunt, Judges and Courts all the way up to SCOTUS do that all the time and it's frusting beyond belief. On the main issue though, an this is just my opinion, while it may be true that some on welfare do such things, I tend to believe based on the available data of such things, that just doesn't apply to most on welfare. In fact if you look at it, most on welfare are not much different in terms of drug usage as those in the work place. Yes, those that game the system should get "slammed" and to be quite honest, I for one think that opportunity and jobs and a path to that is a much better welfare program than just a "here's your check program". Think about it a moment, all these idle Americans many with skills thay can be used in say, repairing roads, assisting in the class room, or for that matter whatever task needs to be done. To me at the very least, rather than just a check, everyone benefits.

If most don't do drugs illegally and what not, then they should have no issues taking the test. Just my 2 cents on it. It is what it is though, and will not change until people start voting with common sense.

So if the parent of 2 kids tests positive; the kids don't eat?

Irrespective of where their money comes from, an addict has his/her priorities and kids most often aren't one of them, unfortunately.

CPS would know about those kids sooner, though, if there were drug testing.

Good point.

 

[paulitician]

These welfare programs are funded by the taxpayers. So the taxpayers should have a say in how these benefits should be administered. If a State decides on drug testing,then so be it. Just stop doing drugs and take care of your children. You want to work at Micky D's? Guess what? You'll take a drug test first. That's just the way it is. Such is life.

 

[koshergrl]

You can't drug test people just because they apply for foodstamps, ppl. And if you think child welfare has enough homes to place the children they take now, let alone the vast numbers of children you propose they take if people who are starving get popped for smoking weed, you've got another think coming. I guess you all like the idea of warehousing children. That's a nice communist sort of idea.

 

[candycorn]

If most don't do drugs illegally and what not, then they should have no issues taking the test. Just my 2 cents on it. It is what it is though, and will not change until people start voting with common sense.

So if the parent of 2 kids tests positive; the kids don't eat?

Irrespective of where their money comes from, an addict has his/her priorities and kids most often aren't one of them, unfortunately.

CPS would know about those kids sooner, though, if there were drug testing.

Good point.

Good point on your part too.

However, can you consider that there are users who are not "addicts" who spend every dime on drugs? If you believe the movies, recreational marijuana use is up around 90 percent (LOL). In other words, you'll test positive but you're not exactly a stoner.

 

[candycorn]

You can't drug test people just because they apply for foodstamps, ppl. And if you think child welfare has enough homes to place the children they take now, let alone the vast numbers of children you propose they take if people who are starving get popped for smoking weed, you've got another think coming. I guess you all like the idea of warehousing children. That's a nice communist sort of idea.

It would seem as though if the goal is to save money by not extending aid to drug users, you're actually going to be spending more money with CPS involvement alone. Let alone what the courts are going to do to the guys and gals who test positive; more people in jails, state funded treatment centers, more court cases, arrest for not showing up for the inevitable probation hearing so now you have law enforcement involved again.

Sometimes the wider you cast the net, the more fish you catch but if they are under a certain size, you've got to throw them back. Better to use a line and lure I'm guessing.

 

[paulitician]

And if they stopped doing drugs,they would be more able to take care of themselves and their children. This law encourages this. And i don't think the kids are well served by just ignoring the fact their parents are drug addicts. Who's looking out for them?

 

[koshergrl]

Not only that, if you're going to restrict access to foodstamps based upon lifestyle, you'd better get used to seeing people starving in the streets and children begging.

The reason we don't have that now is foodstamps. You exclude addicts from accessing that, and you'll have a huge mess on your hands.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, they'll be so much better served if we drug test people, which means that drug addicted parents won't apply...which means those families will starve.

What a great solution to the problem!

At least the judge sees it as it is, thank GOD.

 

[candycorn]

And if they stopped doing drugs,they would be more able to take care of themselves and their children. This law encourages this. And i don't think the kids are well served by just ignoring the fact their parents are drug addicts. Who's looking out for them?

Hey I can't argue with the point I THINK you're trying to make.

But let me suggest the following....

Alcohol is easily the #1 abused drug in America. According to this website: How much do Americans spend on beer annually, the figure of how much Americans spend on beer is $97 Billion; or about $300 bucks per person per year. What is that, like 60 six-packs (I don't drink much beer); more than one a week per person per year.

Can't these people spend their money better than that? Sure. Are we going to take away government assistance from their kids because the parent had a couple of pops? Seems a bit extreme to me.

And again, I would argue that just like the social drinkers, there are people who use drugs who are not addicts. Hell, in California, pot is medicinal; Because you're tested for it in another State, you haven't broken any laws but now you're stripped of your assistance. In some cases, you paid into the fund while you were working and, like many Americans, are newly unemployed.

 

[koshergrl]

It is unconstitutional to target a group of people and require them to submit to testing/persecution that nobody else is required to submit to, based upon nothing but the fact that they're needy.

Incidentally, while there are many private employers who drug test, and those who hire people in high risk jobs drug test as a matter of safety (and this includes government jobs where employees work with dangerous materials/equipment), the government does not drug test all new employees, nor does it drug test them randomly. BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You can't allow the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to force people to submit to testing in order to access government programs. This isn't rocket science, you know. It's about basic liberty and the most fundamental premise of our system. We have a right to privacy and freedom up to the point we break the law or infringe upon other people's rights. So unless you want to identify applying for welfare as a criminal act, you have no right forcing applicants to undergo drug testing, with the intent of removing children from the home if they test positive.

Though I don't know how stupid you think food stamp recipients are...they are primarily working people who make less than 185 percent of the FPL. If they know they're going to test and they know they'll be dirty, they just won't apply. And then the kids will go hungry.

It's really not about the kids anyway. It's about "punishing" people for being poor.

 

[Navy1960]

"any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work"
At-will employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "at will employment doctrine" for the most part has been the guide by which employee's are allowed to be tested for drugs in the workplace. However when it comes to welfare programs there are a couple of things that come to mind, one is does the person on welfare meet the at will standard in that, can the state release them from welfare for no cause at all? If not then the "at will standard does not apply" and you have to look to what does apply here and that is the constitution.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643

All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, overruled insofar as it holds to the contrary.

Katz v. US

Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96. And bypassing a neutral predetermination of the scope of a search leaves individuals secure from Fourth Amendment [p359] violations "only in the discretion of the police." Id. at 97.

These considerations do not vanish when the search in question is transferred from the setting of a home, an office, or a hotel room to that of a telephone booth. Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The government agents here ignored "the procedure of antecedent justification . . . that is central to the Fourth Amendment," [n24] a procedure that we hold to be a constitutional precondition of the kind of electronic surveillance involved in this case. Because the surveillance here failed to meet that condition, and because it led to the petitioner's conviction, the judgment must be reversed.

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So basically , the states in this case are doing a little bit of an over-reach in my humble opinion on what has been settled for quite a while now in the courts. While yes it can be frustrating to see people that "game" the system seem to get away with it, my contention is a simple one, there are laws in place to handle such things and rather than bloating state laws even more and straining budgets even more with laws that are very questionable on a constitutional basis why not do the prudent thing and just simply enforce the laws you have for such things.

 

[rightwinger]

It is unconstitutional to target a group of people and require them to submit to testing/persecution that nobody else is required to submit to, based upon nothing but the fact that they're needy.

Incidentally, while there are many private employers who drug test, and those who hire people in high risk jobs drug test as a matter of safety (and this includes government jobs where employees work with dangerous materials/equipment), the government does not drug test all new employees, nor does it drug test them randomly. BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You can't allow the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to force people to submit to testing in order to access government programs. This isn't rocket science, you know. It's about basic liberty and the most fundamental premise of our system. We have a right to privacy and freedom up to the point we break the law or infringe upon other people's rights. So unless you want to identify applying for welfare as a criminal act, you have no right forcing applicants to undergo drug testing, with the intent of removing children from the home if they test positive.

Though I don't know how stupid you think food stamp recipients are...they are primarily working people who make less than 185 percent of the FPL. If they know they're going to test and they know they'll be dirty, they just won't apply. And then the kids will go hungry.

It's really not about the kids anyway. It's about "punishing" people for being poor.

I agree..

In our society the fourth amendment standard has always been probable cause. If someone is demonstrating erratic behavior or has a previous record, all means test them

But people have a right to be left alone if they have no record and are not a threat to anyone if they are a user (airline pilot)

If you want to protect people, why not go after people in jobs where people are jeopardized by someone potentially using. Let's do Surgeons, police, firemen, truck drivers...CEOs

Going after poor people is just punitive

 

[candycorn]

These welfare programs are funded by the taxpayers. So the taxpayers should have a say in how these benefits should be administered. If a State decides on drug testing,then so be it. Just stop doing drugs and take care of your children. You want to work at Micky D's? Guess what? You'll take a drug test first. That's just the way it is. Such is life.

Philosophical question; given your premise is that it is a taxpayer supported function--the entitlement; wouldn't National Parks be an entitlement as well? Given that both are entitlements, should we make visitors to Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon pass drug tests prior to entry?

 

[geauxtohell]

I disagree. He has a point. There is not a right to welfare.

So, someone can follow procedure to get that welfare or not.

There is not a right to a job, either - follow the procedure or don't take the job.

There is not a right to receiving grant money, either - follow the procedure or don't get the grant.

When you have no choice, then there is a 4th Amendment violation. For example, if I'm just driving along on a highway and I get pulled over for a drug search for no reason but for my being on that highway (no tip about drugs being transported in a car like mine or by someone who looks like me - that probable cause requirement), that is likely a violation.

That's what I am seeing now. I wouldn't mind if someone brings up a point that would change my mind.

Still, I'm against this idea, but for different reasons.

When you join the military or take a job, you sign a contract that waves your 4th amendment rights. If you are in the military, you are bound by the UCMJ. If you are an employee, it's a term of employment.

As it stands, there is currently no legal requirement for people to receive government assistance to waive their constitutional rights.

.....

That is all very true. However, there are many who DO want drug testing to be a requirement, just as it is for those other areas you mentioned. All it takes is legislation. That's how drug testing got into the workplace and into other areas.

While I'm VERY MUCH OK with drug testing for the work because safety is a real issue (I know this first hand with a bad explosion caused by a guy who regularly smoked his lunch), it IS allowed because the legislation made it OK to be allowed.

I think that's what many folks want.

Nor should there be. Many of these people have paid into the system at some time or the other.

....

Yes, many have. Many have paid into the other systems as well. Government grants are obviously taxpayer supported.

.... So the OP's rant was a non sequitur. He agreed to forego his rights. He seems to think that's roughly analogous to the states forcing people to forego their rights because the money comes from the same source. That's just asinine logic.

All that aside, the pragmatic reason you oppose this is apt too. It's just another partisan witch hunt to degrade people who are already having a hard time to gin up some votes.

It will cost far more than it will save.

Yes, it really will. There are some who really are addicts who use the assistance to get their fixes. I went to grad school in an urban area - a bad urban area. All I needed to do to see that sort of thing was to go to the grocer down the block a bit later at night (tried to avoid that, but sometimes couldn't) and invariably there was someone selling their EBT card for cash. I know some other grad students who have bought them for 50 cents on the dollar. All they need is their PIN. (Some got ripped off, too)

So, there are addicts on welfare. I've seen them. I just never could bring myself to get that sort of "deal" on them.

Regardless, drug testing will only stop a few of them. Each addict has to reach a level of desperation that will make them seek help to quit. Maybe for some, that level is absolutely NO way to feed themselves. For others, it won't be. We both know that death is the only way out for too many addicts.

While, there has been the safety argument for other areas where drug testing is permitted, the addicts who sell their EBT cards just want to get high and be left alone to do so.

So, given those facts, I see no upside in doing drug testing for welfare. It will cost much more and help so few - an insignificant societal return is available from it.

And, you're right. It's a vote thing. But, if those who advocate for pee-tests for welfare give it a bit more analysis, they might change their minds.

That's why I like posters like you. This sort of conversation might be informative to those willing to read it.

Thanks. I never bought the notion of the "Welfare Queen". Now, after four years in a hospital that primarily services a population on Medicaid, I really don't buy it. Being below the poverty line in this country is not some magical state of existence. It's a hard life.

This is just the usual asinine pandering. You would have thought the notion of the "Welfare Queen" would have gone the way of the Dodo in the mid-90s with welfare reform, but the issue is periodically resurrected for purely political reasons.

There are certainly bad actors within the system. We see them all the time as drug addicts invariably find their way to a hospital for a variety of reasons. However, the majority of them are not what the public perceives them to be.

 

[koshergrl]

The majority of people on foodstamps are CHILDREN. In working households.

 

[geauxtohell]

The majority of people on foodstamps are CHILDREN. In working households.

Gotta say, didn't think we'd agree on this one.

 

[koshergrl]

We agree because it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Can't really argue facts.