Pennsylvania drug testing welfare recipients

[dblack]

I'm not quite as convinced as you are that the government wants us physically fit and off the couch. I believe it's the opposite. They want our fat lazy asses right there on that couch shoving cheesy poofs down our throats while we digest their corporate news and distract ourselves with American Idol.

Maybe not, but government is driven by voters. Once you're footing the bill for your neighbors bad health habits, it'll be a compelling argument to pass laws forcing him to get off his fat ass and down to the gym.

Rather than derail this thread, I started another on this topic:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/206719-totalitarian-government-happens.html#post4768090

 

[Paulie]

I'm not quite as convinced as you are that the government wants us physically fit and off the couch. I believe it's the opposite. They want our fat lazy asses right there on that couch shoving cheesy poofs down our throats while we digest their corporate news and distract ourselves with American Idol.

Maybe not, but government is driven by voters. Once you're footing the bill for your neighbors bad health habits, it'll be a compelling argument to pass laws forcing him to get off his fat ass and down to the gym.

Rather than derail this thread, I started another on this topic:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/206719-totalitarian-government-happens.html#post4768090

I was going to follow up by saying that VOTERS will of course demand those things, but like anything else there won't be enough people taking action to force any changes. What the government wants is to gain the dependency while conceding the least amount of control as possible. As long as people stay distracted, they don't lose control. It's when enough people wake up and demand action from their representatives that they're forced to give in.

So basically, it all comes down to power in numbers, and usually there aren't enough numbers. Or when there are, the numbers get co-opted and manipulated, i.e. the tea party movement.

Interestingly enough, the Ron Paul movement is the only movement I've ever seen in my 31 years that has not been hijacked and derailed. It's the only movement where everyone agrees on EXACTLY what they want.

 

[Lovebears65]

Idiot....taxpayers helped build the road with their taxes.

Most welfare takers aren't taxpayers more like taxtakers.

The Joe Schmoe driving on a public road isn't asking for special favors like someone that rolls into a welfare office demanding a handout along with no questions about where the money goes.

Then we should all be drug tested before we're allowed to use publicly funded roads and highways.

Provide your statistics that show "most "welfare recipients" aren't taxpayers". Prove it.

If you collect welfare money you dont have a job which means you dont pay taxes ie federal taxes .. Plus if they buy goods they are buying them with welfare money which is tax payers money not theirs.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Let them collect but they should feel embarrassed about letting other people pay their way.

1) "Letting" and having no other alternative are not the same thing.
2) On what basis do you conclude that recipients don't already feel some kind of displeasure about their need to rely on assistance?
3) A mother should NEVER feel shame over the fact that, when push came to shove, she did whatever it took to make sure that her children were fed, regardless of her personal feelings about the situation. My girlfriend is a mother, and you wouldn't even begin to understand the sacrifices she's had to make for her daughter at time, to include a few things that she's not exactly been proud of. I'd like to see you tell her and I both to our faces that she ought to be embarrassed, or try to make her feel ashamed. If there was anything left of you by the time she finished with you, I'd personally put the bullet in your head, after first force feeding your pureed entrails to your own mother right in front of your eyes.

 

[Paulie]

Let them collect but they should feel embarrassed about letting other people pay their way.

1) "Letting" and having no other alternative are not the same thing.
2) On what basis do you conclude that recipients don't already feel some kind of displeasure about their need to rely on assistance?
3) A mother should NEVER feel shame over the fact that, when push came to shove, she did whatever it took to make sure that her children were fed, regardless of her personal feelings about the situation. My girlfriend is a mother, and you wouldn't even begin to understand the sacrifices she's had to make for her daughter at time, to include a few things that she's not exactly been proud of. I'd like to see you tell her and I both to our faces that she ought to be embarrassed, or try to make her feel ashamed. If there was anything left of you by the time she finished with you, I'd personally put the bullet in your head, after first force feeding your pureed entrails to your own mother right in front of your eyes.

You have a strange way of trying to make a point. I mean I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm TOTALLY convinced of your argument by the time you get to "pureeing entrails".

 

[Inthemiddle]

Feeling ashamed of being on the dole is not a bad thing. In fact it's just the opposite as it demonstrates pride in oneself.

What a stupid ******* thing to say. Shame = pride. You're a real twisted mother ******.

 

[Paulie]

You're a real twisted mother ******.

...He says...

Right after saying:

I'd personally put the bullet in your head, after first force feeding your pureed entrails to your own mother right in front of your eyes.

This is a little thing I like to refer to as 'irony'.

 

[Inthemiddle]

But Lis you know as well as I do that drug tests are easy to cheat. Not that I'm saying there's some kind of huge majority of people cheating because I couldn't possibly know that, but having been in that scene for a lot of my earlier life, I know that people who get high that end up having to take a drug test for one reason or another, WILL do what they can to cheat a test. I've done it. Many of my friends have done it.

So what you're saying is that since it's easy to cheat a drug test, all these welfare recipients who passed must have just cheated the test, and are all on drugs they bought with food stamps. That about right?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Uh, where in the Constitution does it talk about getting your free welfare check from other taxpayers????

If you're not going to have an honest discussion, then quietly go **** yourself. I'm so sick and tired of partisan hacks who can't even be honest about the shit they are saying or what other people are saying.

 

[Paulie]

But Lis you know as well as I do that drug tests are easy to cheat. Not that I'm saying there's some kind of huge majority of people cheating because I couldn't possibly know that, but having been in that scene for a lot of my earlier life, I know that people who get high that end up having to take a drug test for one reason or another, WILL do what they can to cheat a test. I've done it. Many of my friends have done it.

So what you're saying is that since it's easy to cheat a drug test, all these welfare recipients who passed must have just cheated the test, and are all on drugs they bought with food stamps. That about right?

No, that's not about right. There's an obvious context to that post that suggests it's POSSIBLE that people have, and will, cheat the drug tests, which I thought was clearly prefaced in my 2nd sentence, specifically: "Not that I'm saying there's some kind of huge majority of people cheating because I couldn't possibly know that..."

 

[Inthemiddle]

You have a strange way of trying to make a point. I mean I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm TOTALLY convinced of your argument by the time you get to "pureeing entrails".

There are different ways to make different kinds of points. Arguments are for making logical points. Pureed entrails are for making the point that when you disrespect the woman I love, it's not going to end well for you.

 

[WillowTree]

Ask Florida how much money they wasted on less than 2% testing positive. They actually test positive at a lesser rate than the general population.

Cons are really for small government.

probably cause the drug infused are smart enough not to get in line yathink?

 

[WillowTree]

As the article notes, the tests are expensive and raise difficult constitutional issues. They are also stigmatizing and frequently register false positives.

Ignoring all of these issues, it's still not clear what the tests are designed to accomplish. Although it's not stated explicitly in the article, I assume that someone who tests positive will be denied government assistance to which they would otherwise be entitled. As troubling as it is to imagine the government paying people who then abuse drugs, it's not clear that denying them the benefits, particularly benefits which would be used to support family members who are not on drugs, will improve anything. Is someone addicted to cocaine likely to quit if their habit effectively becomes more expensive? If drug tests are applied, I prefer that a positive result would prompt drug counseling or treatment rather than a denial of benefits. Of course, this would be more expensive.

it keeps drug users out of the American Taxpayers Pockets dimwit.

 

[Paulie]

You have a strange way of trying to make a point. I mean I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm TOTALLY convinced of your argument by the time you get to "pureeing entrails".

There are different ways to make different kinds of points. Arguments are for making logical points. Pureed entrails are for making the point that when you disrespect the woman I love, it's not going to end well for you.

No one disrespected your woman. You conjured that up out of nothing and projected it onto him for no good reason.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have to get drug tested by the feds AND the employer to do my job. It is not illegal because it is a requirement to have my licenses in order.

Which is Constitutional because the state has a compelling interest and it’s rationally based.

These people are asking for charity from the government…

Public assistance is not ‘charity,’ every American has the right to apply for benefits and be determined eligible or ineligible based on objective, consistent, comprehensive criteria that is rationally based and supported by evidence.

Drug testing public assistance applicants is un-Constitutional because the government has no compelling interest, it is not rationally based, and there is no evidence in support of the law’s objective:

However, these stated goals can be found nowhere in the legislation, and with good reason: the State’s commissioned study undercuts each of these rationales as a likely feature of the proposed legislation. As noted, researchers found a lower rate of drug usage among TANF applicants than among current estimates of the population of Florida as a whole. This would suggest that TANF funds are no more likely to be diverted to drug use or used in a manner that would expose children to drugs or fund the “drug epidemic” than funds provided to any other recipient of government benefits.

Chandler teaches, however, that it is not enough to simply recite a governmental interest without any evidence of a concrete threat that would be mitigated through drug testing. Chandler, 520 U.S. at 322; see also Ferguson, 532 U.S. at 81 (observing that the Court does “not simply accept the State's invocation of a ‘special need’” but instead must carry out “‘close review’ of the scheme at issue” before determining whether the need is special as that term has been defined through Supreme Court precedent) (quoting Chandler, 522 U.S. at 322).

The constitutional rights of a class of citizens are at stake, and the Constitution dictates that the needs asserted to justify subverting those rights must be special, as the case law defines that term, in order for this exception to the Fourth Amendment to apply. Ferguson, 532 U.S. at 81. That showing has not been made on this record.

As the State has failed to demonstrate a special need for its suspicionless drug testing statute, the Court finds no need to engage in the balancing analysis—evaluating the State’s interest in conducting the drug tests and the privacy interests of TANF applicants. Florida has already conducted its experiment. It commissioned a Demonstration Project that proceeded unchallenged, and it was based on suspicion of drug use. Through this effort, Florida gathered evidence on the scope of this problem and the efficacy of the proposed solution. The results debunked the assumptions of the State, and likely many laypersons, regarding TANF applicants and drug use. The State nevertheless enacted Section 414.0652, without any concrete evidence of a special need to do so—at least not that has been proffered on this record.

http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/2011-10-24-ACLUTanfOrder.pdf

The problems with Liberals is you want to give the same assistance to a single mother whose husband passed on and a single mother on welfare who is to lazy to look for a job.

The problem with conservatives is they’re ignorant of the Constitution and its case law.

For example:

I say if a person has to submit a drug test to work they should also submit to a drug test to get our tax dollars.

 

[dblack]

If you collect welfare money you dont have a job which means you dont pay taxes ie federal taxes .. Plus if they buy goods they are buying them with welfare money which is tax payers money not theirs.

It seems very unlikely that the average welfare recipient has never had a job, or never paid taxes. And I'd wager that, on average, welfare recipients pay in more than they take out. Most people who tap into the safety net aren't "lifers".

 

[Skull Pilot]

The problems with Liberals is you want to give the same assistance to a single mother whose husband passed on and a single mother on welfare who is to lazy to look for a job.

Yes, in both situation the kids should be taken care of. But what the mother has to do get the assistance should vary.

There's nothing wrong with assisting single Moms. It just can't become a way of life for them for years and years.

And there is nothing wrong with a person being ashamed of being a charity case either.

Shame comes from a conscience from doing something wrong. Suddenly finding yourself needing help should not be accompanied by shame unless there was previous wrong doing.

it is wrong to let other people pay your way.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If people have the money for illegal drugs they have the money to pay more taxes.
Wall Street cokeheads for instance.

At least they're spending their own money and not yours.

 

[Full-Auto]

And there is nothing wrong with a person being ashamed of being a charity case either.

Shame comes from a conscience from doing something wrong. Suddenly finding yourself needing help should not be accompanied by shame unless there was previous wrong doing.

it is wrong to let other people pay your way.

Everything is just black and white with you isnt it? No shades of grey as in real life.

Point taken......

 

[Moonglow]

drug tests are easy to beat.