NC New Welfare Drug Test Law: 1/3rd Tested Positive from Sample.

[Papageorgio]

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance. You are not required to take public assistance, it is voluntary. They are not arrested, not denied due process. They are just ineligible.

No freedom lost, no privacy lost. Choices and free will are exercised.

According to who? What law?

The only action I've heard of where you lose your rights is if you commit a crime.

You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.

I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?

For one thing, the latter has nothing to do with whether you're qualified for assistance or not. The rest of that stuff ALL does.

It's all an invasion of privacy.

If the law was, if you test positive on a drug test you are disqualified from assistance. They can make the qualifying factors whatever they want.

They cannot however justify it. Nobody can.

Not in your mind they can't, that isn't saying anything.

 

[Pogo]

According to who? What law?

The only action I've heard of where you lose your rights is if you commit a crime.

You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.

I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?

For one thing, the latter has nothing to do with whether you're qualified for assistance or not. The rest of that stuff ALL does.

It's all an invasion of privacy.

If the law was, if you test positive on a drug test you are disqualified from assistance. They can make the qualifying factors whatever they want.

They cannot however justify it. Nobody can.

Not in your mind they can't, that isn't saying anything.

Actually not in anybody's mind. I've pointed out the flaws in the logic, nobody has been able to refute it. Including you, when you admitted what you're after is to have the State controlling private personal behavior.

 

[Papageorgio]

You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.

I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?

For one thing, the latter has nothing to do with whether you're qualified for assistance or not. The rest of that stuff ALL does.

It's all an invasion of privacy.

If the law was, if you test positive on a drug test you are disqualified from assistance. They can make the qualifying factors whatever they want.

They cannot however justify it. Nobody can.

Not in your mind they can't, that isn't saying anything.

Actually not in anybody's mind. I've pointed out the flaws in the logic, nobody has been able to refute it. Including you, when you admitted what you're after is to have the State controlling private personal behavior.

You are a broken record, the state doesn't need to control behavior, they need to control who gets assistance. The government controls who and who doesn't get the money by setting up criteria. It's the same for anyone requesting government assistance. Privacy is out the window, no matter what they claim.

 

[Pogo]

For one thing, the latter has nothing to do with whether you're qualified for assistance or not. The rest of that stuff ALL does.

It's all an invasion of privacy.

If the law was, if you test positive on a drug test you are disqualified from assistance. They can make the qualifying factors whatever they want.

They cannot however justify it. Nobody can.

Not in your mind they can't, that isn't saying anything.

Actually not in anybody's mind. I've pointed out the flaws in the logic, nobody has been able to refute it. Including you, when you admitted what you're after is to have the State controlling private personal behavior.

You are a broken record, the state doesn't need to control behavior, they need to control who gets assistance. The government controls who and who doesn't get the money by setting up criteria. It's the same for anyone requesting government assistance. Privacy is out the window, no matter what they claim.

I'm afraid it's too late. You already admitted to it. Your position is basically Kim Jong Il.

 

[Papageorgio]

It's all an invasion of privacy.

If the law was, if you test positive on a drug test you are disqualified from assistance. They can make the qualifying factors whatever they want.

They cannot however justify it. Nobody can.

Not in your mind they can't, that isn't saying anything.

Actually not in anybody's mind. I've pointed out the flaws in the logic, nobody has been able to refute it. Including you, when you admitted what you're after is to have the State controlling private personal behavior.

You are a broken record, the state doesn't need to control behavior, they need to control who gets assistance. The government controls who and who doesn't get the money by setting up criteria. It's the same for anyone requesting government assistance. Privacy is out the window, no matter what they claim.

I'm afraid it's too late. You already admitted to it. Your position is basically Kim Jong Il.

I really don't care. Your opinion doesn't guide me. dblack has a better argument than you.

 

[Coyote]

Agreed. But two wrongs don't make a right.

What are the two wrongs? Stopping government waste is a wrong?

Making people get help from their destructive lives?

Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance. You are not required to take public assistance, it is voluntary. They are not arrested, not denied due process. They are just ineligible.

No freedom lost, no privacy lost. Choices and free will are exercised.

According to who? What law?

The only action I've heard of where you lose your rights is if you commit a crime.

You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.

I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?

None of those involve constitutional rights.

 

[Papageorgio]

What are the two wrongs? Stopping government waste is a wrong?

Making people get help from their destructive lives?

Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance. You are not required to take public assistance, it is voluntary. They are not arrested, not denied due process. They are just ineligible.

No freedom lost, no privacy lost. Choices and free will are exercised.

According to who? What law?

The only action I've heard of where you lose your rights is if you commit a crime.

You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.

I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?

None of those involve constitutional rights.

In your opinion.

 

[Coyote]

Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance. You are not required to take public assistance, it is voluntary. They are not arrested, not denied due process. They are just ineligible.

No freedom lost, no privacy lost. Choices and free will are exercised.

According to who? What law?

The only action I've heard of where you lose your rights is if you commit a crime.

You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.

I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?

None of those involve constitutional rights.

In your opinion.

Of course. This is all about Opinions.

 

[Pogo]

They cannot however justify it. Nobody can.

Not in your mind they can't, that isn't saying anything.

Actually not in anybody's mind. I've pointed out the flaws in the logic, nobody has been able to refute it. Including you, when you admitted what you're after is to have the State controlling private personal behavior.

You are a broken record, the state doesn't need to control behavior, they need to control who gets assistance. The government controls who and who doesn't get the money by setting up criteria. It's the same for anyone requesting government assistance. Privacy is out the window, no matter what they claim.

I'm afraid it's too late. You already admitted to it. Your position is basically Kim Jong Il.

I really don't care. Your opinion doesn't guide me. dblack has a better argument than you.

I've never claimed to have the only argument. But the one I have is already rock solid, so I don't need an entire stable.

 

[Papageorgio]

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance. You are not required to take public assistance, it is voluntary. They are not arrested, not denied due process. They are just ineligible.

No freedom lost, no privacy lost. Choices and free will are exercised.

According to who? What law?

The only action I've heard of where you lose your rights is if you commit a crime.

You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.

I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?

None of those involve constitutional rights.

In your opinion.

Of course. This is all about Opinions.

Florida's law was unconstitutional because it did not use reasonable suspicion to test.

There is nothing unconstitutional about NC testing a few suspected drug users. It's called reasonable suspicion. I took classes for my company on what is and is not reasonable suspicion when it comes to drug use. That is why out of, what 7000, only a little over a hundred were tested. They fall under the rules of reasonable suspicion. It is not a random drug test. Eleven states can under reasonable suspicion ask for a drug test. But you better do it correctly or it gets tossed.

It's a political message board, it is all about opinion.

 

[Papageorgio]

Not in your mind they can't, that isn't saying anything.

Actually not in anybody's mind. I've pointed out the flaws in the logic, nobody has been able to refute it. Including you, when you admitted what you're after is to have the State controlling private personal behavior.

You are a broken record, the state doesn't need to control behavior, they need to control who gets assistance. The government controls who and who doesn't get the money by setting up criteria. It's the same for anyone requesting government assistance. Privacy is out the window, no matter what they claim.

I'm afraid it's too late. You already admitted to it. Your position is basically Kim Jong Il.

I really don't care. Your opinion doesn't guide me. dblack has a better argument than you.

I've never claimed to have the only argument. But the one I have is already rock solid, so I don't need an entire stable.

In your opinion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

According to who? What law?

The only action I've heard of where you lose your rights is if you commit a crime.

You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.

I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?

For one thing, the latter has nothing to do with whether you're qualified for assistance or not. The rest of that stuff ALL does.

It's all an invasion of privacy.

If the law was, if you test positive on a drug test you are disqualified from assistance. They can make the qualifying factors whatever they want.

The courts in Florida ruled against 'suspicionless' drug testing.

Yet the US Government does it all the time.

You can have cause to test for drugs based on someone's occupation.

 

[Papageorgio]

You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.

I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?

For one thing, the latter has nothing to do with whether you're qualified for assistance or not. The rest of that stuff ALL does.

It's all an invasion of privacy.

If the law was, if you test positive on a drug test you are disqualified from assistance. They can make the qualifying factors whatever they want.

The courts in Florida ruled against 'suspicionless' drug testing.

Yet the US Government does it all the time.

You can have cause to test for drugs based on someone's occupation.

Yes you can I just said that, nutjob.

 

[Pogo]

Actually not in anybody's mind. I've pointed out the flaws in the logic, nobody has been able to refute it. Including you, when you admitted what you're after is to have the State controlling private personal behavior.

You are a broken record, the state doesn't need to control behavior, they need to control who gets assistance. The government controls who and who doesn't get the money by setting up criteria. It's the same for anyone requesting government assistance. Privacy is out the window, no matter what they claim.

I'm afraid it's too late. You already admitted to it. Your position is basically Kim Jong Il.

I really don't care. Your opinion doesn't guide me. dblack has a better argument than you.

I've never claimed to have the only argument. But the one I have is already rock solid, so I don't need an entire stable.

In your opinion.

Why would I need additional arguments when I've already dismantled the premise?
When you lose your keys and then find them --- do you keep looking for them?

 

[NYcarbineer]

For one thing, the latter has nothing to do with whether you're qualified for assistance or not. The rest of that stuff ALL does.

It's all an invasion of privacy.

If the law was, if you test positive on a drug test you are disqualified from assistance. They can make the qualifying factors whatever they want.

The courts in Florida ruled against 'suspicionless' drug testing.

Yet the US Government does it all the time.

You can have cause to test for drugs based on someone's occupation.

Yes you can I just said that, nutjob.

Being poor is not a job.

 

[Papageorgio]

You are a broken record, the state doesn't need to control behavior, they need to control who gets assistance. The government controls who and who doesn't get the money by setting up criteria. It's the same for anyone requesting government assistance. Privacy is out the window, no matter what they claim.

I'm afraid it's too late. You already admitted to it. Your position is basically Kim Jong Il.

I really don't care. Your opinion doesn't guide me. dblack has a better argument than you.

I've never claimed to have the only argument. But the one I have is already rock solid, so I don't need an entire stable.

In your opinion.

Why would I need additional arguments when I've already dismantled the premise?
When you lose your keys and then find them --- do you keep looking for them?

Again, it is only your opinion and only in your mind.

 

[Pogo]

I'm afraid it's too late. You already admitted to it. Your position is basically Kim Jong Il.

I really don't care. Your opinion doesn't guide me. dblack has a better argument than you.

I've never claimed to have the only argument. But the one I have is already rock solid, so I don't need an entire stable.

In your opinion.

Why would I need additional arguments when I've already dismantled the premise?
When you lose your keys and then find them --- do you keep looking for them?

Again, it is only your opinion and only in your mind.

Uh no. It's simple math. Premise presented; premise destroyed. Now why do I need a second argument?

You're making even less sense than you were if that's possible. Are you on drugs?

 

[Papageorgio]

It's all an invasion of privacy.

If the law was, if you test positive on a drug test you are disqualified from assistance. They can make the qualifying factors whatever they want.

The courts in Florida ruled against 'suspicionless' drug testing.

Yet the US Government does it all the time.

You can have cause to test for drugs based on someone's occupation.

Yes you can I just said that, nutjob.

Being poor is not a job.

And testing positive in job interviews are not going to get you a job.

 

[Papageorgio]

I really don't care. Your opinion doesn't guide me. dblack has a better argument than you.

I've never claimed to have the only argument. But the one I have is already rock solid, so I don't need an entire stable.

In your opinion.

Why would I need additional arguments when I've already dismantled the premise?
When you lose your keys and then find them --- do you keep looking for them?

Again, it is only your opinion and only in your mind.

Uh no. It's simple math. Premise presented; premise destroyed. Now why do I need a second argument?

You're making even less sense than you were if that's possible. Are you on drugs?

Again, just an opinion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The courts in Florida ruled against 'suspicionless' drug testing.

Yet the US Government does it all the time.

You can have cause to test for drugs based on someone's occupation.

Yes you can I just said that, nutjob.

Being poor is not a job.

And testing positive in job interviews are not going to get you a job.

I can always find better things to worry about than the miniscule number of welfare cash assistance recipients who are doing drugs.

You should try that.