States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[Peejay]

Kansas is trying this too. Bill is on it's way to the senate. But get a load of the teeth in this bill:

A positive drug test would result in an evaluation and possible drug treatment. Failure to complete evaluation and/or treatment would result in the termination of benefits, as would a third positive drug test.

Privacy: Kansas House Passes Bill Mandating Drug Tests for Public Assistance | Stop the Drug War (DRCNet)


Man, a big scary evaluation is the consequence in this bill. Three positive test would actually get you off the roles. Man oh man, get your check books ready Kansas.

 

[Peejay]

As I posted earlier PJ, until you can prove to me the SCOUS calls you regularly, asking for your opinion, you remain just another windbag full of hot air. Nothing is unconstitutional until the SCOUS rules it's unconstitutional. Got that pal. I suggest you wish in one hand and crap in the other. Wanna bet which one fill's first?
gb

Sure thing. And when you can read that the 6th circuit ruled this unconstitutional, I'll be sure to note that you completed your phonics course.

And what do you know.....

West Virginia Drug testing bill dies in the House.

Questions about its cost and constitutionality left it stranded in the House Judiciary Committee.

Welfare Drug Testing Bill Dies in W.Va. House

Wow. We must be telepathic. Cost and constitutionality submarined this turd.

Come on PJ, you are getting redundantly boring. The lower court ruling is irrelevant. This case is en route to the SCOUS. When they have ruled we will know. Just because you keep depositing the same old crap, doesn't make it so. See there, one of your hands is already filling. Guess which one? If you are waiting for thatr phone call, I wouldn't hold my breath.
gb

You be sure to call up the welfare folks in Michigan and let them know the 6th circuit ruling is irrelevant. They stopped testing on account of that irrelevant ruling. They sure could use your sound legal advice up there.

 

[aka520]

Sure thing. And when you can read that the 6th circuit ruled this unconstitutional, I'll be sure to note that you completed your phonics course.

And what do you know.....

West Virginia Drug testing bill dies in the House.


Welfare Drug Testing Bill Dies in W.Va. House

Wow. We must be telepathic. Cost and constitutionality submarined this turd.

Come on PJ, you are getting redundantly boring. The lower court ruling is irrelevant. This case is en route to the SCOUS. When they have ruled we will know. Just because you keep depositing the same old crap, doesn't make it so. See there, one of your hands is already filling. Guess which one? If you are waiting for thatr phone call, I wouldn't hold my breath.
gb

You be sure to call up the welfare folks in Michigan and let them know the 6th circuit ruling is irrelevant. They stopped testing on account of that irrelevant ruling. They sure could use your sound legal advice up there.

Your beating a dead horse PJ. The stay is only effective until overturned by the SCOUS. That one hand is filling mighty fast. Give it up, you are running out of straws.
gb

 

[Peejay]

Come on PJ, you are getting redundantly boring. The lower court ruling is irrelevant. This case is en route to the SCOUS. When they have ruled we will know. Just because you keep depositing the same old crap, doesn't make it so. See there, one of your hands is already filling. Guess which one? If you are waiting for thatr phone call, I wouldn't hold my breath.
gb

You be sure to call up the welfare folks in Michigan and let them know the 6th circuit ruling is irrelevant. They stopped testing on account of that irrelevant ruling. They sure could use your sound legal advice up there.

Your beating a dead horse PJ. The stay is only effective until overturned by the SCOUS. That one hand is filling mighty fast. Give it up, you are running out of straws.
gb

Un huh, un huh, let's continue with this line of thought. Has it been overturned? No. It hasn't.

Get back to me when you have something.

 

[aka520]

You be sure to call up the welfare folks in Michigan and let them know the 6th circuit ruling is irrelevant. They stopped testing on account of that irrelevant ruling. They sure could use your sound legal advice up there.

Your beating a dead horse PJ. The stay is only effective until overturned by the SCOUS. That one hand is filling mighty fast. Give it up, you are running out of straws.
gb

Un huh, un huh, let's continue with this line of thought. Has it been overturned? No. It hasn't.

Get back to me when you have something.

Your still beating that dead horse PJ. What court has the final word in this argument?
gb

 

[Peejay]

No one is drug testing welfare recipients.

The West Virginia Bill died citing cost and the Constitution.

The only federal court ruling on the matter has deemed this unconstitutional.

There is no pending case to the SCOTUS.

Until someone actually starts testing there will be no SCOTUS case.

You have nothing but hot air. Get back to us when you have something.

 

[aka520]

No one is drug testing welfare recipients.

The West Virginia Bill died citing cost and the Constitution.

The only federal court ruling on the matter has deemed this unconstitutional.

There is no pending case to the SCOTUS.

Until someone actually starts testing there will be no SCOTUS case.

You have nothing but hot air. Get back to us when you have something.

Eight states are currently actively perusing legislation to require recipients of aid to submit to drug testing.
gb

 

[Peejay]

No one is drug testing welfare recipients.

The West Virginia Bill died citing cost and the Constitution.

The only federal court ruling on the matter has deemed this unconstitutional.

There is no pending case to the SCOTUS.

Until someone actually starts testing there will be no SCOTUS case.

You have nothing but hot air. Get back to us when you have something.

Eight states are currently actively perusing legislation to require recipients of aid to submit to drug testing.
gb

In other news, federal authorities are still actively pursuing the remains of Jimmy Hoffa.

Also, update your list. One of states, WV, has dropped the idea. We'll keep count for you as the others fail.

 

[oreo]

Worker's comp isn't expensive to begin with.

What a lame statement. Workmen's Comp is a State law in think in every State. The rate depends on what type of work people are performing. If you have an office full of people the rate is relatively small. However, if you have field personel working around dangerous equipment the rate is much higher. It can go as high as 10% to 15% of gross payroll. If you are a small business with 30 or so people in the field, you are talking about a pretty good piece of change. Most construction and all government projects also require mandatory drug testing. It saves lives.
gb

I am an employer & pay workman's compensation for employees. The problem--if an employee is injured on the job & was found to be under the influence of alcohol, or any other drug-including marijuana-their benefits could be in serious danger. Workman's compensation would have a counter-claim that the employee was drunk or under the influence of drugs--negating the entire claim for injury.

 

[oreo]

It's only fair to do drug testing on welfare receipiants. Many are required to do a drug test before they are hired. It's these people that work, pay taxes, that go to welfare receipiants.

Now, I know there will be many on this board that are going to jump right in on legalizing marijuana, & compare it to the guy that goes out & buys a six-pack with his welfare check. The PROBLEM--until marijuana is legalized it's still an illegal drug--where alcohol is not.

We have so many people on welfare that are hard drug addicts. There have been 20/20 reports & others over the past decades. The welfare check keeps them on the drugs--& they stay on the welfare role to get their drugs. While they're in this cycle of self-destruction--many are incapable of even keeping a job. How do we stop it? We give them a drug test--& if they don't pass they don't get the check. Maybe then they will be forced to provide for themselves--which means having to straighten out their drug problems.

 

[Care4all]

Will there be an exception for Veterans on welfare who are now drug users?

You all have NO IDEA what you wish for imo.....

 

[aka520]

Will there be an exception for Veterans on welfare who are now drug users?

You all have NO IDEA what you wish for imo.....

The VA has excellent drug rehabilitation clinics to aid specifically for this problem. However, the addict has to want help. Unless there is sufficient motivation to rid ones self of drug use, there is not much of anything that will work.
gb

 

[aka520]

Worker's comp isn't expensive to begin with.

What a lame statement. Workmen's Comp is a State law in think in every State. The rate depends on what type of work people are performing. If you have an office full of people the rate is relatively small. However, if you have field personel working around dangerous equipment the rate is much higher. It can go as high as 10% to 15% of gross payroll. If you are a small business with 30 or so people in the field, you are talking about a pretty good piece of change. Most construction and all government projects also require mandatory drug testing. It saves lives.
gb

I am an employer & pay workman's compensation for employees. The problem--if an employee is injured on the job & was found to be under the influence of alcohol, or any other drug-including marijuana-their benefits could be in serious danger. Workman's compensation would have a counter-claim that the employee was drunk or under the influence of drugs--negating the entire claim for injury.

This is an unfortunate problem as that the employer pay's 100% of the cost of WC. The underwriter has the option of denying the claim if negligence such as alcohol or drug use is involved. Unfortunately, the employer is still the responsible party and subject to a healthy lawsuit. Although the employee was voluntarily under the influence of a substance, it's still the employer's responsibility. This is just another reason for random drug testing for all employees. It will not release the employer from responsibility but does afford some amount of safeguard.
gb

 

[aka520]

It's only fair to do drug testing on welfare receipiants. Many are required to do a drug test before they are hired. It's these people that work, pay taxes, that go to welfare receipiants.

Now, I know there will be many on this board that are going to jump right in on legalizing marijuana, & compare it to the guy that goes out & buys a six-pack with his welfare check. The PROBLEM--until marijuana is legalized it's still an illegal drug--where alcohol is not.

We have so many people on welfare that are hard drug addicts. There have been 20/20 reports & others over the past decades. The welfare check keeps them on the drugs--& they stay on the welfare role to get their drugs. While they're in this cycle of self-destruction--many are incapable of even keeping a job. How do we stop it? We give them a drug test--& if they don't pass they don't get the check. Maybe then they will be forced to provide for themselves--which means having to straighten out their drug problems.

I have nothing to back up this assumption, although I do feel any employer objecting to random drug testing of employees is a person using drugs themselves. Why would an employer object to something specifically designed to protect him or her? I realize there are a tremendous amount of people out there who feel drugs such as marijuana is a harmless recreational pastime. Regardless, it's against the law and if a person is found with possession of marijuana they are subject to arrest. This thread is not the place to discuss the pros and cons of substance abuse. However, there is hard evidence that almost every user of hard drugs started with marijuana.
gb

 

[DvDud1]

It's only fair to do drug testing on welfare receipiants. Many are required to do a drug test before they are hired. It's these people that work, pay taxes, that go to welfare receipiants.

Now, I know there will be many on this board that are going to jump right in on legalizing marijuana, & compare it to the guy that goes out & buys a six-pack with his welfare check. The PROBLEM--until marijuana is legalized it's still an illegal drug--where alcohol is not.

We have so many people on welfare that are hard drug addicts. There have been 20/20 reports & others over the past decades. The welfare check keeps them on the drugs--& they stay on the welfare role to get their drugs. While they're in this cycle of self-destruction--many are incapable of even keeping a job. How do we stop it? We give them a drug test--& if they don't pass they don't get the check. Maybe then they will be forced to provide for themselves--which means having to straighten out their drug problems.

I have nothing to back up this assumption, although I do feel any employer objecting to random drug testing of employees is a person using drugs themselves. Why would an employer object to something specifically designed to protect him or her? I realize there are a tremendous amount of people out there who feel drugs such as marijuana is a harmless recreational pastime. Regardless, it's against the law and if a person is found with possession of marijuana they are subject to arrest. This thread is not the place to discuss the pros and cons of substance abuse. However, there is hard evidence that almost every user of hard drugs started with marijuana.
gb

Gib, it's become pretty obvious that this is a subject you know little about.

First, you missed the fact that drug testing is fairly easy to bbeat for the savvy drug user. Then, the fact that the costs associated with random testing for welfare recipients would be astronomical-and those monies could be better spent on many other ideas to reduce the welfare rolls-increased educarion and vocational training programs, aggressive treatment for addicts looking to get clean, etc.

Now you've hit on one of THE strongest srguments-FOR THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA, that is.

Pot is often regarded as a "gateway drug"...do you know why?

Since it's illegal it's something that one has to find black market sources for...ad very often the man on the corner selling weed has other wares that he wants to sell. Very often, this is how a recreational or experimental pot user gets introduced to harder substances.

And you have people in authority who spout off about how "evil" and "detrimental" and "dangerous" marijuana is...but those who try it often find it's less detrimental and incapacitating than getting hammered on beer, which is legal, and so in many cases they tend to disbelieve the warnings about other, harder drugs, and write it off as propaganda.

Were marijuana legalized, it would change the way that pot is percieved as opposed to other substances, it would help to draw a line-especially for young and impressionable people who are prone to experimenting...it would also open up cannels for people who smoke it occasionally to be able to purchase it without, in many cases, dealing with sellers who are essentially criminals and who are often looking to introduce their customers to harder and more addictive substances...addicts mean repeat business, don'tcha know.


Now that you better understand WHY there's sometimes a link between smoking pot and being exposed to harder drugs, I'm sure you'll join me in advocating for the legalization of marijuana to protect recreational users from having to deal with the criminal element. It's in ALL our best interests to do so, really, and-think of how that additional tax revenue would help in alot of ways right now!

 

[aka520]

It's only fair to do drug testing on welfare receipiants. Many are required to do a drug test before they are hired. It's these people that work, pay taxes, that go to welfare receipiants.

Now, I know there will be many on this board that are going to jump right in on legalizing marijuana, & compare it to the guy that goes out & buys a six-pack with his welfare check. The PROBLEM--until marijuana is legalized it's still an illegal drug--where alcohol is not.

We have so many people on welfare that are hard drug addicts. There have been 20/20 reports & others over the past decades. The welfare check keeps them on the drugs--& they stay on the welfare role to get their drugs. While they're in this cycle of self-destruction--many are incapable of even keeping a job. How do we stop it? We give them a drug test--& if they don't pass they don't get the check. Maybe then they will be forced to provide for themselves--which means having to straighten out their drug problems.

I have nothing to back up this assumption, although I do feel any employer objecting to random drug testing of employees is a person using drugs themselves. Why would an employer object to something specifically designed to protect him or her? I realize there are a tremendous amount of people out there who feel drugs such as marijuana is a harmless recreational pastime. Regardless, it's against the law and if a person is found with possession of marijuana they are subject to arrest. This thread is not the place to discuss the pros and cons of substance abuse. However, there is hard evidence that almost every user of hard drugs started with marijuana.
gb

Gib, it's become pretty obvious that this is a subject you know little about.

First, you missed the fact that drug testing is fairly easy to bbeat for the savvy drug user. Then, the fact that the costs associated with random testing for welfare recipients would be astronomical-and those monies could be better spent on many other ideas to reduce the welfare rolls-increased educarion and vocational training programs, aggressive treatment for addicts looking to get clean, etc.

Now you've hit on one of THE strongest srguments-FOR THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA, that is.

Pot is often regarded as a "gateway drug"...do you know why?

Since it's illegal it's something that one has to find black market sources for...ad very often the man on the corner selling weed has other wares that he wants to sell. Very often, this is how a recreational or experimental pot user gets introduced to harder substances.

And you have people in authority who spout off about how "evil" and "detrimental" and "dangerous" marijuana is...but those who try it often find it's less detrimental and incapacitating than getting hammered on beer, which is legal, and so in many cases they tend to disbelieve the warnings about other, harder drugs, and write it off as propaganda.

Were marijuana legalized, it would change the way that pot is percieved as opposed to other substances, it would help to draw a line-especially for young and impressionable people who are prone to experimenting...it would also open up cannels for people who smoke it occasionally to be able to purchase it without, in many cases, dealing with sellers who are essentially criminals and who are often looking to introduce their customers to harder and more addictive substances...addicts mean repeat business, don'tcha know.


Now that you better understand WHY there's sometimes a link between smoking pot and being exposed to harder drugs, I'm sure you'll join me in advocating for the legalization of marijuana to protect recreational users from having to deal with the criminal element. It's in ALL our best interests to do so, really, and-think of how that additional tax revenue would help in alot of ways right now!

Not having been a pot head Dud, I can't deal with your simplicity of drug usage from an addict 's standpoint. All I can say is pot is classified as a mind altering drug , consequently, it is against the law. From a non users viewpoint, I fail to see the value of altering your brain simply as a recreation. I know you are going to example alcohol, however I will make the same objections to the legal drug alcohol, as I would for illegal drugs. Mind you I did imbibe alcohol on rare occasions when I was younger, hopeful as I recall never to the extent of inebriation. I would never have dreamed of driving a vehicle back then, with even one drink. However at my present age, I can easily live without alcohol. I cannot comment about the drug pusher on the street, anxious to sell his wares, regardless of their deadly consequences. In all probability the pusher is there because of his own habitual drug use. Regardless of the pushers persuasiveness, no one is forced to use harder drugs without their consent. If you want to debate the pro's and con's of illegal drug usage you will have to fine someone more knowledgeable. Besides, where do you draw the line of what drugs are acceptable and what are not? Regardless, my vote is to keep drugs illegal. Booze is bad enough. However, you seem willing to encourage doubling or even tripling the problem by legalizes drugs. At least with alcohol one becomes noticeably impaired. With mind altering drugs it's impossible to distinguish between the crazies and the sane.
gb

 

[Peejay]

Not having been a pot head Dud, I can't deal with your simplicity of drug usage from an addict 's standpoint. All I can say is pot is classified as a mind altering drug , consequently, it is against the law. From a non users viewpoint, I fail to see the value of altering your brain simply as a recreation.

Man, you've really swallowed some propoganda.

First, I would ask, do you drink coffee? Tea? Anything with caffeine? You understand that caffeine is also a drug? Acceptable, for social and cultural reasons, "mind altering" as you say, and it is consumed in coffee house and soda fountains all over for recreational use. Have you ever read about the history of US drug policy? Do you know that caffeine was on the list to be criminalized along with pot and other substances? A powerful coffee lobby greased the right palms to keep that drug flowing.

Second, you obviously don't know why marijuana was outlawed and demonized. Marijuana was outlawed solely for the purpose of returning Mexican immigrants to Mexico. The Mexicans smoked marijuana a lot like white men had learned to smoke tobacco, another smoke with a "mind altering" chemical inside. During a particularly rough stretch for the southwestern US, politicians in those states were looking for a reason to deport migrant workers, as jobs had grown scarce and their constituents wanted the migrants gone. They seized on marijuana. At the time, the idea of outlawing a weed that grew practically everywhere, was laughable to nearly everyone in Washington. No one in the land of the free could envision the enforcemnet of an illegal weed. It was a joke to most. So, they did what politicians do: they taxed it. The first US marijuana law was a federal tax act. It required a tax stamp for marijuana. But they worded the law so that you couldn't get the stamp unless you already had the marijuana and if you already had the marijuana but no stamp, you were in violation. They deported thousands of Mexicans.

Afterwards the law wasn't enforced, it was found unconstitutional in the 60's, marijuana was legal until the early 70's and then illegal again.

In short, you really don't know very much about the subject except to say it is illegal. Kind of like it is illegal to have sex in any position except missionary in many states. Just doesn't make sense to most reasonable folks.

 

[Yurt]

Not having been a pot head Dud, I can't deal with your simplicity of drug usage from an addict 's standpoint. All I can say is pot is classified as a mind altering drug , consequently, it is against the law. From a non users viewpoint, I fail to see the value of altering your brain simply as a recreation.

Man, you've really swallowed some propoganda.

First, I would ask, do you drink coffee? Tea? Anything with caffeine? You understand that caffeine is also a drug? Acceptable, for social and cultural reasons, "mind altering" as you say, and it is consumed in coffee house and soda fountains all over for recreational use. Have you ever read about the history of US drug policy? Do you know that caffeine was on the list to be criminalized along with pot and other substances? A powerful coffee lobby greased the right palms to keep that drug flowing.

Second, you obviously don't know why marijuana was outlawed and demonized. Marijuana was outlawed solely for the purpose of returning Mexican immigrants to Mexico. The Mexicans smoked marijuana a lot like white men had learned to smoke tobacco, another smoke with a "mind altering" chemical inside. During a particularly rough stretch for the southwestern US, politicians in those states were looking for a reason to deport migrant workers, as jobs had grown scarce and their constituents wanted the migrants gone. They seized on marijuana. At the time, the idea of outlawing a weed that grew practically everywhere, was laughable to nearly everyone in Washington. No one in the land of the free could envision the enforcemnet of an illegal weed. It was a joke to most. So, they did what politicians do: they taxed it. The first US marijuana law was a federal tax act. It required a tax stamp for marijuana. But they worded the law so that you couldn't get the stamp unless you already had the marijuana and if you already had the marijuana but no stamp, you were in violation. They deported thousands of Mexicans.

Afterwards the law wasn't enforced, it was found unconstitutional in the 60's, marijuana was legal until the early 70's and then illegal again.

In short, you really don't know very much about the subject except to say it is illegal. Kind of like it is illegal to have sex in any position except missionary in many states. Just doesn't make sense to most reasonable folks.

absolutely false...

seriously, the history of this is not hard to find....i'll help you:

hearst

 

[Peejay]

Not having been a pot head Dud, I can't deal with your simplicity of drug usage from an addict 's standpoint. All I can say is pot is classified as a mind altering drug , consequently, it is against the law. From a non users viewpoint, I fail to see the value of altering your brain simply as a recreation.

Man, you've really swallowed some propoganda.

First, I would ask, do you drink coffee? Tea? Anything with caffeine? You understand that caffeine is also a drug? Acceptable, for social and cultural reasons, "mind altering" as you say, and it is consumed in coffee house and soda fountains all over for recreational use. Have you ever read about the history of US drug policy? Do you know that caffeine was on the list to be criminalized along with pot and other substances? A powerful coffee lobby greased the right palms to keep that drug flowing.

Second, you obviously don't know why marijuana was outlawed and demonized. Marijuana was outlawed solely for the purpose of returning Mexican immigrants to Mexico. The Mexicans smoked marijuana a lot like white men had learned to smoke tobacco, another smoke with a "mind altering" chemical inside. During a particularly rough stretch for the southwestern US, politicians in those states were looking for a reason to deport migrant workers, as jobs had grown scarce and their constituents wanted the migrants gone. They seized on marijuana. At the time, the idea of outlawing a weed that grew practically everywhere, was laughable to nearly everyone in Washington. No one in the land of the free could envision the enforcemnet of an illegal weed. It was a joke to most. So, they did what politicians do: they taxed it. The first US marijuana law was a federal tax act. It required a tax stamp for marijuana. But they worded the law so that you couldn't get the stamp unless you already had the marijuana and if you already had the marijuana but no stamp, you were in violation. They deported thousands of Mexicans.

Afterwards the law wasn't enforced, it was found unconstitutional in the 60's, marijuana was legal until the early 70's and then illegal again.

In short, you really don't know very much about the subject except to say it is illegal. Kind of like it is illegal to have sex in any position except missionary in many states. Just doesn't make sense to most reasonable folks.

absolutely false...

seriously, the history of this is not hard to find....i'll help you:

hearst

Yes, Hearst was a known racist who had a particular hard on for Mexicans. Like I said, the outlawing of marijuana was about Mexican imigrants.

Not only did Hearst own the newspapers, he owned the papermills and the forests as well. The elimination of hemp from the market would do him no harm at all. He was also a virulent racist with a particular dislike for Mexicans - in 1898 he had had 800,000 acres of prime Mexican timber land siezed from him by Pancho Villa. Since 1916, he had been orchestrating a campaign against "marihuana" in his newspapers, pedalling disinformation about its deleterious effects. Reporting concealed the medicinal and practical applications of the plant, which were then well known to the American public, by simply not telling people that marijuana was exactly the same as stuff as hemp.

http://www.ephidrina.org/cannabis/taxact.html

 

[RodISHI]

I think all lawyers, judges and politicians should have to undergo drug testing. Why limit it to the poor or working class.