Moonglow
Diamond Member
Since you are the only one on the opposed side so far who hasn't thrown in a lot of stupid straw men, non sequiturs, and red herrings - and I profoundly thank you for that - why would it be an unlawful invasion of privacy? Nobody forces anybody to take welfare, any more than I am forced to work on a job that requires random drug testing. But if I want to work at that job I agree to the drug testing. Why shouldn't those who take welfare, without doing ANYTHING to merit it, also agree to drug testing. If they aren't willing to do that, they can look somewhere else for assistance. Or figure out how to earn what they need to get by.
I can think of a couple of reasons:
1) the program is likely to cost more than it saves in welfare payments.
2) nobody has specified how to safeguard people against false positives.
Thanks! Yup, these two for starters.
As for the privacy though, I think it's the exposure aspect. If a private company tests me and I fail, I get fired, but that's it. If the government tests me and I fail, well, there is now state evidence I broke the law. I not only lose my assistance, but I also face fines or jail time. Not only do I think this is too harsh, but I think it will actually serve as motivation for people to not get assistance, and instead turn to crime, which we definitely don't want. (Cause lets be honest, only a small fraction will choose giving up the drugs).
I guess, in the end, my opinion is a pot head still buys food from the local grocer and gas from the local gas station. His money flows into the economy like anyone else, so why single him out?
Unconditional love saves more peole than harsh tyranny ever will.