Welfare applicants decline to take drug test, fueling debate over new law

[Jackson]

not forced search and seizure but ANY search and seizure by our gvt needs reasonable cause....

WHERE is that 'cause' jackson....?

Hi! I'm back. "Cause" would be required if you are not volunteering. At the present time, when a person comes into a recruiting office to sign up for the service, they are required to take a drug test. There is no cause. But again, there is no draft, and the person is volunteering to be in the service. So again, I would not think that the 4th amendment applies.

I am not Judge Scalia, so we will actually see how this sorts out in Florida. But this is only my opinion.

 

[Jackson]

A conservative who advocates government dictating to the people how to live. Telling.

This is complete bull. I'm not telling anyone how to live. Just one those blanket accusations that are meaningless.

That’s the problem: you have no evidence one is involved in an illegal activity, save applying for public assistance. Preventing such action is the original intent of the 4th Amendment.

In essence you are advocating a doctrine of ‘guilty until proven innocent.’

Innocent?! This idea had to come from somewhere. Evidently there has been a need recognized that measures to be taken to stop their abuse of drugs and the system as the honor system clearly is not working.

I'm advocating checks and balances, if this is most effective way to weed out abusers, then so be it, but I suspect abusers will pull out another one of their constitutional rights and get up on thier soapbox to any attempts that hold them accountable for their own actions.

Welfare is intended to provide the cost of food, shelter and clothing to those who cannot provide for themselves or their family. Fraud of welfare is when the government finds that they have the funds to purchase other expensive items, say a cruise, and still accept the welfare check.

One way to immediate catch abuse of the law is to check the recipient for drugs and that would signal an income that is not reported. If someone is going to say the are an "occasional user", they would certainly have had the intelligence to be clean on the day they come in for testing. Right?

Volunteer to accept welfare = volunteer to take a drug test

 

[ClosedCaption]

Wow, long thread and here I am jumping in at the end. I've seen very little concern for the kids of those receiving government assistance. Don't they have a right to have parents that don't do drugs?? Why would anyone think it's OK??

Kids need help, kids need food,kids need a place to live and sleep, kids need clothes, that's what those checks are supposed to take care of, not their parents drug habits, drinking habits or smoking habits.

If you can afford drugs, booze and cigs you can afford to feed, clothe and give your kids a place to sleep. I should not be responsible for your drug habits. It's going to cost the same for me to support those kids in your home or in a foster home.

4th amendment rights do not apply when you are asking for help. I give a lot to charity, I've given a lot to friends and family that needed help. But you know what?? I pay the gas bill, go buy the groceries, and pay the landlord so the kids have food, heat and a place to live. I don't give the $ to the adult to do with what they want, why should I expect less of the government assistance they get???

The only time a rightie cares about a child is when it's covered in amniotic fluids

 

[Jackson]

Wow, long thread and here I am jumping in at the end. I've seen very little concern for the kids of those receiving government assistance. Don't they have a right to have parents that don't do drugs?? Why would anyone think it's OK??

Kids need help, kids need food,kids need a place to live and sleep, kids need clothes, that's what those checks are supposed to take care of, not their parents drug habits, drinking habits or smoking habits.

If you can afford drugs, booze and cigs you can afford to feed, clothe and give your kids a place to sleep. I should not be responsible for your drug habits. It's going to cost the same for me to support those kids in your home or in a foster home.

4th amendment rights do not apply when you are asking for help. I give a lot to charity, I've given a lot to friends and family that needed help. But you know what?? I pay the gas bill, go buy the groceries, and pay the landlord so the kids have food, heat and a place to live. I don't give the $ to the adult to do with what they want, why should I expect less of the government assistance they get???

The only time a rightie cares about a child is when it's covered in amniotic fluids

That was the most useless comment I have ever read on the board.

 

[Care4all]

not forced search and seizure but ANY search and seizure by our gvt needs reasonable cause....

WHERE is that 'cause' jackson....?

Hi! I'm back. "Cause" would be required if you are not volunteering. At the present time, when a person comes into a recruiting office to sign up for the service, they are required to take a drug test. There is no cause. But again, there is no draft, and the person is volunteering to be in the service. So again, I would not think that the 4th amendment applies.

I am not Judge Scalia, so we will actually see how this sorts out in Florida. But this is only my opinion.

like i said in my rep jackson, there are some cases that relate to the military and gvt employees regarding drug testing that i would need to read completely before i could answer with any kind of assurance of accuracy....

BUTTTTT, if i were to venture to guess, the reasonable cause for drug testing the military is they have very dangerous jobs, or can be sent to war on a dime, they operate and fix machinery and arms....some positions hold secrets that need to be kept, and all of those kind of things would be ''reasonable cause'' to drug test.

 

[Iridescence]

Perhaps, as I am sure to have posted before, the biggest flaw in the system is so many considering 'the poor' of the land the weakest link. That is most likely WRONG.

 

[Jackson]

not forced search and seizure but ANY search and seizure by our gvt needs reasonable cause....

WHERE is that 'cause' jackson....?

Hi! I'm back. "Cause" would be required if you are not volunteering. At the present time, when a person comes into a recruiting office to sign up for the service, they are required to take a drug test. There is no cause. But again, there is no draft, and the person is volunteering to be in the service. So again, I would not think that the 4th amendment applies.

I am not Judge Scalia, so we will actually see how this sorts out in Florida. But this is only my opinion.

like i said in my rep jackson, there are some cases that relate to the military and gvt employees regarding drug testing that i would need to read completely before i could answer with any kind of assurance of accuracy....

BUTTTTT, if i were to venture to guess, the reasonable cause for drug testing the military is they have very dangerous jobs, or can be sent to war on a dime, they operate and fix machinery and arms....some positions hold secrets that need to be kept, and all of those kind of things would be ''reasonable cause'' to drug test.

That would make sense.

 

[lilbug]

Just some final thoughts on this and then I'm done as I think I've stated my position on this pretty clearly. I think there has been a need recognized for the need for drug testing and the blame for that lies squarely on the folks who are guilty, and no one screams foul louder than folks caught with their hands in the cookie jar. I think if drug testing had been required on a regular basis at the outset of applying for assistance there wouldn't be such a fuss about it, but now when folks are demanding accountability, out trot the rights advocates. I also think this would have prevented a lot of the abuse we now see of public assistance services in the first place.

America is in a crisis, suffering from the slackers in society, and folks who are picking up the slack for these folks are damn tired and fed up. If you or someone you know is guilty of receiving assistance and also has a drug habit, or in some other way is abusing that assistance, if not this law, then one way or another, your day of reckoning is coming. This country is fed up with carrying your load. You have taken advantage of the shortcomings and loop holes, you're abusing the system and just stickin' it to the folks who are paying the taxes to enable you to skate. Shame on you all. You have become a malignancy of America, and your time to be cut out, cut off is coming. Not only have you abused fellow Americans, your actions have brought shame to the very idea of even receiving assistance. You have completely corrupted the system and it's orginal intent and you have denounced, snubbed the rights of folks who expect more from you. Those with children, have failed their children to be examples of productive, law abiding citizens and proud, hardworking Americans. So, trot out your rights if you must, but, mark my words, your day is coming, the free ride, one way another is coming to end. Better start dustin' off those resumes'.

To those who debated this topic with me without the insults to my intelligence, or some other kind of personal dig, it's been a good debate...to the others, your entire postion was muddied and held little credence by resorting to these tactics.

 

[Moonglow]

so we should have charities giving drug tests also?

 

[Inthemiddle]

well we've already explained to your dumb ass that most of the working taxpaying American citizens are drug tested as part of their employment and I see no reason why those individuals should work their axs off to subsidize the drug users..

You know, I agree. I see no reason why taxpayers should subsidize drug use. Okay, now go out and find my some evidence that it's happening. And collect that evidence without dismissing the constitution.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Nearly 1,600 Fla. welfare applicants decline to take drug test, fueling debate over new law

MIAMI — State figures show that hundreds of welfare applicants in Florida have declined to take drug tests that have been required for the assistance since mid-July.
Thirty-two applicants failed the test, 7,028 passed and 1,597 didn’t take it, according figures released Tuesday the Department of Children and Families. People who decline to take the test aren’t required to explain.

Proponents of the law have suggested applicants would be deterred because they knew they would test positive. Critics say applicants may not have taken the test because they couldn’t afford the fee that can be as much as $35 or didn’t have easy access to a testing facility.

Not sure how I feel about this.

Simple, they refuse the testing they lose their handouts. Then investigate them for drug use and fraud, charge them if warranted and throw them in prison, where they still get free benefits.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Nearly 1,600 Fla. welfare applicants decline to take drug test, fueling debate over new law

MIAMI — State figures show that hundreds of welfare applicants in Florida have declined to take drug tests that have been required for the assistance since mid-July.
Thirty-two applicants failed the test, 7,028 passed and 1,597 didn’t take it, according figures released Tuesday the Department of Children and Families. People who decline to take the test aren’t required to explain.

Proponents of the law have suggested applicants would be deterred because they knew they would test positive. Critics say applicants may not have taken the test because they couldn’t afford the fee that can be as much as $35 or didn’t have easy access to a testing facility.

Not sure how I feel about this.

are they doing alcohol testing, too?

either way... are you going to starve people for smoking a joint? pure harassment, imo.

Wrong. If they want to live on other peoples hard earned money they better take the test.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Oh you're so full of shit - you have explained nothing...

Yes I have. Go look for it.

Furthermore you wouldn't know the constitution if it slapped you upside your head...

Then why am I the only one who has gone in depth into the constitution's 4th amendment protections? All people like you and Willow are doing is crying about how much you don't like the constitution.

Also, I'm the libertarian here...

You say that as if it's a good thing or makes you special.

You know you're wrong when you have a true libertarian arguing that the state has a right to drug test those living off of the taxpayers...

Actually, I know that you're nothing but an emotionally raging class warrior.

This policy is a requirement for a FREE SERVICE - if you cant meet the requirements then you don't get the FREE SERVICE..

Okay, so you have no problem with the police requiring a drug test before you receive their free services?

Besides, pissing in a cup isn't intrusive at all...

It's taking part of your body. You don't find that at all intrusive?

 

[Inthemiddle]

If you are not breaking the law you won't have anything to worry about.

This is one of the most God awful arguments that people utter in support of government invasions of privacy. Using this argument we'd have to agree that the police should have the right to come into your house any time they wish and start snooping around. After all, if you're not breaking the law you won't have anything to worry about, right?

 

[Inthemiddle]

I find drug testing employees to be highly intrusive...

But not the government!

These are people who are clearly supporting themselves and paying taxes (so welfare fucks can live for free)..........

Well, at least you're not engaging in class warfare.

They shouldn't be subjected to such an intrusion - especially if there is no reason to suspect the person is using drugs..

So, private companies should have to abide by the concepts of the constitution, but the government should engage in class warfare even if it means violating constitutional rights.

It's not a companies business what a person does in their private lives..

But it's very much government's business. You're really the true libertarian here.

 

[Jarhead]

I have put a lot of thought into this debate...and I have read the responses to my arguments I laid out supporting both sides of the debate...and to be frank, MOST on welfare do not want to be on welfare...they have no other choice...for whatever reason...be it an intelligence issue, a physical disibility, economic issues, etc.....and for them to accept welfare, for many, is humiliating in itself...but a must for survival.

For those people to be forced to suffer further humiliation by peeing in a cup to "get their money" is wrong..

To punish the masses due to the actions of a few is not the direction we should be going.

That being said, I just wish the progressives would think the same way. They seem to want to punish the majority of business owners due to the actions of a few...but that is another debate for another thread.

 

[Inthemiddle]

if you don't want to be tested, walk away

Why should people simply abandon their constitutional rights? Why do you hate the constitution so much that you would expect people to give up their rights just so your ideological goals can win out? What makes you think that your ideology is more important than the constitution?

don't take our money honey. it's all good. it's your choice.

And what makes is your money?

 

[Jarhead]

if you don't want to be tested, walk away

Why should people simply abandon their constitutional rights? Why do you hate the constitution so much that you would expect people to give up their rights just so your ideological goals can win out? What makes you think that your ideology is more important than the constitution?

don't take our money honey. it's all good. it's your choice.

And what makes is your money?

In my eyes, constitutional rights is not the argument.
No one is forced to apply for Welfare. It is an option.

To me, the argument is....why humiliate people even more than they are already humiliated?

I did not accept unemployment years ago before I started my fuirst company. I was eligible....and I could have gotten enough to support myself while looking for a new position. But I preferred an 6.75 an hour job bagging groceries becuase I was humiliated to accept unempl;oyment.

Taking money you dont earn is a humliating experience. Lets not make it worse by punishing the masses due to the actions of a few.

 

[Jarhead]

if you don't want to be tested, walk away

Why should people simply abandon their constitutional rights? Why do you hate the constitution so much that you would expect people to give up their rights just so your ideological goals can win out? What makes you think that your ideology is more important than the constitution?

don't take our money honey. it's all good. it's your choice.

And what makes is your money?

it IS our money...that is a given.
Dont spin it to win a debate.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Apparently you don't understand that welfare is a choice - NOT a right..

It's NOT a Fourth Amendment violation - no one is forcing them to take a drug test.

Driving is a choice, not a right. Yet, it's a fourth amendment violation if police forced you to submit to a search, without probable cause, before allowing you to drive.

Cops breaking into someones home without a warrant is a 4th Amendment violation - requiring a person to take a drug test in order to partake in a program is NOT a Fourth Amendment violation.

Er, yep, it is. You just don't have an understanding of how the fourth amendment works. Which is too bad for you, because you're quite vulnerable to having your rights trampled by an abusive government, because you won't recognize the abuse happening.

Do you know the armed services requires those who wish to serve our country to take a drug test before enlistment??

Is that a Fourth Amendment violation??

Whats the difference??

This is an employment matter, and is about as comparable to this discussion as keeping a lion on a nature preserve is to keeping a pet cat in your home.

People are not forced to go on welfare and if they chose to - why the fuck should they be accepted if they're junkies??

At best, your arguing that our welfare system needs new reforms. But that need does not alleviate constitutional protections.