why is the left against drug testing for welfare?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anybody applying for a job has to be drug tested. If they want to make money, they go through this. So there's no reason someone applying for free money shouldn't have to go through the same thing.

Your ignorance of the law is no excuse.

There is no Constitutional right to apply for a job, but there is Constitutional protection from unreasonable searches.

Then please show me the law that states a business can not lawfully make you take a drug test and that they can not turn you away if it comes back positive. If there is one, then there's a lot of people out there that should be able to sue for not being hired because of a positive drug test.

You still don’t understand.

The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Fourth Amendment apply only to governments and their agencies, in this case the State of Florida and the Department of Children and Families, responsible for processing public assistance applications.

The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Fourth Amendment do not apply to private companies, and private employers, who are at liberty to drug test.

Hence your ‘argument’ fails, as there’s no relationship between a private company’s hiring criteria concerning drug testing and a public sector entity violating the Fourth Amendment with an unwarranted and unreasonable search.

Indeed, a public sector employer requiring a drug test doesn’t constitute an unwarranted search. See, e.g., National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ok...how many do you think will admit they have a drug problem? How do you know if they're not tested?

And of course everyone knows just because someone is on welfare it doesn't mean they're druggies....but testing would rule it out.

And...the "masses" know there are many people out there that really need it. But if you're applying for a job, you are going to be drug tested. Why shouldn't someone applying for free money and food also have to be tested?

Yea, as long as we have intrusive authoritarian corporations, why not have an intrusive authoritarian government?

I am SURE you would have no problem peeing in a cup, have government test it and determine YOUR fate.

The right wing brain, capable of self imposed lobotomy...

People here are saying being drug tested is unconstitutional. If that's true, then I want to know more about it. Personally, I don't think ANYONE should have to be drug tested to get a job or for any reason. But I'm being told now that people can refuse to do it....I don't know of anyone that has refused it and still got the job (except for maybe 1 person here that said he does). If the businesses are breaking a law (discrimination?) by requiring it to be hired, then something needs to be done about it.

I may be "right wing" but I don't believe the government, or businesses hiring, should be able to make up the rules if they're not lawful.

It is true that drug testing as a condition of initial eligibility for public assistance is un-Constitutional.

Whether or not one agrees to take a drug test for an employer as a condition of employment is between the applicant and the private company. If one doesn’t want to take a drug test then he shouldn’t apply with employers who do indeed drug test; if the employer wishes to waive the requirement for a given applicant the company is at liberty to do so.

 

[Pogo]

how is them getting drug tested to prove they are not using FEDERAL money on drugs controlling?

I dont see a problem with smoking some grass. I have a problem when my tax dollars get used to support it

Let's see how many times in a row you can ignore this point that continues to shoot your authoritarian fantasy down in flames:

A drug test may prove the existence of drugs in the system.
It does not and can not prove how they paid for it. Or if they even paid for it at all.

That means your government action amounts to nothing more than the punitive. The next week we'll be going through their magazine subscriptions deciding what they should be reading "with your tax dollars" or what they should dress like "using federal money".

Thanks for playing and be sure to play the Glaring Omission game at home.

 

[Bfgrn]

Welfare recipients are no more likely than the general population to abuse drugs.


• The Center for Law and Social Policy found that 10 percent of the 268 welfare applicants tested in Michigan during those five weeks that mandatory drug tests were implemented scored positive for illicit drugs. This is consistent with the rate of illicit drug use by the general population.

• The National Institute on Alcohol and Alcohol Abuse has found that there is no significant in the rate of illegal drug use by welfare applicants and the general population. A 1996 study revealed that alcohol abuse and/or dependence, along with drug abuse/and or dependence among welfare recipients were consistent with the general population.

• Florida's Department of Children and Families found that just 2.5 percent of welfare applicants failed the urinalysis during the brief lifespan of Florida's drug screening program, which was lower than the rate of the general population.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Your ignorance of the law is no excuse.

There is no Constitutional right to apply for a job, but there is Constitutional protection from unreasonable searches.

Then please show me the law that states a business can not lawfully make you take a drug test and that they can not turn you away if it comes back positive. If there is one, then there's a lot of people out there that should be able to sue for not being hired because of a positive drug test.

OK!! It's been 2 days now.....no answer?????

See post #101.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"if u want to give the govt authority" lol
and I bet u fools that say that are for obamacare LOL

Exactly. The hypocrisy is rampant on both sides. You all want to control people, you just want to do it in different ways.

how do I want to control people exactly?

It’s not ‘controlling people,’ exactly….

It’s the hate and ignorance that you exhibit toward those who apply for public assistance which is typical of many on the right, where you seek to humiliate them and subject them to an unwarranted search and violate their right to privacy because they wish to receive ‘free (your) money’ from the government, in some failed effort to ‘deter’ them from indeed applying for assistance.

And by doing so, however unwittingly, give more power, control, and authority to the state at the expense of our civil liberties.

 

[Papageorgio]

Exactly. The hypocrisy is rampant on both sides. You all want to control people, you just want to do it in different ways.

how do I want to control people exactly?

It’s not ‘controlling people,’ exactly….

It’s the hate and ignorance that you exhibit toward those who apply for public assistance which is typical of many on the right, where you seek to humiliate them and subject them to an unwarranted search and violate their right to privacy because they wish to receive ‘free (your) money’ from the government, in some failed effort to ‘deter’ them from indeed applying for assistance.

And by doing so, however unwittingly, give more power, control, and authority to the state at the expense of our civil liberties.

Not hate and ignorance, it's accountability. I want people to not depend on government, to seek a life that is better than welfare.

Liberals want to keep them on welfare to control them.

 

[orogenicman]

I would agree that the poor should get a drug test for welfare as soon as every CEO, Congressman, Senator and Judge agrees to take a lie detector test. The poor have enough problems as it is, and we want to make it even harder for them to get food? How friggin selfish and lacking in compassion is that?

 

[orogenicman]

how is them getting drug tested to prove they are not using FEDERAL money on drugs controlling?

I dont see a problem with smoking some grass. I have a problem when my tax dollars get used to support it

Let's see how many times in a row you can ignore this point that continues to shoot your authoritarian fantasy down in flames:

A drug test may prove the existence of drugs in the system.
It does not and can not prove how they paid for it. Or if they even paid for it at all.

That means your government action amounts to nothing more than the punitive. The next week we'll be going through their magazine subscriptions deciding what they should be reading "with your tax dollars" or what they should dress like "using federal money".

Thanks for playing and be sure to play the Glaring Omission game at home.

I just think it is hypocritical in the extreme to see conservatives whine about the need for getting government out of our lives EXCEPT when it is their own version of socialism they want to implement that is being considered. It's ridiculous.

 

[velvtacheeze]

how is them getting drug tested to prove they are not using FEDERAL money on drugs controlling?

I dont see a problem with smoking some grass. I have a problem when my tax dollars get used to support it

Let's see how many times in a row you can ignore this point that continues to shoot your authoritarian fantasy down in flames:

A drug test may prove the existence of drugs in the system.
It does not and can not prove how they paid for it. Or if they even paid for it at all.

That means your government action amounts to nothing more than the punitive. The next week we'll be going through their magazine subscriptions deciding what they should be reading "with your tax dollars" or what they should dress like "using federal money".

Thanks for playing and be sure to play the Glaring Omission game at home.

I just think it is hypocritical in the extreme to see conservatives whine about the need for getting government out of our lives EXCEPT when it is their own version of socialism they want to implement that is being considered. It's ridiculous.

Black people are the true target of this conservative policy. Conservatives are convinced most blacks use drugs, and want to use this policy to cull as many blacks from any state assistance as they can. It's the same with voting laws.

 

[orogenicman]

Let's see how many times in a row you can ignore this point that continues to shoot your authoritarian fantasy down in flames:

A drug test may prove the existence of drugs in the system.
It does not and can not prove how they paid for it. Or if they even paid for it at all.

That means your government action amounts to nothing more than the punitive. The next week we'll be going through their magazine subscriptions deciding what they should be reading "with your tax dollars" or what they should dress like "using federal money".

Thanks for playing and be sure to play the Glaring Omission game at home.

I just think it is hypocritical in the extreme to see conservatives whine about the need for getting government out of our lives EXCEPT when it is their own version of socialism they want to implement that is being considered. It's ridiculous.

Black people are the true target of this conservative policy. Conservatives are convinced most blacks use drugs, and want to use this policy to cull as many blacks from any state assistance as they can. It's the same with voting laws.

I have no doubt whatsoever that that is true.

 

[TNHarley]

how is them getting drug tested to prove they are not using FEDERAL money on drugs controlling?

I dont see a problem with smoking some grass. I have a problem when my tax dollars get used to support it

Let's see how many times in a row you can ignore this point that continues to shoot your authoritarian fantasy down in flames:

A drug test may prove the existence of drugs in the system.
It does not and can not prove how they paid for it. Or if they even paid for it at all.

That means your government action amounts to nothing more than the punitive. The next week we'll be going through their magazine subscriptions deciding what they should be reading "with your tax dollars" or what they should dress like "using federal money".

Thanks for playing and be sure to play the Glaring Omission game at home.

I like how u out those cute finishers on your posts when u dont say shit
how else would they pay for it? THEY ARE ON WELFARE
and besides shouldnt oeople on wekfare be clean trying to get a job and stuff?

 

[TNHarley]

Did I misread? It sounded like you were advocating for drug-testing welfare recipients.

no, you didnt. how is them getting drug tested to prove they are not using FEDERAL money on drugs controlling?

How is it not? It's taking away their fourth amendment rights as a condition of using a taxpayer funded service. This is the one-two punch of modern statism. The left creates programs that push us into dependency on the state, and authoritarians use it as an excuse to strip our rights and dictate our behavior.

We're seeing this same kind of dynamic as our health care costs become more and more of a government concern. Self-righteous authoritarians want to use the fact that government is footing the bill for health care as an excuse to ban all kinds of personal habits that might impact health care costs. What is your view on that?

If health care is socialized, will you demand that people with dangerous personal habits be penalized in similar fashion?



Not really. They're not taxpayer funded.

do you think reporting to your probation officer is controlling?

Yes, but as it only applies to convicted criminals, I'm not sure how it's relevant.

do you think the mlb suspending players for steroids is controlling?

No. Again, not taxpayer funded.

so because they sit back AND GET FREE MONEY it is controlling but is not when the people that actually pay for their free money?
that is their problem. they have ZERO responsibility! and they should be getting clean to get a damn job. this shit is not supposed ti be a career

 

[TNHarley]

how do I want to control people exactly?

It’s not ‘controlling people,’ exactly….

It’s the hate and ignorance that you exhibit toward those who apply for public assistance which is typical of many on the right, where you seek to humiliate them and subject them to an unwarranted search and violate their right to privacy because they wish to receive ‘free (your) money’ from the government, in some failed effort to ‘deter’ them from indeed applying for assistance.

And by doing so, however unwittingly, give more power, control, and authority to the state at the expense of our civil liberties.

Not hate and ignorance, it's accountability. I want people to not depend on government, to seek a life that is better than welfare.

Liberals want to keep them on welfare to control them.

agreed!

 

[TNHarley]

I just think it is hypocritical in the extreme to see conservatives whine about the need for getting government out of our lives EXCEPT when it is their own version of socialism they want to implement that is being considered. It's ridiculous.

Black people are the true target of this conservative policy. Conservatives are convinced most blacks use drugs, and want to use this policy to cull as many blacks from any state assistance as they can. It's the same with voting laws.

I have no doubt whatsoever that that is true.

u both are parroting idiots
It is about temporary help to people. This shit was not made to be afamily business. why
should people live for free when they dont even care about themselves or their OWN families?
any race u racebaiting fools. SMH

 

[Bfgrn]

It’s not ‘controlling people,’ exactly….

It’s the hate and ignorance that you exhibit toward those who apply for public assistance which is typical of many on the right, where you seek to humiliate them and subject them to an unwarranted search and violate their right to privacy because they wish to receive ‘free (your) money’ from the government, in some failed effort to ‘deter’ them from indeed applying for assistance.

And by doing so, however unwittingly, give more power, control, and authority to the state at the expense of our civil liberties.

Not hate and ignorance, it's accountability. I want people to not depend on government, to seek a life that is better than welfare.

Liberals want to keep them on welfare to control them.

agreed!

Envious of poor people. It doesn't get any lower than that.

 

[koshergrl]

Let's see how many times in a row you can ignore this point that continues to shoot your authoritarian fantasy down in flames:

A drug test may prove the existence of drugs in the system.
It does not and can not prove how they paid for it. Or if they even paid for it at all.

That means your government action amounts to nothing more than the punitive. The next week we'll be going through their magazine subscriptions deciding what they should be reading "with your tax dollars" or what they should dress like "using federal money".

Thanks for playing and be sure to play the Glaring Omission game at home.

I just think it is hypocritical in the extreme to see conservatives whine about the need for getting government out of our lives EXCEPT when it is their own version of socialism they want to implement that is being considered. It's ridiculous.

Black people are the true target of this conservative policy. Conservatives are convinced most blacks use drugs, and want to use this policy to cull as many blacks from any state assistance as they can. It's the same with voting laws.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

What it says is that YOU believe blacks will be most affected by the policy, based on YOUR belief that they are drug users, then you're assuming that EVERYBODY believes that, and therefore when anyone wants to deny drug addicts benefits you call THEM racist. What a dolt!

I get so sick of you loons making up these elaborate lies about what the MOTIVES and THOUGHTS of right wingers are, and then attacking those alleged thoughts and motives. You can't find anything to attack in reality, so you make up *thoughts* and *motives*, assign them to us, and the attack us for them.

It's not just dishonest, it's indicative of the crap thought processes that liberals et al engage in. It's a symptom of a shit education. We need to completely gut our education system and start over. Honestly, anything would be an improvement.

 

[TNHarley]

Not hate and ignorance, it's accountability. I want people to not depend on government, to seek a life that is better than welfare.

Liberals want to keep them on welfare to control them.

agreed!

Envious of poor people. It doesn't get any lower than that.

huh?

 

[orogenicman]

'People think everyone who is poor gets welfare, and it's just not true'; How the myth of the welfare queen died - In Plain Sight

Here’s one thing both critics and supporters of the modern welfare system agree on: The direct assistance program as we knew it in the 1980s and 1990s is dead and gone.

“It’s a very different program than it was in the past. The comment about welfare queens is much less justified now,” said Ron Haskins, a key adviser of the Republicans’ welfare reform effort who now works at the Brookings Institution.

Two decades after President Bill Clinton promised to “end welfare as we know it” -- and nearly four decades since President Ronald Reagan repeatedly derided the “welfare queen” while on the 1976 presidential campaign trail -- far fewer families are receiving cash and voucher assistance, and a larger share of less educated single moms are working.

“People think everyone who is poor gets welfare, and it’s just not true,” said Heather Hahn, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute.

Still, experts are deeply divided on how successful tax and welfare reform efforts of the 1990s have been in improving the lives of less educated single mothers, especially in the wake of the Great Recession and weak recovery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About 1.72 million families received direct assistance during an average month in 2012 through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, according to the latest data from the federal government’s Office of Family Assistance. That’s about half the 3.94 million families who received TANF in 1997, according to an Urban Institute report funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In addition, about 62 percent of never-married moms ages 20 to 49 with a high school degree or less were working in 2011, according to an analysis of Current Population Survey data prepared by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank. That’s up from about 51 percent in 1992, but down from 76 percent in 2000, before two recessions hit low-skill workers hard.

Welfare-to-work
Welfare has not been the same since the mid-1990s, when the old program, called Aid to Families with Dependent Children, was replaced by TANF. The new program requires that recipients do 20 to 30 hours a week of work-related activities, such as job hunting or community service, among other stipulations.

Most states also only allow adults to collect TANF for a maximum of five years over the course of their lifetime, or less.

“The expectation is that you need to be looking for work,” said LaDonna Pavetti, vice president for family income support policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “And if you don’t, you will either have your benefits reduced or you’ll lose them entirely.”

Many more low-educated single moms did start working soon after the program was introduced, but experts say welfare-to-work cannot take all the credit for that. The late-1990s welfare reform effort also coincided with the expansion of the earned income tax credit, which provides financial assistance to low-wage workers, and a strong labor market.

“There really were three factors: One was welfare reform, one was expansion of the EITC and one was (the) economy,” Pavetti said. “Welfare reform was not the biggest role in that.”’

These days, Kathryn Edin, a professor of public policy at Harvard University, said the good news is that many single mothers who used to be longer-term welfare recipients are now workers who only need assistance once in a while.

But the bad news for single moms with low education and skills is that in the past decade or so, it’s become increasingly difficult to find a stable, full-time job that pays well. That means some moms may now be working very hard, and still find that their families are at poverty or near-poverty levels.

A person working a full-time, minimum wage job would take home $15,080 a year. That’s below the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012 poverty threshold for a family of one adult and two children under 18.

About 41 percent female-headed households with children under age 18 were living in poverty in 2011, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That’s up from 33 percent in 2000.

Many also fret about a group of women who were not able to make it into employment at all and who may now be in deep poverty.

“What ended up happening … is a lot of families fell through the cracks,” Edin said. Her recent research has documented a sharp increase in extreme poverty among the families with children that have been most affected by welfare reform.

Most experts say that even in a low-wage job, a single mother is better off financially than on welfare because welfare payments are so low. In July 2011, the maximum monthly TANF payment for a family of three ranged from $170 to $923 a month, depending on the state, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

But many concede that one optimistic hope for welfare reform – that women who entered low-wage work would gradually get better-paying jobs – has not generally materialized.

“The idea that these moms are going to go into the labor force, they’re going to get skills, they’re going to move up, they’re going to make more money … that did not happen very much,” said Haskins, who also advised President George W. Bush on welfare in 2002.

From homeless to employed
These days, the small group of adults who do end up receiving TANF are often at rock bottom.

Nicole Oman is an example. The mother of three children received $454 a month from TANF after she divorced her husband of 14 years and got into another relationship she described as unhealthy.

That was in 2011, and Oman and her children were staying in a homeless shelter where she was required to do around 30 hours of chores, training and therapy for victims of abuse.

After completing the shelter’s program, Oman used a community job search program offered through TANF to land a position with a residential YWCA facility in Issaquah, Wash., outside Seattle.

She now typically earns about $1,150 a month handling some of the YWCA Family Village at Issaquah’s tax compliance requirements. She also receives several hundred dollars a month in food stamp benefits, now known as SNAP.

Oman, 38, also was able to move into a subsidized two-bedroom apartment in the YWCA community, saving her a long bus ride from another temporary housing facility.

After spending years in homeless shelters, Oman revels in having a job and her own apartment.

“The thing that this process makes you is grateful for the craziest little things,” she said

For Oman, it’s having her own kitchen, which means she can cook meals for her family for the first time in years.

For her 10-year-old daughter, it was learning that the bus route near their new apartment would drop them right in front of a major grocery store, instead of having to walk a long way to a less desirable store.

The family’s grocery trips recently got even easier. A few weeks ago, Oman was able to buy a 2001 Ford Taurus. It’s the first time she’s been able to afford a car in nearly three years.

Oman says the job has helped her get back on her feet by giving her more than just a paycheck.

“The gals that I work with, they’ve helped me so much … in rebuilding myself,” she said.

 

[Caroljo]

I think only those who have a drug problem should be tested not those who don't.

Just because someone is on welfare doesn't mean they're a druggie.

Despite what the masses think there are people on welfare who really need it.

Ok...how many do you think will admit they have a drug problem? How do you know if they're not tested?

And of course everyone knows just because someone is on welfare it doesn't mean they're druggies....but testing would rule it out.

And...the "masses" know there are many people out there that really need it. But if you're applying for a job, you are going to be drug tested. Why shouldn't someone applying for free money and food also have to be tested?

Fuck the government, and fuck you and your "conservative" friends. You have no right to search my bloodstream or anyone else's without a warrant.

You're just another Republican authoritarian freak.

Whoa....a little testy huh? I don't make the rules, and in another post here I agreed that I don't think anyone should have to be drug tested to get a job. It's not right if someone that smoked pot 5 days earlier gets tested and turned down because it came back positive. In fact I don't think anyone should get turned away for anything just because of pot. I do think that if they're going to test for anything it should be just the harder drugs....cocaine, meth, herion, those are most likely the drugs that are going to get someone in trouble in some way....and most likely they're addicted to it.