36 States Mulling Drug Testing

[Mikey]

36 States Mulling Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients.

Why are there so many people apposed to this? You can drug test people who make money? But you can't for those that don't?

Drug testing welfare recipients

[Fishin Nut]

I have no idea why anyone would be against this..... I think it's a great idea. If they have money to buy drugs why should they be on welfare.

Kinda like the people that come into my deli to buy smokes with food stamps..... not gonna happen here!!!!

[gingele]

Originally Posted by Mikey

36 States Mulling Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients.

Why are there so many people apposed to this? You can drug test people who make money? But you can't for those that don't?

Drug testing welfare recipients

For a fella who claims to be so worried about government deficits, you sure are willing to spend! spend! spend!

But while you are at it - how about subjecting everyone who accepts taxpayer money to mandatory drug testing?

And it you are sincere in your interest about the constitutionality of this, take a peek at the Fourth Amendment

[gingele]

Originally Posted by Fishin Nut

I have no idea why anyone would be against this..... I think it's a great idea. If they have money to buy drugs why should they be on welfare.

Kinda like the people that come into my deli to buy smokes with food stamps..... not gonna happen here!!!!

That doesn't happen anywhere - not legally, anyway.

[Fishin Nut]

Originally Posted by gingele

That doesn't happen anywhere - not legally, anyway.

Right... that never happens All store owners follow the law. ehehehe good one.

[roni]

I think we should test people for nicotine and tars and double their health insurance premium so the rest of us do not have to pay for the consequences their filthy little addiction.

Darn addicts

[Mikey]

Originally Posted by gingele

For a fella who claims to be so worried about government deficits, you sure are willing to spend! spend! spend!

But while you are at it - how about subjecting everyone who accepts taxpayer money to mandatory drug testing?

And it you are sincere in your interest about the constitutionality of this, take a peek at the Fourth Amendment

Sounds like it's time for some amendments. That been done to the before right?

[gingele]

Originally Posted by Mikey

Sounds like it's time for some amendments. That been done to the before right?

Sure it has. At least 27 times, last I checked.

What are you going to amend - the 4th amendment?

[gingele]

Originally Posted by Fishin Nut

Right... that never happens All store owners follow the law. ehehehe good one.

I said nothing about individuals wishing to conduct themselves illegally. I'm speaking only to whether it is legal to purchase cigarettes (or any non-food items) with food stamps. It is not.

[Elysium]

Originally Posted by gingele

For a fella who claims to be so worried about government deficits, you sure are willing to spend! spend! spend!

But while you are at it - how about subjecting everyone who accepts taxpayer money to mandatory drug testing?

And it you are sincere in your interest about the constitutionality of this, take a peek at the Fourth Amendment

If drug testing can be a legitimate condition of employment (even in non-safety situations) why can it not also be a condition of welfare/food stamps etc?Not your personal feeling about it but where does the difference kick in constitutionally?Would random testing do it?

[gingele]

Originally Posted by Elysium

If drug testing can be a legitimate condition of employment (even in non-safety situations) why can it not also be a condition of welfare/food stamps etc?Not your personal feeling about it but where does the difference kick in constitutionally?Would random testing do it?

Because the 4th Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizures by the government.

The only way the government can compel you to turn over bodily fluids is with probable cause to believe you are engaged in criminal activity.

Receiving government aid is not probable cause to believe you are engaged in criminal activity.

Frankly, I'm not a proponent of private companies doing it either. But that's another story.

[Elysium]

Thanks for the clarification.

Do no government employment situations outside of safety types require drug testing?

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by gingele

Because the 4th Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizures by the government.

The only way the government can compel you to turn over bodily fluids is with probable cause to believe you are engaged in criminal activity.

Receiving government aid is not probable cause to believe you are engaged in criminal activity.

Frankly, I'm not a proponent of private companies doing it either. But that's another story.

Originally Posted by Elysium

Thanks for the clarification.

Do no government employment situations outside of safety types require drug testing?

Apparently, being a government employee IS then probable cause. I mean I know people often say the government is on drugs but....

I am subject to random drug testing and as a condition of employment.

I suppose it can be said I take taxpayer dollars too. So, I am not really opposed to this...as an equal opportunity type of thing. I mean I have to give bodily fluids to take those tax dollars.

[Rissask]

For Canada I would not be against it, in theory.

But what I would be concerned with is how it all washes out in practice.


There would just be a corresponding rise in crimes like thefts and armed robberies, maybe home invasions, etc. What do these people do when they can't make ends meet...they beg, borrow, steal.

There will ALWAYS be some segment of society who will live on welfare their entire lives for many different reasons. It becomes habitual and is very very hard to change.

The question therefore becomes -is it BETTER to have some people basically being paid to live (however spartanly) by the rest of society, or not give them handouts to help them so they have to get money through illegal and possibly violent channels? I guess I would have to say the former is better, although really pathetic.

lesser of two evils


FTR, I work for a private company, office job, and I had to pass a drug test as a condition of employment. I really didn't care, but to be honest, I am not sure that is fair.
I DO think it is fair and right to require regular clean drug tests from anyone in either public or private sector who drives any sort of large equipment or is otherwise responsibile for their or others' lives.


We don't have ongoing drug testing for our miners here, BUT if anyone is involved in any sort of safety incident, they are sent for testing- if they test positive, it is immediate dismissal. Although of course the union will grieve it.

[Seakony]

Originally Posted by roni

I think we should test people for nicotine and tars and double their health insurance premium so the rest of us do not have to pay for the consequences their filthy little addiction.

Darn addicts

And all the winos too.