Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Captain Hi-Top

Drug Testing for Welfare Benefits...

  

10 members have voted

  1. 1. Drug testing for welfare applicants, is it a...

    • Good idea
      6
    • Rights violation
      3
    • Neither
      0
    • Both
      1


Recommended Posts

For it. Like it's been said, if I have to take a drug test to earn my money, you need to take one to be able to sit on your ass and collect money. Now, if everyone is worried about tax dollars being used for it then fine, don't drug test at all for workers or moochers, I'd be for that too. For the record, pot smoker.

Who would have guessed?

 

 

Lol, JK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the one about people who buy into stereotypes being racist?

He's not racist, just done with black quarterbacks that don't play an entire game.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a social worker for over 18 years, and there are people who really need the assistance. Grandmothers left to care for their grandchildren because both parents are on drugs or in jail or prison. These Grandparents receive only 180 per month, per chilld. Often they can not get food stamps because the state takes into account their pensions, and other income. They will probably never see a dime in child support because of the parents drug use and prison time. There are people who just do not have the skills to obtain gainful employment that will pay rent and other expenses. Some people were in abusive relationships where the man/woman would not permit them to work, and as result they have no job experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, this isn't a Constitutional Rights case, because you aren't guaranteed welfare money in the Constitution. It falls under the 10th Amendment in which states have the right to determine how to handle issues not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

 

Illegal search and seizure doesn't apply here because you are voluntarily offering a urine/hair sample for a welfare payment. You can opt out. You have no obligation to collect welfare checks. Evidence obtained from these tests are inadmissible in a court of law.

 

Secondly, the issue is one of cost-effectiveness. If you could show me that we'd save substantial amounts of money by testing and eliminating recipients from the welfare pool, I'd be all for it, as I am against all tax-based expenditures. Personally, I don't feel the cost will prove to be effective, thus eliminating (in my mind) the only logical solution for the program to exist.

 

Thirdly, this isn't an issue of our screwed up drug laws in this country. The government has way overstepped it's Constitutional authority in criminalizing drugs in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, this isn't a Constitutional Rights case, because you aren't guaranteed welfare money in the Constitution. It falls under the 10th Amendment in which states have the right to determine how to handle issues not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

 

Illegal search and seizure doesn't apply here because you are voluntarily offering a urine/hair sample for a welfare payment. You can opt out. You have no obligation to collect welfare checks. Evidence obtained from these tests are inadmissible in a court of law.

 

What if we weren't talking about drug tests, but instead the law called for inspections of the applicants' residences? That could also be applied to driver licenses and any number of other things not guaranteed by the constitution. I have a hard time believing that would be upheld in court.

 

Thirdly, this isn't an issue of our screwed up drug laws in this country. The government has way overstepped it's Constitutional authority in criminalizing drugs in the first place.

 

I disagree with the first part of that because we wouldn't even be talking about this if the government had a sensible approach to drugs in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, this isn't a Constitutional Rights case, because you aren't guaranteed welfare money in the Constitution. It falls under the 10th Amendment in which states have the right to determine how to handle issues not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

 

Illegal search and seizure doesn't apply here because you are voluntarily offering a urine/hair sample for a welfare payment. You can opt out. You have no obligation to collect welfare checks. Evidence obtained from these tests are inadmissible in a court of law.

 

Secondly, the issue is one of cost-effectiveness. If you could show me that we'd save substantial amounts of money by testing and eliminating recipients from the welfare pool, I'd be all for it, as I am against all tax-based expenditures. Personally, I don't feel the cost will prove to be effective, thus eliminating (in my mind) the only logical solution for the program to exist.

 

Thirdly, this isn't an issue of our screwed up drug laws in this country. The government has way overstepped it's Constitutional authority in criminalizing drugs in the first place.

 

I'll agree with one and three, and most of two (it isn't all welfare, it's only the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program).

 

However, don't be so quick to brush off the violation of our 4th amendment rights. To government does not have the right to search without probable cause (or in such cases that the concern for public safety takes precedence). It's why the random drug screening for all state employees was halted in 2004 except in certain cases (relating back to the public safety issue). You don't have a constitutional right to a government job, and could opt out of that random screening by leaving your position, but it was determined by the federal court to be in violation.

 

Interestingly enough, state agencies CAN drug screen potential new hires, which would seem to be a similar comparison to drug testing applicants for the TANF funding, however, the authority to conduct those screenings comes from the Florida Drug-Free Workplaces Act, and I'm pretty sure DCFS funding doesn't fall under that act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, this isn't a Constitutional Rights case, because you aren't guaranteed welfare money in the Constitution. It falls under the 10th Amendment in which states have the right to determine how to handle issues not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

 

Illegal search and seizure doesn't apply here because you are voluntarily offering a urine/hair sample for a welfare payment. You can opt out. You have no obligation to collect welfare checks. Evidence obtained from these tests are inadmissible in a court of law.

 

Secondly, the issue is one of cost-effectiveness. If you could show me that we'd save substantial amounts of money by testing and eliminating recipients from the welfare pool, I'd be all for it, as I am against all tax-based expenditures. Personally, I don't feel the cost will prove to be effective, thus eliminating (in my mind) the only logical solution for the program to exist.

 

Thirdly, this isn't an issue of our screwed up drug laws in this country. The government has way overstepped it's Constitutional authority in criminalizing drugs in the first place.

 

It most certainly is a 4th amendment issue as evidenced by this supreme court case.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ndler_v._Miller

 

It is an illegal search of person and here's why. the original law does give you the right to collect welfare payments provided you prove income and other requirements. Those requirements are reasonable to determine whether you qualify for those payments. This law, however, makes no attempt at connecting drug use and welfare payments. Even you said, if the government can prove the connection then it's good law. I have no problem with that either, but the state hasn't proved it. Therefore (I think) this law is simply bad law.

 

"I am against all tax-based expenditures"

 

lol what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if we weren't talking about drug tests, but instead the law called for inspections of the applicants' residences? That could also be applied to driver licenses and any number of other things not guaranteed by the constitution. I have a hard time believing that would be upheld in court.

 

 

 

I disagree with the first part of that because we wouldn't even be talking about this if the government had a sensible approach to drugs in the first place.

 

I meant to say this "IS" an issue of our screwed up drug laws, not "isn't"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is an illegal search of person and here's why. the original law does give you the right to collect welfare payments provided you prove income and other requirements. Those requirements are reasonable to determine whether you qualify for those payments. This law, however, makes no attempt at connecting drug use and welfare payments. Even you said, if the government can prove the connection then it's good law. I have no problem with that either, but the state hasn't proved it. Therefore (I think) this law is simply bad law.

 

It's not a violation of 4th Amendment rights for the same reason federal employees have to pass drug test to get hired in a lot of fields. You can choose to not be drug tested but you forfeit the potential position. You aren't guaranteed a federal job Constitutionally, just as you aren't guaranteed federal assistance.

 

Also in that court case, Chandler v. Miller, the court did find that there exists a category of suspicion-less searches, so if the state can prove they fit in the category then they can conduct the screenings.

 

Also, I am usually against all tax-expenditures that aren't promotional to defense or infrastructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×