I say anyone who receives government assistance no matter what kind of assistance it is should be subject to drug testing. Welfare, educational, medical, tax credits, employment, home any type of government assistance period. Welfare is a very small part of the governments programs if we're serious about this we would hit everything not just cherry pick the stereotypical bullshit.
Want to drive on government roads? Drug test! Need to call the cops? Drug test! Spoken like a true young Republican!
Legalize all drugs and end welfare. Problem solved if it's a private organization doling out the checks they can put just about any disclaimer they'd like on it. I also believe it would be more efficient and have better cost management. I know some of you will disagree, and I'm not in the mood to argue privatized welfare right now (plus I'm on my phone lol). also the ACLU does alot of good for standing up for citizens rights. The only problem I have is they tend to pick and choose which ones. Eapecially gun rights.
I'm all for it, but I feel bad that kids would suffer because their parents are fuck ups. We'd need to ensure that the kids get proper support.
I too was waiting to bring up this point. Can't afford your $30,000/year college tuition and get finaicial aid? Eat a dick poor fucker! Drug test! Get a tax write-off for buying a new house? Sounds like a 'government welfare' to me! Shove it up your ass, jerk! Drug test!
wait, where is the racism? I missed this. in you guy's crusade to save the poor, i think you are missing the point. If you are so poorly off, you do NOT need to be spending money on recreational substance abuse. It is that fucking simple. You use that money for the essentials and get your ass back on your feet. I haven't gone to bed sober in the past 2 years, but my last paycheck being small combined with several unexpected expenses means I haven't had a fucking drink in the past 2 weeks because I don't have the money for it right now. It is called taking responsibility for your shit. If you have the money to spend on booze, pot, crack, whatever, go ahead, party hard, just don't spend other people's money on it
That's the point I was trying to make. Then everyone started extending the drug testing to other places and making this into something it is not. This doesn't extend any further than testing for TANF recipients. This is not the beginning of the end. On the national scale, the war on drugs is actually declining. Obviously I wouldn't like to see government-mandated drug tests in other areas, but in order for somebody to get fully back on their feet they need to direct their "wages" into something of value. Nippers of vodka don't count.
I agree that civil liberties shouldn't be thrown out the window, but in this scenario I don't see where anyone's rights are being eroded. If you're going to ask your fellow man to pick up some of the slack for you then the least you can do is piss in a cup to prove you're not spending the rent money on crack. I'm sure the ACLU will fight this to the death, but you have to admit that drug testing people on the dole would serve the public interest.
Drug testing for any jobs are mandetory in a lot of states. If it's unconstitutional, how are those state's employers getting away with it? A drug screen is a standard part of being employed in Oregon. It has been since the 80's. But I guess it's only a violation of rights if you're sucking off of the guv eh? Mandetory testing has been instituted as a means to supposedly reduce worker's comp claims and promote jobplace safety.http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform_technology-and-liberty/privacy-america-workplace-drug-testing ACLU has not been successfull (yet) in reversing the "drugfree workplace" act of 1988. http://www.ndwa.org/Editor/assets/federallaw.pdf Wether or not we agree on that law, the leeches should have to adhere to the same standards the people who pay their way do.
I haven't had to piss in a cup for a job since I worked for minimum wage and even then that was just when I worked retail. However, it's not unconstitutional for employers to require you to drug test before working because you're entering into a voluntary and civil contract. Those of you who are arguing that "oh welfare money shouldn't be spent buying drugs": none of us who are arguing against the drug testing idea disagree with the fact that welfare funds shouldn't be spent buying drugs. What it seems that most of you are missing is that by requiring all individuals on welfare to submit to a drug test criminalizes those who need assistance. Especially those who are not in fact "leeches" and are using the system as it was intended, for short-term aid, until they get back on their feet. Have a problem with those who are addicts and "leeches"? Call your representatives and tell them to stop supporting draconian prison terms and instead shift to a rehabilitation system. And again, those of you who claim to be moderate, Libertarian, or constitutionalist should be against this as it's a violation of the reasonable search provision of the fourth amendment.
Being asked to piss in a cup does not equate to criminalization. I doubt very many people on public assistance would even object to this. This reminds me of an argument I got into once with someone about the DUI "party plates". It was wrong, a horrible violation of privacy, etc. Guess what? The guy was a repeat offender.
This argument is about as sound as the religious right claiming if we allowed gay marriage then it would lead to people marrying animals.
that's called the slippery slope argument. And what smersh says does not equate to what you say. gay marriage -> animals is not an apples to apples jump (there's no logical leap from people marrying people, to people marrying their pets etc, it's not apples to apples. An example to make it apples to apples would be "Legalize interracial marriage? what's next, let guys marry other guys?/"). However, to say Drug tests for this government service, could mean drug tests for ALL government services IS an apples to apples comparison. It's the next logical leap in the slippery slope. Back on topic: The fourth amendment prevents unreasonable search and seizure. As much as some of you don't like it, that's the way it is. Unless you're just fine criminalizing a good 5 million people down on their luck to justify weeding out a few bad apples?
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. But moving to more productive avenues of discussion, how should the government screen and restrict access to drug abusers? I mean, that's really all the matters. If we can accomplish that without alienating the other 4.5 million people then I'd be all for it. But let's be clear, the number of people on drugs and welfare is a significant number. If it wasn't this bill wouldn't exist. There's probably some direct correlations that can be made between the two really.
I'd like sources on this, considering 950's source stating that half of all Americans have used some form of welfare at least once in their life.
A reasonable comprimise would be to drug test anyone exceeding a predetermined time limit on assistance. Say a 6-8 month period. The druggies I know of that abuse the shit out of the system are career welfare recipients, not the people who are "down on their luck". I fail to see how the absense of constitutional breech pertains to the private sector and not the government avenue of income. After all, it is not any more mandetory to recieve government entitlements than it is to maintain a job. both are voluntary and require the adherance to rules and regulations. Did anyone even read the "drugfree workplace" act of 1988? This is not a local law, it is a federal law. many states have adopted the essence of that bill and have recruited trade associations to follow the same. In some states , especially the states that have a state run workmens comp division have signed it into law for all jobs. This is a deal pushed for by workers comp carriers. For a moment, let's forget about the civil rights of the people on welfare and talk about the civil rights of the people who trade a portion of their lives for gold and surrender large portion of that gold to the IRS. Aren't those hard working, law abiding people entitled to security and law enforcement. aren't they entitled to walk their neighborhoods without fear of being mugged or fear of stumbling acrost a gang action and violence stemming from drug trade? Is it not of constitutional garranty to be able to feel secure in their own homes and not have a constant threat of loosing everything of value they worked so hard for turn up missing due to theft? (ask Coleman about how that feels) I have a real problem when the constitutional rights of the law breakers are more important that the constitutional rights of those that work hard and foot the bill. So......if there's an issue with requiring a piss test to recieve public funds that are derived from tax dollars, I don't see any difference than it being required of an employee or prospective employee who pays those taxes both avenues of income are voluntary, not required. Anytime a tax dollar is spent, legality of the use of those funds need to be accounted for......and not just for welfare. Or we could just stop paying those taxes.............oh wait, paying the taxes is mandetory and not voluntary. Besides, this is more of what we need to be concerned with when argueing unreasonable search and seizure: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02...ashdot/slashdot (Slashdot)&utm_content=My MSN Can you imagine being disqualified for running for public office, or getting a career oportunity that requires a background check (all civil service and government jobs and contractors) because you stumbled onto a porn site two years ago? Or....had a browser hi-jack that took you to bang-a-midgit or something like that? Some police forces are pushing for a 5 year retention of ISP records. Talk about everyone being guilty until prooven inocent, that's the real shit right there.
Really? Your source that a majority of individuals using public assistance are on drugs is that the bill before the Oklahoma Senate? Wiskas, how long have you been out of work, you're past the 6-8 month period right? It's cool if I just assume you're on drugs? Piss in this cup for me. Drugfree Workplace Act allows employers to drug test and requires some Federal contractors to drug test their employees. Both of which again are civil and voluntary contracts between the employee and the employer. Are you really trying to say that people on welfare are on it by choice? That it's a reasonable choice between eating or having shelter/paying the utilities? Not everyone and move in with their mom, grow a vegetable garden and survive on their wife's sole income. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that you're able to do that but you're not the 81% of Americans who live in urban areas.
Have you ever been to Oklahoma sir? I have many times, and there's literally crack vendors at the state welfare office. It's shocking... EDIT: All joking aside, I didn't have any hard numbers to support my gut feeling about it. But a quick Google search found this National Institute of Health study that corroborates my gut, if 5 million are on welfare around 180k would be abusing drugs. It's an older study, but you get the drift. Actually the rate is slightly lower than among the general population, but when it's my money supporting them any number higher than zero is unacceptable. I'm open to other methods of achieving that goal, but clearly it's a significant number and an area where we can direct out tax dollars to better use. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/NewsReleases/welfare.htm
The only people I know of personally who are receiving public hand-outs use drugs. Even if the percentage of people who use drugs in this category are as few as 10% it would be worth randomly drug testing these people and would save us money. For the record I would be shocked if the percentage is less than 30%. Generally people who need this assistance have made poor choices like abusing drugs which put them in the situation they are in. Hopefully it would help motivate people to quit drugs, clear their heads and eventually become self sufficient.
