Drug tests for welfare recipients?

[Raoul]

Florida has just passed a law requiring such. Here's the story from Reuters.

So what do you think? I know what I think...

Florida to test all welfare recipients for drugs | Reuters

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It is a fabulous idea! We could make it even better by expanding the program to require drug tests for tax refunds, annual vehicle registrations, social security checks, politicians accepting campaign contributions, corporate subsidies and research grants. Just let me know which testing companies are gonna get the contracts so I can buy stock first.

[Guest kickstand]

It's a great idea in principle, and I imagine it would be much cheaper in the long run. It will be interesting to see the numbers after its implemented. And lol at the little ACLU plug at the end of the article.

[DaveTN]

Isn’t this thread déjà vu all over again?

I’m against it. Drug testing people because they are poor, and with no probable cause is wrong.

However… the government is running it. So they can create a whole new state government office and staff it with welfare recipients that could not keep a job anywhere else. Then they would show the taxpayers how they are paying for less people on welfare. They won’t show them the costs they are paying for a useless new bureaucracy.

Edited June 5, 2011 by DaveTN

[JayC]

How about we get rid of welfare altogether... and not worry about the drug tests?

[DaveTN]

How about we get rid of welfare altogether... and not worry about the drug tests?

We are headed for destruction already. We can’t send our jobs overseas and stop the government handouts.

The rich people that call themselves Americans while sending our jobs off to other countries for higher profits don’t understand that they will not survive our economy crashing.

[Guest brandon_pitt]

We are headed for destruction already. We can’t send our jobs overseas and stop the government handouts.

The rich people that call themselves Americans while sending our jobs off to other countries for higher profits don’t understand that they will not survive our economy crashing.

Could not possibly agree more!

[C.lunn]

I love the idea. I think they should go one step farther and make it a random surprise drug test. I know of one POS that is getting it and he is a scab on society and would fail if it was random.

[Guest bkelm18]

Isn’t this thread déjà vu all over again?

I’m against it. Drug testing people because they are poor, and with no probable cause is wrong.

However… the government is running it. So they can create a whole new state government office and staff it with welfare recipients that could not keep a job anywhere else. Then they would show the taxpayers how they are paying for less people on welfare. They won’t show them the costs they are paying for a useless new bureaucracy.

They are not being drug tested because they are poor. They are applying for a service from the gov't, something they do not have a given right to receive. No probable cause is needed. Walmart drug tests people. Are they violating the rights of unemployed people?

[daveW]

I've been "subject...to a humiliating search of urine..." for a lot of jobs I've applied to over the years. I don't suppose it should be deemed unreasonable if I were asking for a handout/assistance.

I am surprised that they are expected to pay for the test, though.

Edit: previous post beat me to it.

Edited June 5, 2011 by gau8a

[Caster]

We are headed for destruction already. We can’t send our jobs overseas and stop the government handouts.

The rich people that call themselves Americans while sending our jobs off to other countries for higher profits don’t understand that they will not survive our economy crashing.

I agree with you, but only so far. Everything you said is 100% truth, but if the average american didn't demand a 40 hr work week @ 20+ bucks an hour plus benefits AND STILL not produce as much useful labor per hour as a $10 a day Taiwanese worker; They wouldn't HAVE to send jobs overseas. As it is now, it's all but too late. The dollar isn't worth spit, which means you have to have that $20+/hr job to pay the mortgage and two car notes, plus raising the kids, having recreation money and a retirement program.

This ought to make most of ya'll mad but it's the truth. Entitlement runs so deep in this country, it even affects the ones who actually DO work hard. Myself included; Few if any know what it's like to truly "Survive" anymore. What we call basic necessities AREN'T.

When you get mad at Richey for sending work over seas think about Detroit [who got what it deserves] Just like most every civilization in history, it got to big for it's breeches, rested on it's laurels and now it's a ghost town and a ghetto. It went from a place full of people working hard and making a good product to a labor union fighting to protect the lazy. Just desserts.

I don't like it anymore than you, but don't be so quick to judge the rich. I'm not saying the judgment is unwarranted, just don't be so quick to hand it out. First and foremost on anyone's list is themselves and their family. You, me anyone with any sense. If there's any leftover, then we'll talk about charity or mutual benefit. They are just thinking about themselves. Double standard: It's okay for the working man to want to keep everything he can hoard but once you have more than everyone, it becomes wrong? Like I said I don't like it, but I don't blame them either. Workers show up and don't complain everyday, they don't strike for "give me give me" retirement handouts or working conditions..."it's hot we're on strike until you fix the A/C" The USA has become a nation of "I deserve better than this. Where's mine?" Instead of working with what you've got and getting on with things. Lingering around and complaining has not and never will make anything better.

Everything we've got, we and everything we're getting, we [as a country] deserve.

[Caster]

As for the original post. Chooot yeah, I'm all for it. If you cut the meth & crack heads off welfare, they will render themselves extinct and free up revenue that can be put to use for something that will actually benefit the country.

[Will Carry]

I am drug tested on a regular basis...so I can get a pay check...I don't do drugs so it's not a problem. I am also a strong supporter of our constitution and bill of rights.

I would rather live in a free society where some people do drugs.....than live in the kind of society where the government enslaves it's subjects. BUT you guys do have a point. I have to take a drug test to get MY paycheck...... of course if I was rich, I could do drugs and not worry about a drug test. So I guess in America now you can buy your freedom and rights.

This is the 4th ammendment to the constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Edited June 5, 2011 by Will Carry

[Guest HvyMtl]

Um, As far as productivity, the American worker is on the very high end of the scale. They sent the jobs overseas because a $3 a week worker with crappy productivity, can't ever be beaten by a U.S. worker. Companies can hire scores of them for the cost of one US worker. So, do I get the gist of your argument is: The US worker is not worth the pay, and we should all be paid $3 a week like some uneducated, indentured servant in Bangladesh does?

Truth of the matter is this: The Business wants Profits, the bigger the better. The Consumer wants cheap prices. Politicians want to get re-elected. None are Patriotic. None see shipping out the economic foundation, which made America great, as a threat to their welfare. So, what do you have? Business pushing for and getting Tax Breaks, while they ship jobs overseas, as they clamor and whine they have to be competitive, to satisfy the consumer's want for ever cheaper products. Consumers whine about high prices and want lower prices, at the cost of their own jobs. Politicians, wanting the $ business lobbyists throw their way, making it easier for them to be reelected, give Business what they want. Now it is coming to this: Those consumers do not have jobs to buy the business' products. Something has to give, or we as a country, are done.

And that $20 an hour job is this $20x40 hours x52 weeks = $41,600. Think about it... (The stats I see say this: Do not make more than $100k a year? You are not middle class...)

You want to test, then test, but don't charge, the already on hard times, fellow for it. I do not have issues with Drug Testing. As I was the one who asked you to pee in the bottle.

(Out of the Approx 1000 random tests I gave, I had 2 fail. This was for a $6.50-$7.50/ hour, or a $0.27 cents per mile, job. Many people are not drug users.)

Edited June 5, 2011 by HvyMtl

[Guest hoss6175]

I get my money because I passed my drug test. I don't see the problem and I have family who recives welfare if they test positive for drugs than shame on them.

They know how I feel so they want come crawling to me.

[DaveTN]

I guess being a former cop I feel that when a government agent is forcing someone to submit to a search, that should require probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has been committed and the person you are searching committed that crime.

I think it’s wrong when a business does it. I’ve never worked for a company that did it without cause; even as a cop they couldn’t test me without cause.

The company I work for now will do it if you get hurt at work, but I think that’s a Tennessee Workman’s Comp policy. That’s an example of cause.

Once you get on that "Slippery Slope" that allows you to think a government agent doesn’t need cause for a search; you are headed for disaster. I’m pretty surprised at some of the members here that seem to think this okay.

[Caster]

Something has to give, or we as a country, are done.

Yeah well, we are already done. Our goose is already cooked and on a platter. We're just waiting for the server to carry us to the table.

[DaveTN]

So, do I get the gist of your argument is: The US worker is not worth the pay, and we should all be paid $3 a week like some uneducated, indentured servant in Bangladesh does?

Thats the bottom line for those that argue in favor of buying foreign made stuff. I would just like to see their faces or hear what lies they tell their Grand kids when asked "Grandpa, Why did you do this to us? How could you have been so stupid?"

[Guest HvyMtl]

I agree Dave, there is a 4th A. right issue here. Do we suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, merely because a poor fellow needs unemployment benefits?

I see your point. I see the validity of the argument. But, sadly, it seems, We the People look as such things in the wrong light. Because in America, being poor is looked upon as being almost criminal.

I also see many not caring one whit if that poor fellow's rights are violated, because THEIR tax money is going to pay his wages (untrue, businesses pay unemployment, not citizens.)

I also see a society over willing to give away their Constitutional Rights. It is why so many of us face derision over our choice to own, and carry firearms.

[Erik88]

There are some responses in this thread that do a good job of reflecting both sides of the argument but for the most part I think this is a good idea.

I just wish I had a dollar for every time DaveTN says "back when I was a cop" or "because I was a cop".

[DaveTN]

There are some responses in this thread that do a good job of reflecting both sides of the argument but for the most part I think this is a good idea.

I just wish I had a dollar for every time DaveTN says "back when I was a cop" or "because I was a cop".

I think it’s important because it shows that not all cops are okay with trampling all over someone’s rights just because they are poor, or because someone has a perception they are weak because they need help. I believe people like that will get what they deserve.

It is unusual today because I am bouncing back and forth between two threads. One where I see nothing wrong with what the cops did on a search and defend their actions, and one where I think it is ridiculous that anyone that has read the Constitution or studied the history of the men that wrote it would think a search was okay.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I guess being a former cop I feel that when a government agent is forcing someone to submit to a search, that should require probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has been committed and the person you are searching committed that crime.

...

Once you get on that "Slippery Slope" that allows you to think a government agent doesn’t need cause for a search; you are headed for disaster. I’m pretty surprised at some of the members here that seem to think this okay.

Yep, that is something we can agree on.

Some folks said that welfare is not a right. Welfare is not strictly a right according to the constitution or according to libertarians. I'm not claiming that it should be a right. However, unless they change the law then welfare really is a right to any person who meets the qualifications. If you meet the requirements they can't turn you down just because they don't like the way you look or because of yer religion or whatever.

If the welfare folk gotta P in cups, then to be consistent all the other people on the gov dole ought to P in cups.

If Bank of America needs a gov bailout then Management and the Board ought to P in cups. Because the stockholders benefit from the bailout, then all the stockholders should P in cups.

If Boeing wants to sell planes to the gov, then Boeing Management, Board, and stockholders should P in cups.

The Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches should P in cups for their paychecks.

Social Security and SSI recipients, same deal.

Who could argue that we wouldn't be better off if drivers license applicants have to P in cups?

And obviously any handgun carry permit applicant should P in a cup. Because gun owners are so obviously dangerous and it is explicitly against the law for drug addicts and alcoholics to have guns or ccw, then maybe gun owners should P in cups daily...

[Raoul]

Interesting spin on this thread. I can only say that the poor will always be with us, and yes there needs to be a safety net in place for those who can't do for themselves. BUT, we have had this great social experiment that has allowed folks to abdicate their personal responsibility. We demand little from them. It only seems to me that the least they could do is not be a tester for a meth lab.

Then there's the whole issue of the questionably disabled. I see guys with blue stickers jump out of pickups who walk a lot better than I do. I'm just sayin...

[Guest tommy62]

Isn’t this thread déjà vu all over again?

I’m against it. Drug testing people because they are poor, and with no probable cause is wrong.

However… the government is running it. So they can create a whole new state government office and staff it with welfare recipients that could not keep a job anywhere else. Then they would show the taxpayers how they are paying for less people on welfare. They won’t show them the costs they are paying for a useless new bureaucracy.

I have a solution for you. Just give them your money.

[kieefer]

I'm all for it but I suspect additional taxes will be needed to implement. A added bonus will be the libs will thow hissy fits.