|
On June 10 2011 08:33 Valentine wrote:
Didn't read much of this thread, but just saying:
It's fairly easy to use other, less-traceable drugs around the time when a test is taken. For instance, if someone is smoking weed every day and wants to take a tolerance break for a month or so (will help them get higher using less weed anyway) and just use other drugs on the side like LSD or mushrooms which will be out of said persons system within days. Even meth won't be detected after a long weekend.
And if they really wanted to get sneaky, people can also use things like DXM which can be written off as just having some cold medicine (unless you trip a lot, because you'll start testing positive for opiates) or n2o (good luck testing for that lol). The best part about those two is that they are legal and can be picked up at any supermarket (or order crates of n2o to your house legally, much more neat)
Just sayin'
exactly. drug tests are ridiculously easy to get around. Most people who has to go through this will just continue using drugs but find ways to beat the drug test.
It's an inconvenience for them, and money thrown away for the government
|
On June 10 2011 07:54 Bunnypanda wrote:
I find it hilarious that so many Americans are cheering for this, this is a blatant foot on the constitution, if this does not get overruled i will be shocked. Looking forward to them explaining why they should search everyone in need for drugs "just because". That argument is going to be a hoot.
And they say the Democrats are "ruining the constitution" at their healthcare rally's, ha.
if you lent a friend some money specifically for one thing he desperately needed and then he goes and buys some crack with it wouldn't you be inclined either to not lend him money anymore or at least know that he's not going to buy crack again?
and that's a friendship. the government isn't anyone's friend
|
Good call from Florida IMO.
I've known a few people who got into hard drugs and then just leeched off the welfare system to support their habit. Giving those people money only hurts them more.
|
I'm really confused why this is even a debate. Using the kind of drugs they are testing for is illegal. People who do illegal things are tried and sent to jail. Nobody has a problem with this. Why, then, do people think it is a good idea to give these same people tax dollars?
I feel like it is a choice. If you feel like you want to do drugs, fine. More power to you, that's your life. However, it is against the law. You can't pick and chose which laws you want to have and which you want to break. You can't chose to go against the government on drugs and then go crying to the government for money. Just not how it works.
|
i edited my post, and grobyc also said this at the same time:
as for hard drugs (tnx for the pm), idk, maybe it will be an incentive to get people off of them, or maybe it will cause a lot of hard drug users to get even deeper into crime when they have to fraud, or when they find themselves with no government support whatsoever and start mugging people.
with regards to hard drug users, look at it this way: maybe it will help some, maybe it will fuck some up even worse (seems more likely dont you think, realistically?). on the whole, does this make it a good policy or a "not quite so sure about this one" policy?
Supamang, its the governments money, but they dont get to choose who it goes to...that is what we're discussing right now!
as for fast food, its expensive here, regardless you sound like you're trolling because you picked that one little thing that didnt fit in with the rest of my post. maybe you were just randomly commenting on it.
yes you can test for drugs, you CAN do it, that doesnt mean you should.... seriously trolling?
|
This is not a guilty before proven innocent thing at all...
It should be a requirement for people to get drug tested before getting anything from the government. I am surprised they didn't have this to begin with. So much money being wasted buying drugs.
|
On June 10 2011 08:38 Samuel Neptune wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 07:54 Bunnypanda wrote:
I find it hilarious that so many Americans are cheering for this, this is a blatant foot on the constitution, if this does not get overruled i will be shocked. Looking forward to them explaining why they should search everyone in need for drugs "just because". That argument is going to be a hoot.
And they say the Democrats are "ruining the constitution" at their healthcare rally's, ha. if you lent a friend some money specifically for one thing he desperately needed and then he goes and buys some crack with it wouldn't you be inclined either to not lend him money anymore or at least know that he's not going to buy crack again? and that's a friendship. the government isn't anyone's friend
just because someone won't spend money on drugs doesn't mean he won't spend money on something else that's recreational.
That problem is a flaw in the welfare system, and targeting drug users is just an ineffective bandaid fix.
|
On June 10 2011 08:38 Samuel Neptune wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 07:54 Bunnypanda wrote:
I find it hilarious that so many Americans are cheering for this, this is a blatant foot on the constitution, if this does not get overruled i will be shocked. Looking forward to them explaining why they should search everyone in need for drugs "just because". That argument is going to be a hoot.
And they say the Democrats are "ruining the constitution" at their healthcare rally's, ha. if you lent a friend some money specifically for one thing he desperately needed and then he goes and buys some crack with it wouldn't you be inclined either to not lend him money anymore or at least know that he's not going to buy crack again? and that's a friendship. the government isn't anyone's friend
if your friend spent half of it on paying his rent so he didnt made homeless and have to mug an old lady, but the other half on crack or on a new tv?
|
Not sure how I stand on the issue entirely myself yet, but one thing I am sure of is that this will not be deemed in violation of the 4th amendment. This will be considered an "administrative search" which is:
an inspection or search carried out under a regulatory or statutory scheme esp. in public or commercial premises and usu. to enforce compliance with regulations or laws pertaining to health, safety, or security
One of the aspects of administrative searches as described in People v. Madison 1988 is that it cannot be used as a pretext for searching for criminal evidence. Therefore, no one who happens to fail their test will be brought up on charges. And since they are screening TANF applicants specifically , where the money is given to be mainly in support of the children, not the parent, they provide for the disbursement of money to someone else to be sure the children still have their needs taken care of.
Consent for this search will either be considered implied (if it is well publicized and there is a way to know of it before it begins), or there will be a consent form as part of the application (which is far more likely).
. . . Having thought more about it now, I think I see this a generally a good implementation of what could be a very bad policy.
|
the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes
|
On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote:
the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes
Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_-
Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument?
|
Why stop at drug testing? how about we just demand that they work for the welfare; we could build pyramids. Kinda like the ones in egypt.
|
While this may seem like a common sense issue, it's against the constitution. ((4th amendment specifically))
Now, if they were to add a rider that said we will drug test only those who have prior drug related convictions, that would be legal. I don't understand why they don't just do that if they're so worried about it.
|
On June 10 2011 08:45 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote:
the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_- Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument?
do you see the flaw in yours?
using drugs != the mafia.
one is a victimless crime, the other is a criminal organization..
|
On June 10 2011 08:45 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote:
the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_- Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument?
no im pointing out the REALITY of the situation
|
On June 10 2011 08:35 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:32 acker wrote:Yeah, it doesn't. The law applies to everyone equally, per the Constitution. This includes welfare users. If the police was deliberately ignoring a huge database of evidence, that would be terrible precedent. There's already existing precedents for this kind of stuff, such as how police do not use educational and medical databases to go after illegal immigrants. It would be really, really easy to compare K-12 educational databases to registered citizens/legal imimigrants and identify whole families. The idea is that certain things are not admissible as evidence in court.
Actually, police can and do use education databases to go after illegal immigrants, they can subpoena education records in illegal immigration cases. Medical records are off-limits due to doctor-patient confidentiality. As far as I can tell, the same isn't true for welfare.
On June 10 2011 08:45 sunprince wrote:
Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_-
Actually, we re-legalized a certain drug and two-thirds of organized crime vanished in a decade.
|
I think this is a good move. The welfare system has it's ups and downs; for example, here, you can't have a licensed vehicle and apply for food stamps. The government will tell you that you can sell your car to get food, and you won't qualify. On the other hand, I often get jealous when I see some fat mama on food stamps with a shopping cart full of name brand Doritos, name brand Mountain Dew, all expensive food, whatever she wants, and my tax dollars are paying for it. Bitch you should be restricted to generic only, and no junk food.
|
A: oh nooo why are we giving money to druggies, what a dumb system! lets stop doing it!
B: i agree its not perfect system but if we stop giving them that money then they will be homeless druggies
A: huh, well why dont we come up with a better system!!!! damn it use your brain!!!!
B: left the thread already
|
On June 10 2011 08:47 nttea wrote:
Why stop at drug testing? how about we just demand that they work for the welfare; we could build pyramids. Kinda like the ones in egypt.
People actually working for the money they get? Thats crazy talk!
|
On June 10 2011 08:51 accaris wrote:
I think this is a good move. The welfare system has it's ups and downs; for example, here, you can't have a licensed vehicle and apply for food stamps. The government will tell you that you can sell your car to get food, and you won't qualify. On the other hand, I often get jealous when I see some fat mama on food stamps with a shopping cart full of name brand Doritos, name brand Mountain Dew, all expensive food, whatever she wants, and my tax dollars are paying for it. Bitch you should be restricted to generic only, and no junk food.
this is true but you know, i usually tend to think that the government fucks us all up the ass so much in so many ways that ill take what i can get , fuckyouverymuch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
