|
Poor guy just cant get rid of his majority share of Solantic.
First he (sort of) transfers the shares to his wife in an Revocable Trust then he desperatly tries to sell them.
But this damn state agency (he now is head of) just wont aprove.
Meanwhile he is busy fighting drugs by screening state workers and wellfare applicants.
----
money making aside. i think this is terrible. and approval to this seems extremely short sighted to me.
|
On June 10 2011 08:48 ewswes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:45 sunprince wrote: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..
Eeeeh...I'd hesitate to call drug use a victimless crime. More like an often unfornate and tragic circumstance. But I sincerely doubt victimless.
Depending on the drug and type/level of addiction of course.
|
On June 10 2011 09:03 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:48 ewswes wrote:On June 10 2011 08:45 sunprince wrote: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.. Eeeeh...I'd hesitate to call drug use a victimless crime. More like an often unfornate and tragic circumstance. But I sincerely doubt victimless. Depending on the drug and type/level of addiction of course.
It's not really victimless at all here in the U.S. Most the drugs are smuggled in through Mexico, and the cartels that are supported are shockingly brutal. They are known for kidnapping, murder, and beheadings.
I suppose if its pot and its homegrown or from Canada you could say its victimless, but I'm pretty sure that is a pretty small % of the drugs overall.
|
i think everyones chance of being stabbed in the back by a junky just got increased. Drugs are number 1 to them weither they have to get some clean piss or give a blow job or two breaking the law for there next hit is no worries to them
|
On June 10 2011 04:25 SpoR wrote:
Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state's congressional delegation issued a joint
ya mon
|
On June 10 2011 08:41 FFGenerations wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:38 Samuel Neptune wrote: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?
If you are getting so much money from welfare that you can spend half of it on a tv, then one of these two statements is true:
A) You are getting too much money.
B) Welfare barely gives enough money to pay rent + food + bills. So you probably have a secondary source of income that you're not reporting, or you're malnourishing yourself.
I'm gonna go with B, but hey, maybe it's A. Either way, it's a problem.
I mean, damn, I know I sure can't afford to spend half my paycheck on luxury items like drugs and I work near full time. These welfare people must be making a lot more money than me.
|
On June 10 2011 09:15 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:41 FFGenerations wrote:On June 10 2011 08:38 Samuel Neptune wrote: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? If you are getting so much money from welfare that you can spend half of it on a tv, then one of these two statements is true: A) You are getting too much money. B) Welfare barely gives enough money to pay rent + food + bills. So you probably have a secondary source of income that you're not reporting, or you're malnourishing yourself. I'm gonna go with B, but hey, maybe it's A. Either way, it's a problem. I mean, damn, I know I sure can't afford to spend half my paycheck on luxury items like drugs and I work near full time. These welfare people must be making a lot more money than me.
maybe they deal some on the side 
|
On June 10 2011 09:13 Yogie wrote:
i think everyones chance of being stabbed in the back by a junky just got increased. Drugs are number 1 to them weither they have to get some clean piss or give a blow job or two breaking the law for there next hit is no worries to them
What an adorable post :3
I kind of just see this move as a less-than-effective way to spend even more money on these programs, as drug testing is not free or cheap at all. Then again that sounds like the cornerstone of our drug enforcement policies anyway lol. But it's not really a big deal anyway, the only people who will be denied welfare are those who are too reckless to get past a simple drug test. Big boo hoo from me.
On June 10 2011 09:34 Nizaris wrote:
sigh, drug tests only detects idiots. The rest will just buy clean piss on craigslist.
|
Amazing idea, I hope every state puts this into effect.
|
sigh, drug tests only detects idiots. The rest will just buy clean piss on the internet. Plenty of website already sell it.
|
On June 10 2011 09:03 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:48 ewswes wrote:On June 10 2011 08:45 sunprince wrote: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.. Eeeeh...I'd hesitate to call drug use a victimless crime. More like an often unfornate and tragic circumstance. But I sincerely doubt victimless. Depending on the drug and type/level of addiction of course.
Is there some drug that magically harms someone other than the person using it?
|
On June 10 2011 05:40 natebreen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:34 Omnipresent wrote:
That's not a rebuttal.
An illegal search is mandated in order to receive benefits to which you are entitled. The fact that the state doesn't literally hold you down to extract blood or urine from you doesn't mean you're allowed to consent. If you "consent," you get the benefits you're legally entitled to. If you don't, the state withholds your benefits.
You're using the word "consent" in a place it doesn't belong. The state can't legally force you to choose between taking a drug test and receiving your benefits. That's the definition of an unreasonable search. You keep ignoring my posts but I'll continue to provide counterpoints to your argument (that is without basis) for other people's benefit: You are only entitled to benefits if you fit the qualifications of the program. People who smoke cigarettes who have COPD and are on Oxygen 24/7 are not entitled to their benefits from Social Security Disability despite how much they've paid in becuase they are violating the qualifications of the program. The same is said for any requirement or background qualification of any government program. Technically we've all paid in, and are all entitled to attempt to qualify. Just like SSDI, you don't automatically qualify for welfare. Screening for drug use as a qualifying feature is an addition to the legislation, not a complete reworking of the ideology behind it, nor is it unconstitutional.
Sorry, I didn't intend to Ignore you. I was balls tired and not really able to focus on too many things at once.
Submitting medical records for a medical disability program (like social security disability) is a complete necessity, and the government isn't obligated to cover every type of disability. That's not what a drug test for welfare is.
There may be a background check for various government programs as well, but that's just a review of public records. There's no new search going on. The background check isn't discovering new information. This isn't even a search, and therefore isn't a 4th amendment issue at all.
But something like a state mandated drug test is a search. Without probable cause, it's an unlawful search. Claiming it's a requirement in order to qualify for benefits doesn't suddenly make it constitutional. If you want to drug test welfare recipients on parole for drug-related offenses, that's fine. Testing everyone, regardless of suspicion, is the most clear example of an unlawful search possible.
On June 10 2011 05:42 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:21 Omnipresent wrote:On June 10 2011 05:13 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 05:03 Omnipresent wrote:On June 10 2011 04:52 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 04:47 Omnipresent wrote:
About probable cause: This is a case of unreasonable searches. It's a fourth amendment issue. The state needs probable cause (and often a warrant) in order to engage in almost any search, including drug tests. People draw parallels to this mandatory drug testing and the kind of drug testing you might undergo when starting a new job. The difference is that you're protected from this type of search by the constitution, as long as the state is doing it. There's no federal law governing whether private employers can drug test you or not. Some states allow it while others do not. Mandatory testing by the government (state or federal), without cause and without a warrant, is unconstitutional. You might not care that it's unconstitutional, but it is. What you fail to comprehend is the fact that the government is not forcing these drug tests. Nobody is being forced to submit without probable cause. The people who want government benefits give their voluntary consent to the drug test (search) and with consent, probable cause is never needed. To my knowledge, the law makes no such distinction. Like it or not, welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits. This is essentially no different than money you receive from state tax returns. The state is withholding aid (to which the recipient is legally entitled), unless he/she submits a drug test. This is a clear case of an unreasonable search. Lawsuits from the ACLU of Florida, challenging that exact point, are already pending. You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient". Not if it's unconstitutional... You're doing verbal gymnastics here. People who otherwise qualify for welfare are being subjected to an illegal search in order to receive their benefits. That's the point. Claiming the test is part of qualifying for welfare instead of part of claiming benefits doesn't change the issue. This is a state-mandated search without cause and without a warrant. It's unconstitutional. On June 10 2011 05:19 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 05:15 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 05:13 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 05:03 Omnipresent wrote:On June 10 2011 04:52 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 04:47 Omnipresent wrote:
About probable cause: This is a case of unreasonable searches. It's a fourth amendment issue. The state needs probable cause (and often a warrant) in order to engage in almost any search, including drug tests. People draw parallels to this mandatory drug testing and the kind of drug testing you might undergo when starting a new job. The difference is that you're protected from this type of search by the constitution, as long as the state is doing it. There's no federal law governing whether private employers can drug test you or not. Some states allow it while others do not. Mandatory testing by the government (state or federal), without cause and without a warrant, is unconstitutional. You might not care that it's unconstitutional, but it is. What you fail to comprehend is the fact that the government is not forcing these drug tests. Nobody is being forced to submit without probable cause. The people who want government benefits give their voluntary consent to the drug test (search) and with consent, probable cause is never needed. To my knowledge, the law makes no such distinction. Like it or not, welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits. This is essentially no different than money you receive from state tax returns. The state is withholding aid (to which the recipient is legally entitled), unless he/she submits a drug test. This is a clear case of an unreasonable search. Lawsuits from the ACLU of Florida, challenging that exact point, are already pending. You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient". And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption. And that's a fine debate, what "should" be the requirements to become eligible for welfare or whatever other benefits. Florida has taken the stance that one of those requirements is successful drug screening. This is not a 4th Amendment issue, nor is anyone automatically "entitled" to such government benefits without qualification by whatever means the state requires. Florida doesn't have the legal authority to make that provision. This is still a clear 4th amendment issue. They're not allowed to mandate the search no matter what. Except for the fact that you're completely wrong. They aren't prosecuting people if the test comes back positive.
While 4th amendment issues usually arise out of criminal cases, the state doesn't have to prosecute (or even intend to prosecute) individuals in order for a search to be illegal.
Here's a hypothetical. Florida wants to do a survey of how many households have meth users in them. They want to do this study for purely academic reasons. The terms of the study explicitly forbid prosecution based on any evidence collected during the study. The state decides to thoroughly check everyone's home for meth, pipes, etc. (entering without permission and searching). This would clearly be unconstitutional. It doesn't matter if they ever prosecute, or intend to prosecute, anyone.
Just like the state needs a warrant to enter your home, they've always needed a warrant (or other court order) in order to compel you to donate urine, blood or hair for testing. This program is no different. This is a very solid 4th amendment issue.
|
On June 10 2011 09:36 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 09:03 The KY wrote:On June 10 2011 08:48 ewswes wrote:On June 10 2011 08:45 sunprince wrote: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.. Eeeeh...I'd hesitate to call drug use a victimless crime. More like an often unfornate and tragic circumstance. But I sincerely doubt victimless. Depending on the drug and type/level of addiction of course. Is there some drug that magically harms someone other than the person using it?
I think he means the ones that fund vicious cartels down in south America. So those would probably be heroin and cocaine.
|
On June 10 2011 09:43 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 09:36 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On June 10 2011 09:03 The KY wrote:On June 10 2011 08:48 ewswes wrote:On June 10 2011 08:45 sunprince wrote: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.. Eeeeh...I'd hesitate to call drug use a victimless crime. More like an often unfornate and tragic circumstance. But I sincerely doubt victimless. Depending on the drug and type/level of addiction of course. Is there some drug that magically harms someone other than the person using it? I think he means the ones that fund vicious cartels down in south America. So those would probably be heroin and cocaine.
Weed is also a major income for cartels. It was like 30% of their income iirc.
Governments apparently are glad that i give 5% of my income to criminals.
|
On June 10 2011 09:43 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:40 natebreen wrote:On June 10 2011 05:34 Omnipresent wrote:
That's not a rebuttal.
An illegal search is mandated in order to receive benefits to which you are entitled. The fact that the state doesn't literally hold you down to extract blood or urine from you doesn't mean you're allowed to consent. If you "consent," you get the benefits you're legally entitled to. If you don't, the state withholds your benefits.
You're using the word "consent" in a place it doesn't belong. The state can't legally force you to choose between taking a drug test and receiving your benefits. That's the definition of an unreasonable search. You keep ignoring my posts but I'll continue to provide counterpoints to your argument (that is without basis) for other people's benefit: You are only entitled to benefits if you fit the qualifications of the program. People who smoke cigarettes who have COPD and are on Oxygen 24/7 are not entitled to their benefits from Social Security Disability despite how much they've paid in becuase they are violating the qualifications of the program. The same is said for any requirement or background qualification of any government program. Technically we've all paid in, and are all entitled to attempt to qualify. Just like SSDI, you don't automatically qualify for welfare. Screening for drug use as a qualifying feature is an addition to the legislation, not a complete reworking of the ideology behind it, nor is it unconstitutional. Sorry, I didn't intend to Ignore you. I was balls tired and not really able to focus on too many things at once. Submitting medical records for a medical disability program (like social security disability) is a complete necessity, and the government isn't obligated to cover every type of disability. That's not what a drug test for welfare is. There may be a background check for various government programs as well, but that's just a review of public records. There's no new search going on. The background check isn't discovering new information. This isn't even a search, and therefore isn't a 4th amendment issue at all. But something like a state mandated drug test is a search. Without probable cause, it's an unlawful search. Claiming it's a requirement in order to qualify for benefits doesn't suddenly make it constitutional. If you want to drug test welfare recipients on parole for drug-related offenses, that's fine. Testing everyone, regardless of suspicion, is the most clear example of an unlawful search possible. Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:42 RoosterSamurai wrote:On June 10 2011 05:21 Omnipresent wrote:On June 10 2011 05:13 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 05:03 Omnipresent wrote:On June 10 2011 04:52 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 04:47 Omnipresent wrote:
About probable cause: This is a case of unreasonable searches. It's a fourth amendment issue. The state needs probable cause (and often a warrant) in order to engage in almost any search, including drug tests. People draw parallels to this mandatory drug testing and the kind of drug testing you might undergo when starting a new job. The difference is that you're protected from this type of search by the constitution, as long as the state is doing it. There's no federal law governing whether private employers can drug test you or not. Some states allow it while others do not. Mandatory testing by the government (state or federal), without cause and without a warrant, is unconstitutional. You might not care that it's unconstitutional, but it is. What you fail to comprehend is the fact that the government is not forcing these drug tests. Nobody is being forced to submit without probable cause. The people who want government benefits give their voluntary consent to the drug test (search) and with consent, probable cause is never needed. To my knowledge, the law makes no such distinction. Like it or not, welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits. This is essentially no different than money you receive from state tax returns. The state is withholding aid (to which the recipient is legally entitled), unless he/she submits a drug test. This is a clear case of an unreasonable search. Lawsuits from the ACLU of Florida, challenging that exact point, are already pending. You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient". Not if it's unconstitutional... You're doing verbal gymnastics here. People who otherwise qualify for welfare are being subjected to an illegal search in order to receive their benefits. That's the point. Claiming the test is part of qualifying for welfare instead of part of claiming benefits doesn't change the issue. This is a state-mandated search without cause and without a warrant. It's unconstitutional. On June 10 2011 05:19 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 05:15 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 05:13 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 05:03 Omnipresent wrote:On June 10 2011 04:52 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 04:47 Omnipresent wrote:
About probable cause: This is a case of unreasonable searches. It's a fourth amendment issue. The state needs probable cause (and often a warrant) in order to engage in almost any search, including drug tests. People draw parallels to this mandatory drug testing and the kind of drug testing you might undergo when starting a new job. The difference is that you're protected from this type of search by the constitution, as long as the state is doing it. There's no federal law governing whether private employers can drug test you or not. Some states allow it while others do not. Mandatory testing by the government (state or federal), without cause and without a warrant, is unconstitutional. You might not care that it's unconstitutional, but it is. What you fail to comprehend is the fact that the government is not forcing these drug tests. Nobody is being forced to submit without probable cause. The people who want government benefits give their voluntary consent to the drug test (search) and with consent, probable cause is never needed. To my knowledge, the law makes no such distinction. Like it or not, welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits. This is essentially no different than money you receive from state tax returns. The state is withholding aid (to which the recipient is legally entitled), unless he/she submits a drug test. This is a clear case of an unreasonable search. Lawsuits from the ACLU of Florida, challenging that exact point, are already pending. You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient". And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption. And that's a fine debate, what "should" be the requirements to become eligible for welfare or whatever other benefits. Florida has taken the stance that one of those requirements is successful drug screening. This is not a 4th Amendment issue, nor is anyone automatically "entitled" to such government benefits without qualification by whatever means the state requires. Florida doesn't have the legal authority to make that provision. This is still a clear 4th amendment issue. They're not allowed to mandate the search no matter what. Except for the fact that you're completely wrong. They aren't prosecuting people if the test comes back positive. While 4th amendment issues usually arise out of criminal cases, the state doesn't have to prosecute (or even intend to prosecute) individuals in order for a search to be illegal. Here's a hypothetical. Florida wants to do a survey of how many households have meth users in them. They want to do this study for purely academic reasons. The terms of the study explicitly forbid prosecution based on any evidence collected during the study. The state decides to thoroughly check everyone's home for meth, pipes, etc. (entering without permission and searching). This would clearly be unconstitutional. It doesn't matter if they ever prosecute, or intend to prosecute, anyone. Just like the state needs a warrant to enter your home, they've always needed a warrant (or other court order) in order to compel you to donate urine, blood or hair for testing. This program is no different. This is a very solid 4th amendment issue.
Your example isn't the same as this situation. If you could opt out of the search, it would be fine. Welfare is NOT MANDATORY. There is no law that requires these people to get the free government money. But in your example, it is a mandatory search of each house/person/whatever.
|
On June 10 2011 09:47 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 09:43 Omnipresent wrote:On June 10 2011 05:40 natebreen wrote:On June 10 2011 05:34 Omnipresent wrote:
That's not a rebuttal.
An illegal search is mandated in order to receive benefits to which you are entitled. The fact that the state doesn't literally hold you down to extract blood or urine from you doesn't mean you're allowed to consent. If you "consent," you get the benefits you're legally entitled to. If you don't, the state withholds your benefits.
You're using the word "consent" in a place it doesn't belong. The state can't legally force you to choose between taking a drug test and receiving your benefits. That's the definition of an unreasonable search. You keep ignoring my posts but I'll continue to provide counterpoints to your argument (that is without basis) for other people's benefit: You are only entitled to benefits if you fit the qualifications of the program. People who smoke cigarettes who have COPD and are on Oxygen 24/7 are not entitled to their benefits from Social Security Disability despite how much they've paid in becuase they are violating the qualifications of the program. The same is said for any requirement or background qualification of any government program. Technically we've all paid in, and are all entitled to attempt to qualify. Just like SSDI, you don't automatically qualify for welfare. Screening for drug use as a qualifying feature is an addition to the legislation, not a complete reworking of the ideology behind it, nor is it unconstitutional. Sorry, I didn't intend to Ignore you. I was balls tired and not really able to focus on too many things at once. Submitting medical records for a medical disability program (like social security disability) is a complete necessity, and the government isn't obligated to cover every type of disability. That's not what a drug test for welfare is. There may be a background check for various government programs as well, but that's just a review of public records. There's no new search going on. The background check isn't discovering new information. This isn't even a search, and therefore isn't a 4th amendment issue at all. But something like a state mandated drug test is a search. Without probable cause, it's an unlawful search. Claiming it's a requirement in order to qualify for benefits doesn't suddenly make it constitutional. If you want to drug test welfare recipients on parole for drug-related offenses, that's fine. Testing everyone, regardless of suspicion, is the most clear example of an unlawful search possible. On June 10 2011 05:42 RoosterSamurai wrote:On June 10 2011 05:21 Omnipresent wrote:On June 10 2011 05:13 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 05:03 Omnipresent wrote:On June 10 2011 04:52 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 04:47 Omnipresent wrote:
About probable cause: This is a case of unreasonable searches. It's a fourth amendment issue. The state needs probable cause (and often a warrant) in order to engage in almost any search, including drug tests. People draw parallels to this mandatory drug testing and the kind of drug testing you might undergo when starting a new job. The difference is that you're protected from this type of search by the constitution, as long as the state is doing it. There's no federal law governing whether private employers can drug test you or not. Some states allow it while others do not. Mandatory testing by the government (state or federal), without cause and without a warrant, is unconstitutional. You might not care that it's unconstitutional, but it is. What you fail to comprehend is the fact that the government is not forcing these drug tests. Nobody is being forced to submit without probable cause. The people who want government benefits give their voluntary consent to the drug test (search) and with consent, probable cause is never needed. To my knowledge, the law makes no such distinction. Like it or not, welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits. This is essentially no different than money you receive from state tax returns. The state is withholding aid (to which the recipient is legally entitled), unless he/she submits a drug test. This is a clear case of an unreasonable search. Lawsuits from the ACLU of Florida, challenging that exact point, are already pending. You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient". Not if it's unconstitutional... You're doing verbal gymnastics here. People who otherwise qualify for welfare are being subjected to an illegal search in order to receive their benefits. That's the point. Claiming the test is part of qualifying for welfare instead of part of claiming benefits doesn't change the issue. This is a state-mandated search without cause and without a warrant. It's unconstitutional. On June 10 2011 05:19 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 05:15 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 05:13 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 05:03 Omnipresent wrote:On June 10 2011 04:52 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 04:47 Omnipresent wrote:
About probable cause: This is a case of unreasonable searches. It's a fourth amendment issue. The state needs probable cause (and often a warrant) in order to engage in almost any search, including drug tests. People draw parallels to this mandatory drug testing and the kind of drug testing you might undergo when starting a new job. The difference is that you're protected from this type of search by the constitution, as long as the state is doing it. There's no federal law governing whether private employers can drug test you or not. Some states allow it while others do not. Mandatory testing by the government (state or federal), without cause and without a warrant, is unconstitutional. You might not care that it's unconstitutional, but it is. What you fail to comprehend is the fact that the government is not forcing these drug tests. Nobody is being forced to submit without probable cause. The people who want government benefits give their voluntary consent to the drug test (search) and with consent, probable cause is never needed. To my knowledge, the law makes no such distinction. Like it or not, welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits. This is essentially no different than money you receive from state tax returns. The state is withholding aid (to which the recipient is legally entitled), unless he/she submits a drug test. This is a clear case of an unreasonable search. Lawsuits from the ACLU of Florida, challenging that exact point, are already pending. You use the phrase "welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits". With this law change, passing a drug test is part of the requirement to qualify as a "welfare recipient". And that's the crux of the problem, to be a "welfare recipient" should only entail your financial needs not your illicit drug consumption. And that's a fine debate, what "should" be the requirements to become eligible for welfare or whatever other benefits. Florida has taken the stance that one of those requirements is successful drug screening. This is not a 4th Amendment issue, nor is anyone automatically "entitled" to such government benefits without qualification by whatever means the state requires. Florida doesn't have the legal authority to make that provision. This is still a clear 4th amendment issue. They're not allowed to mandate the search no matter what. Except for the fact that you're completely wrong. They aren't prosecuting people if the test comes back positive. While 4th amendment issues usually arise out of criminal cases, the state doesn't have to prosecute (or even intend to prosecute) individuals in order for a search to be illegal. Here's a hypothetical. Florida wants to do a survey of how many households have meth users in them. They want to do this study for purely academic reasons. The terms of the study explicitly forbid prosecution based on any evidence collected during the study. The state decides to thoroughly check everyone's home for meth, pipes, etc. (entering without permission and searching). This would clearly be unconstitutional. It doesn't matter if they ever prosecute, or intend to prosecute, anyone. Just like the state needs a warrant to enter your home, they've always needed a warrant (or other court order) in order to compel you to donate urine, blood or hair for testing. This program is no different. This is a very solid 4th amendment issue. Your example isn't the same as this situation. If you could opt out of the search, it would be fine. Welfare is NOT MANDATORY. There is no law that requires these people to get the free government money. But in your example, it is a mandatory search of each house/person/whatever.
That's a fair distinction to make, but it doesn't change the end point. Take the same hypothetical, but they only want to search your home for meth if you intend to collect state tax returns. You don't have to let them search your home. It's "NOT MANDATORY," but you're forced for forgo money to which you're entitled if you deny their unreasonable search.
Whether the search is technically mandatory or not, welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits under the law. Denying them those benefits because they refuse to comply with an unreasonable search (without probable cause) is essentially the same thing as making it mandatory.
|
People don't understand addiction. What I predict happening; many many people will test positive for drugs and be denied the benefit. They are then forced into crime / homelessness to continue their drug habbit and to just live. Taxpayer money is now shunted towards repairing damage done by crime and medical expenses. Nice job.
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
Its all very well and good to be self righteous about drug use. But its not as clear cut and simple as "only criminals / bad people do drugs". Its societies problem to prevent it from happening in the first place and to HELP those who are addicted. Many addicts feel trapped in their situation; "well If i seek help I will go to prison / lose my job and house" etc. This kind of legislation is just conservative morons wanting to sweep the problem under the rug, only for it to push out the other side.
|
On June 10 2011 09:55 LtLolburger wrote:
People don't understand addiction. What I predict happening; many many people will test positive for drugs and be denied the benefit. They are then forced into crime / homelessness to continue their drug habbit and to just live. Taxpayer money is now shunted towards repairing damage done by crime and medical expenses. Nice job.
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
Its all very well and good to be self righteous about drug use. But its not as clear cut and simple as "only criminals / bad people do drugs". Its societies problem to prevent it from happening in the first place and to HELP those who are addicted. Many addicts feel trapped in their situation; "well If i seek help I will go to prison / lose my job and house" etc. This kind of legislation is just conservative morons wanting to sweep the problem under the rug, only for it to push out the other side.
Clearly you don't understand it either. "Addiction" doesn't make you dumb. Like i said idiots will fail, the rest will buy clean piss on craigslist.
All this does is SURPRISE waste tax payers dollars, who cares we have too much of those right? Thank fucking god it's not my taxes.
|
On June 10 2011 08:39 Mormagil wrote:
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 believe that people who break the law should still be able to eat well, be sheltered, etc. Does anyone have a problem with this? Cause if not, then we still have to give people who did drugs a few days ago their welfare check, right? If we don't, there will be people who can't do those things that I, and many others, believe everyone should be able to do.
On June 10 2011 10:01 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 09:55 LtLolburger wrote:
People don't understand addiction. What I predict happening; many many people will test positive for drugs and be denied the benefit. They are then forced into crime / homelessness to continue their drug habbit and to just live. Taxpayer money is now shunted towards repairing damage done by crime and medical expenses. Nice job.
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
Its all very well and good to be self righteous about drug use. But its not as clear cut and simple as "only criminals / bad people do drugs". Its societies problem to prevent it from happening in the first place and to HELP those who are addicted. Many addicts feel trapped in their situation; "well If i seek help I will go to prison / lose my job and house" etc. This kind of legislation is just conservative morons wanting to sweep the problem under the rug, only for it to push out the other side. Clearly you don't understand it either. "Addiction" doesn't make you dumb. Like i said idiots will fail, the rest will buy clean piss on craigslist.
A) Why did you put addiction in quotes?
B) Why is it ok that idiots fail? Should we not care if idiots are starving on the streets?
|
Guilty before proven innocent kind of thing.
Tested before proven innocent is not the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
8913
1417
1129
109
105
EPT
