| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Zooper31
United States5712 Posts
On June 11 2011 05:07 Billyray wrote: How do you figure those people will get their money to live now ? Idk working? That's what I've been told all my life. Theres no such thing as free money, thats why it's called money... | ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
Considering no one gives a flying fuck about the hundreds of other back checks that the government does to award someone with welfare in the first place, I don't understand the complaints. Newsflash, making ends meet is more important than any drug, and this incentive to get clean is huge. | ||
|
Billyray
Canada49 Posts
On June 11 2011 17:02 iCanada wrote: I don't understand how this could possibly be construed as unconstitutional. It isn't like they are forcing mandatory drug tests for all, they are just making you being drug free a requirement for them giving you free money... Considering no one gives a flying fuck about the hundreds of other back checks that the government does to award someone with welfare in the first place, I don't understand the complaints. Newsflash, making ends meet is more important than any drug, and this incentive to get clean is huge. Armchair lawyers need to calm down. It's unconstitutional because a judge says so: you don't see people arguing with doctors about wether or not they have cancer or with engineers about the best way to build a bridge. So why does everyone feel that they have the necessary skills and experience to tackle one of the most arcane and complex area of the law is beyond me. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
| ||
|
Billyray
Canada49 Posts
On June 11 2011 16:31 Zooper31 wrote: Idk working? That's what I've been told all my life. Theres no such thing as free money, thats why it's called money... How many % of them will get a job you think ? How many % will resort to crime/working on the side avoiding taxes ? What about just going plain ole vanilla homeless and just going to the shelter to eat ? Getting people off the dole only for them to start dealing drugs or stealing cars isn't the brightest idea. | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
On June 11 2011 16:31 Zooper31 wrote: Idk working? That's what I've been told all my life. Theres no such thing as free money, thats why it's called money... there's no such thing as "jobs" for everyone. That's what everyone who puts 5 minutes of thinking into it knows. | ||
|
Enchanted
United States1609 Posts
On June 12 2011 01:23 Billyray wrote: How many % of them will get a job you think ? How many % will resort to crime/working on the side avoiding taxes ? What about just going plain ole vanilla homeless and just going to the shelter to eat ? Getting people off the dole only for them to start dealing drugs or stealing cars isn't the brightest idea. So it's better to give them free money and let them waste it on drugs? That's what you want your tax money to do? | ||
|
EvilNalu
United States91 Posts
The Fourth Amendment requires that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches . . . shall not be violated . . . ." Basically, this means that whenever the government performs a search, it must be reasonable. First, the Supreme Court has held that a urine drug test does constitute a search. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 617. Therefore the only real question here is whether a search of all TANF applicants is reasonable. In most cases, reasonableness is supplied by a particularized suspicion of wrongdoing. However, in this case there is no particularized suspicion; every applicant to the TANF is being subjected to this search. The Supreme Court has defined a class of exceptions to the particularized suspicion requirement for when special needs, other than law enforcement, justify a search. Basically, this involves weighing the individual's right to privacy with the governmental interest at stake. This will be the battleground for this law - do the governmental interests in spending welfare money effectively and preventing fraud, etc. counterbalance the applicants' privacy rights? This is a tough question and it is one about which reasonable people can disagree. To show you how close these questions are: many posters have already pointed out that a similar law was struck down in Michigan. It was this exact question that the courts wrestled with: do the governmental interests outweigh the right to privacy? The district court called the drug tests unconstitutional, but was initially reversed by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Recognizing that the issue was very difficult and important, the Court of Appeals vacated their own decision and reheard he case en banc - which is a somewhat rare procedure where all the judges of the circuit get together and hear a case. So, 12 federal appellate judges heard the case and they were equally divided as to its constitutionality, 6-6. Under the 6th Circuit's tiebreaker rules, this meant that the lower court's ruling stood. So, anyone who says this is an easy issue either way simply does not understand what is going on. Finally, many have been arguing either that there is a consent to the search or it is not mandated by the government, therefore it is reasonable. This really stretches the idea of consent, which must be freely and voluntarily given. I hope the following thought experiment, which simply switches which constitutional right is implicated, will help people understand: + Show Spoiler + Imagine that, instead of a search, the government conditioned TANF eligibility on accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior and passing a test that proved you were a Christian. Would that present a constitutional problem? | ||
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
That said, this proposal is ridiculous. The last thing people in the drag need is to be humiliated because of a minority of drug addicts. Last I checked you are presumed innocent without evidence of guilt, not the contrary. | ||
|
Enchanted
United States1609 Posts
On June 12 2011 01:51 Soap wrote: Instead of giving people money they can spend on drugs, the state should give them the absolute minimum (food and shelter) and use what's left to create jobs for them. That Robin Hood mentality of taxing the rich to transfer wealth to the poor penalizes the former and alienates the latter. That said, this proposal is ridiculous. The last thing people in the drag need is to be humiliated because of a minority of drug addicts. Last I checked you are presumed innocent without evidence of guilt, not the contrary. How are they being humiliated? | ||
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
 | ||
|
Enchanted
United States1609 Posts
On June 12 2011 02:22 Soap wrote: By being searched without probable cause? Are they searched or are they asked to do a drug test? I'm confused now o.o | ||
|
EvilNalu
United States91 Posts
On June 12 2011 02:39 Megatronn wrote: Are they searched or are they asked to do a drug test? I'm confused now o.o The US Supreme Court says a drug test is a search. See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 617. | ||
|
Enchanted
United States1609 Posts
On June 12 2011 03:08 EvilNalu wrote: The US Supreme Court says a drug test is a search. See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 617. Ohh, so do you feel humiliated after being "searched" when you get a physical (not sure if it's sports or physical or it's the same thing) check up? | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On June 12 2011 03:12 Megatronn wrote: Ohh, so do you feel humiliated after being "searched" when you get a physical (not sure if it's sports or physical or it's the same thing) check up? A physical without my consent? Yeah. | ||
|
muse5187
1125 Posts
| ||
|
Sworn
Canada920 Posts
| ||
|
SolidusR
United States217 Posts
On June 12 2011 05:02 muse5187 wrote: I don't understand the hate on this subject. It's not your right to receive welfare as far as I know. So how can it be unconstitutional to drug test someone who is receiving something that you are not entitled too? Just because you aren't entitled to welfare doesn't mean the government has a reasonable cause to search everyone who applies. The question here is reasonable cause, not entitlement. Any time the government does something, it needs a base reason to do so. Especially if the action is classified as a search. The circumstances which have culminated in the government being in a position to search someone are irrelevant for the question of constitutionality, it's whether or not the search itself has a reasonable purpose beyond institutionalizing the assumption that welfare recipients are generally also drug addicts. Edit: I really don't get the crack and heroin references. You guys do realize that these drug tests will fail to pick up on those drugs because they are out of your system within a day... right? Cheap tests can only detect THC cause it sits in your system for weeks to months if you are a chronic user. | ||
|
Jred
United States27 Posts
| ||
|
EnderCraft
United States1746 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:28 ComaDose wrote: Potentially violating their rights... bad Stopping people from buying drugs with tax payers money... good I hate how many dead beats get by here in ontario just sucking up government money for chicken fingers and pot and live in a shit hole and say things like. "heheh my salary was less than this". These people make me sick because they have no motivation to contribute to society. I am biased in my opinion because of knowing people like this. How effective this will be at stopping the kind of thing I am talking about I do not know. Addressing the issue is a good idea. Welfare isn't a right, it is a privilege. We live in a capitalist society, and you make what you earn. About time the government stops throwing away money to low lives.. Not saying everyone on welfare is a low life. However, addicts who are using tax payer money for their addiction are low lives... | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Leta
Queen vs Jaedong
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
RSL Revival
TriGGeR vs Cure
ByuN vs Rogue
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Maru vs MaxPax
BSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
