|
On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D
It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties.
Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits.
|
On August 29 2011 04:54 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties. Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits.
Its really tricky to analyze which amendments states have to abide by and to which extent. We can't possibly know the Constitutionality of this until it passes through the courts. It is, however, debatable whether or not its Constitutional but we will not know for sure until judges begin ruling on it.
|
The thing is, cannabis is the only drug that shows up on a drug test after like 4-5 days of stopped usage. Heroin and cocaine leave no trace after 48 hours since usage. The hard drugs are what the government should be worried about, cannabis affects people's behavior far less than alcohol does...
All I see this legislation doing is hurting people on welfare who also happen to be cannabis smokers while not addressing people with real drug problems.
|
On August 29 2011 04:56 tryummm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 04:54 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties. Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits. Its really tricky to analyze which amendments states have to abide by and to which extent. We can't possibly know the Constitutionality of this until it passes through the courts. It is, however, debatable whether or not its Constitutional but we will not know for sure until judges begin ruling on it.
You're kidding, right? The states have to abide by all the amendments, to their full extent.
It's true, there's no official ruling on constitutionality until the courts get a hold of this law, but it looks pretty clear to me.
|
Now that we know the state is losing money on this we get to see whether their original reason for enacting it was actually to save money or if it was to just vindictively humiliate a lot of poor people
|
On August 29 2011 00:14 mastergriggy wrote:Great idea Florida. We're starting to have a problem with that in Colorado T.T Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 22:23 Fleebenworth wrote:
This is precisely the kind of narrow-minded tribal thinking that enables the systematic contraction of our civil liberties. Here's to you, you proudly ignorant americans! How is this against our civil liberties? There is nothing in any document that says we can't test for drugs, and the only people who are affected are those doing something illegal.
Simple - unreasonable searches and seizures. Drug testing people for use of a public service is insane.
|
On August 29 2011 04:40 slytown wrote:
It's not our place to tell individuals how to spend their money. We can only provide incentives as much as possible.
But it's not THEIR money, it belongs to the tax payer. Welfare is not charity, it is given on a conditional basis (in the UK you have to meet certain criteria, including being able to prove you are actively looking for work, so in a sense it's an investment as the government hopes with the financial support you will sooner become a tax contributing member of society) - it shouldn't be any problem to extend the criteria to include drug screening.
And on the costs of drug tests, I'm sure if the proposal was changed from drug testing for every payment to subject to 'random' on the spot testing then that would be cheaper than blanket testing everyone. Possibly the larger scale of testing would lead to reduced costs - not wholesale tests, but government owned and staff testing center etc.
96% clean = 1 in 20 a user. That is significant enough to me to warrant spending on testing. If those caught were subject to a lifelong ban on receiving welfare (none of the passing it on to someone else rubbish), it could save a fair deal.
|
The lack of empathy with people who have it worse and the lack of solidarity in this thread is... disturbing.
|
On August 29 2011 05:38 Stil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 04:40 slytown wrote:
It's not our place to tell individuals how to spend their money. We can only provide incentives as much as possible. 96% clean = 1 in 20 a user. That is significant enough to me to warrant spending on testing. If those caught were subject to a lifelong ban on receiving welfare (none of the passing it on to someone else rubbish), it could save a fair deal.
And then? You let them die of starvation?
|
gotta drug test the poor people.
cause poor people are druggies.
|
On August 29 2011 05:38 Stil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 04:40 slytown wrote:
It's not our place to tell individuals how to spend their money. We can only provide incentives as much as possible. But it's not THEIR money, it belongs to the tax payer. Welfare is not charity, it is given on a conditional basis (in the UK you have to meet certain criteria, including being able to prove you are actively looking for work, so in a sense it's an investment as the government hopes with the financial support you will sooner become a tax contributing member of society) - it shouldn't be any problem to extend the criteria to include drug screening. And on the costs of drug tests, I'm sure if the proposal was changed from drug testing for every payment to subject to 'random' on the spot testing then that would be cheaper than blanket testing everyone. Possibly the larger scale of testing would lead to reduced costs - not wholesale tests, but government owned and staff testing center etc. 96% clean = 1 in 20 a user. That is significant enough to me to warrant spending on testing. If those caught were subject to a lifelong ban on receiving welfare (none of the passing it on to someone else rubbish), it could save a fair deal.
In the US, we have a special provision to prevent government searches without a warrant or probably cause. It's the Fourth Amendment to our constitution. This drug testing program constitutes an unreasonable search, even if it were just enacted on a random sampling instead of all welfare recipients.
Also, your characterization of who the money "belongs to" is odd. The state has the money which it collected from taxes, but people who qualify for welfare are entitled to their benefits. That is, the state must pay them as long as the meet the requirements for welfare. As stated above, a search like this is illegal, and therefore cannot be a requirement for receiving welfare.
If you had read even the past couple pages, you'd know that the program costs more than it saves, so that wouldn't be a good rationale even if it were legal to test these people (and it's not).
Also 96% is 1 in 25, not 1 in 20. And only 2% actually failed the test, so that's 1 in 50. That's not exactly an epidemic, if you ask me.
And I still can't figure out why we should withhold aid to people simply because they may have smoked pot in the past month or so. "You smoked pot? Well you sure as hell can't have money for food."
|
On August 29 2011 04:54 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties. Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits.
You don't need a warrant if the person being searched is giving consent. And by consenting to receiving social assistance, they are also consenting to any searches that go along with it. Nobody forced them to be poor and have babies.
|
On August 29 2011 05:38 Stil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 04:40 slytown wrote:
It's not our place to tell individuals how to spend their money. We can only provide incentives as much as possible. But it's not THEIR money, it belongs to the tax payer. Welfare is not charity, it is given on a conditional basis (in the UK you have to meet certain criteria, including being able to prove you are actively looking for work, so in a sense it's an investment as the government hopes with the financial support you will sooner become a tax contributing member of society) - it shouldn't be any problem to extend the criteria to include drug screening. And on the costs of drug tests, I'm sure if the proposal was changed from drug testing for every payment to subject to 'random' on the spot testing then that would be cheaper than blanket testing everyone. Possibly the larger scale of testing would lead to reduced costs - not wholesale tests, but government owned and staff testing center etc. 96% clean = 1 in 20 a user. That is significant enough to me to warrant spending on testing. If those caught were subject to a lifelong ban on receiving welfare (none of the passing it on to someone else rubbish), it could save a fair deal.
96% clean (even assuming the 2% that did not complete their applications were *all* drug users) is one in 25, not one in 20, and it is *still* lower than Florida's state average of around 8%. This program to stop welfare recipients (in this case specifically cash recipients) from buying illicit drugs is firstly not founded on good statistics (or statistics at all) and secondly going to cost the state way more money than it saves. It is a bad policy that does little other than put money in the pocket of the Governor (NOT the state). Further, the expense of the policy is going to be huge if this goes to court, which seems likely. It's just not worth it.
|
On August 29 2011 05:54 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 04:54 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties. Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits. You don't need a warrant if the person being searched is giving consent. And by consenting to receiving social assistance, they are also consenting to any searches that go along with it. Nobody forced them to be poor and have babies.
Didn't we have this exact argument like a month ago?
People are entitled to their welfare. The state must pay them the money if they qualify. A drug test cannot be a requirement for welfare because the state doesn't have the right to force people to take the test (which is an unreasonable search) in order to claim what is legally theirs.
Would you make the same argument if the state wanted to drug test everyone in order for them to receive their tax returns? I sincerely doubt it, but it's the same thing.
|
On August 29 2011 05:54 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 04:54 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties. Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits. You don't need a warrant if the person being searched is giving consent. And by consenting to receiving social assistance, they are also consenting to any searches that go along with it. Nobody forced them to be poor and have babies.
Exactly. Is airport security unreasonable search and seizure? No, because you want to fly (receive welfare) and they set up criteria, like not having knives (not being on drugs) You don't have to undergo the search, but you won't get welfare. They modified the welfare so that is excludes those who fail...
|
On August 29 2011 06:02 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 05:54 RoosterSamurai wrote:On August 29 2011 04:54 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties. Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits. You don't need a warrant if the person being searched is giving consent. And by consenting to receiving social assistance, they are also consenting to any searches that go along with it. Nobody forced them to be poor and have babies. Didn't we have this exact argument like a month ago? People are entitled to their welfare. The state must pay them the money if they qualify. A drug test cannot be a requirement for welfare because the state doesn't have the right to force people to take the test (which is an unreasonable search) in order to claim what is legally theirs. Would you make the same argument if the state wanted to drug test everyone in order for them to receive their tax returns? I sincerely doubt it, but it's the same thing.
The law changes the requirements for receiving cash assistance (note: not all welfare is covered under this, for instance food stamps) so that people are *not* entitled to cash assistance unless they consent to a drug test. Sneaky, but it doesn't mean the ACLU doesn't have a case.
|
On August 29 2011 06:02 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 05:54 RoosterSamurai wrote:On August 29 2011 04:54 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties. Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits. You don't need a warrant if the person being searched is giving consent. And by consenting to receiving social assistance, they are also consenting to any searches that go along with it. Nobody forced them to be poor and have babies. Exactly. Is airport security unreasonable search and seizure? No, because you want to fly (receive welfare) and they set up criteria, like not having knives (not being on drugs) You don't have to undergo the search, but you won't get welfare. They modified the welfare so that is excludes those who fail...
dont compare drug testing to airports please. Seriously.
|
On August 29 2011 05:07 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 04:56 tryummm wrote:On August 29 2011 04:54 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties. Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits. Its really tricky to analyze which amendments states have to abide by and to which extent. We can't possibly know the Constitutionality of this until it passes through the courts. It is, however, debatable whether or not its Constitutional but we will not know for sure until judges begin ruling on it. You're kidding, right? The states have to abide by all the amendments, to their full extent. It's true, there's no official ruling on constitutionality until the courts get a hold of this law, but it looks pretty clear to me.
So I guess Barron v. Baltimore, Gideon v. Wainwright, Gitlow v. New York, etc...are not real court cases. I wonder why they are posted all over the internet and taught in University to be court cases. I guess my college professors must have lied to me also when I took poltiical science classes when they discusses disputes over the extent of the Bill of Rights that apply to state governments. I wonder why they would do such a thing.
|
On August 29 2011 06:02 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 05:54 RoosterSamurai wrote:On August 29 2011 04:54 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties. Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits. You don't need a warrant if the person being searched is giving consent. And by consenting to receiving social assistance, they are also consenting to any searches that go along with it. Nobody forced them to be poor and have babies. Exactly. Is airport security unreasonable search and seizure? No, because you want to fly (receive welfare) and they set up criteria, like not having knives (not being on drugs) You don't have to undergo the search, but you won't get welfare. They modified the welfare so that is excludes those who fail...
Flying is not welfare, it is a private business that the government regulates, and people are searched due to the dangers of harming others. Try another example.
|
On August 29 2011 05:33 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 00:14 mastergriggy wrote:Great idea Florida. We're starting to have a problem with that in Colorado T.T On August 28 2011 22:23 Fleebenworth wrote:
This is precisely the kind of narrow-minded tribal thinking that enables the systematic contraction of our civil liberties. Here's to you, you proudly ignorant americans! How is this against our civil liberties? There is nothing in any document that says we can't test for drugs, and the only people who are affected are those doing something illegal. Simple - unreasonable searches and seizures. Drug testing people for use of a public service is insane.
It's not unreasonable to test for drugs any more than it is to walk through security at an airport or courtroom. Are we concerned that people who do illegal activities have freedom to do these illegal activities as long as they don't get caught? I sincerely hope not (nor am I saying that's what you are arguing, just that's where that line of logic goes).
The 4th Amendment was created so a police officer can't barge into someone's home and search the place or anything of the sort. I don't know how voluntarily consenting to a drug test either is in anyway unreasonable or constitutes searching or seizures.
It's insane to me that so many people get worked up about this. The one time the government is trying to help the economy by prioritizing money to people who need it more than the drug dealers, everyone freaks out about it yelling "my inapplicable rights command that you don't do this to me! I need my pot!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
