|
i think its great. This gets the money to the person in the family who is actually going to spend it how its supposed to be spent. Unconstitutional?? LoL!!!! Shudn't be asking for handouts - I think its a fair trade
|
On June 10 2011 05:03 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +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".
|
On June 10 2011 05:11 Razith wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 04:46 SpoR wrote:On June 10 2011 04:43 Razith wrote:On June 10 2011 04:34 SpoR wrote:On June 10 2011 04:34 Kamuy wrote:On June 10 2011 04:28 SpoR wrote:On June 10 2011 04:27 Kamuy wrote:
I'm sorry, whats wrong with this? You stick your hand out asking me for money, I want some assurance its not going to be injected into your arm or smoked. Beggar's can't be choosers. because the honest people who don't actually do drugs. And it's not like they stick their hand out, they pay into it every paycheck when they were actually working. AND it costs a lot more money to run the testing. Why would they be against getting tested? There is ONE group of people who are being affected by this, drug users. I would think that those who dont use drugs and are on a welfare program would be happy such a test was put in place. It ensures the funds are going in the right channels and that the state can maintain the program more efficiently than before. I'm sure, just like all government run plans, the tests will probably end up costing more overall than the actual savings. I don't do drugs and I think its a fucking hassle, an invasion of privacy, and a waste of time every time I'm tested for something. Not to mention a waste of time and money from the state as well (for all the clean people obviously). You make it sound like you're tested for drugs for everything you do against your will, which is obviously not true; stop being so dramatic. To call this an invasion of privacy is a little ridiculous. They're not searching your home for drugs and paraphernalia. They're not going to gain a ton of personal information from your cup of piss. The only information that will be gained from this will be if you do drugs or not. They want to implement this because they don't want to be subsidizing criminals. The last thing we need is tax payer money being handed over to drug dealers. 9/10 jobs drug test which is already too much bullshit to endure. I mean shouldn't the interview(s) be enough to decide if the person is using drugs/fucking insane? AND they also do criminal background checks as well. No the interview isn't enough to decide if the person is using drugs. You can't tell if someone uses drugs by talking to them. You also can't determine if someone is a murder by talking to them either. Employers should have the right to make sure you aren't some coke addict or murder or any other type of criminal. These are crimes. I know many people want drugs to be legalized / decriminalized, and in this we forget that drugs are in fact still illegal. If you don't have a criminal background and don't do drugs, what are you trying to defend? People's privacy (pissing in a cup?) out-weighs the safety of other employees and to make sure you aren't a liability when an employer finds out you're a drug addict? Maybe if someone came into your home and assessed how you lived your life it would be a little much (pink drapes? NOT HIRED). But to simply piss in a cup and have your back ground checked to ensure the safety of yourself and employers isn't worth this so-called privacy invasion?
In most states, employer mandated drug tests are completely legal. State mandated drug tests are not. It's a separate issue altogether.
|
On June 10 2011 05:13 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
A good step in the right direction but I don't think you can really expect any kind of serious welfare reform from any sane person. The moment you even said it would lead to cries of racism,classism and every person wanting an easy re-election being against it if it gave them an advantage and it would.
It's no easy task to be both sensible and non-offensive to at least someone.
It's not so much a telling people how to spend the money they are given but a qualifier for getting it in the first place which I am okay with but again we need actual welfare that promotes getting off of it and back to work but that's another problem entirely.
|
Ever state needs to do this, who knows how many people on welfare, and and disability abuse the system, I know of a lady that has 8 kids, and is fit to work, but she just abuses the system and the state pays for everything. I know that she partakes in illegal drug use as well. I know arizona the "Controversal state" was thinking about doing this, and let me tell you I'm 100% into supporting this.
|
On June 10 2011 05:15 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
We need a constitutional right to privacy from private entities.
|
On June 10 2011 05:15 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Why do you say that? Why should the state give money to people who violate the law? Welfare isn't a right or anything, it's a gift from the state. Acting as if the people responsible for handing out the money can't have any standards doesn't make much sense.
|
United States1278 Posts
Finally someone does something smart around here. I have firsthand experience knowing people who do this exact thing and am glad it is going to come to an end, or at least slowed heavily.
|
On June 10 2011 05:15 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That is a matter of opinion. I would think that you can't be breaking the law and be receiving aid.
|
Making the use of drugs a disqualifier from receiving welfare is not an unreasonable search/seizure of your person.
The ACLU will of course file a suit, but the intent is to declare their objection through the courts, not to actually usurp the legislature's ability to enact this statute.
|
On June 10 2011 05:13 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +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:Show nested quote +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.
|
On June 10 2011 05:11 Razith wrote:
Employers should have the right to make sure you aren't some coke addict or murder or any other type of criminal. These are crimes. I know many people want drugs to be legalized / decriminalized, and in this we forget that drugs are in fact still illegal.
If you don't have a criminal background and don't do drugs, what are you trying to defend? People's privacy (pissing in a cup?) out-weighs the safety of other employees and to make sure you aren't a liability when an employer finds out you're a drug addict?
Well, for one, you could get rid of those pink glasses of yours and face the facts. Tests have flaws. As I previously mentioned, if you have taken - or are taking medicine regularly or, depending on the kind of medicine, some time before the drug test, you will be tested positive. Also, simply due to chance, even for extremely well designed tests, a small percentage of the people will be tested positive despite having taken no drugs - and vice versa.
Second, by the same logic, an employer should know about your intestinal cancer or your frivolous sexual behavior, too, as those are definitely important risk factors. People who have sex with a lot of partners run a higher risk of contracting STDs and some of them can be really really nasty.
Also, why stop at background checks for the actual employees? It could be important to know whether the future employee's parents are mentally healthy - psychopathology is usually heritable and you can never be too safe! To prevent your company from taking a PR hit, you should also investigate if your employees treat their children right...
While we're at it, your employee could be a spy - so it's better to track all his actions and movements around the complex - in fact this is true for every employee. This calls for around-the-clock video surveillance and computer monitoring.
Watch Gattaca.
|
Personally, I wish instead of giving government handouts, such as this, they should open up stores that sell the essentials, such as food, clothing, whatever the welfare funds are supposed to purchase, and provide them with some sort of card for qualifying individuals. This would prevent the funds from going to unintended outlets, unless of course someone sells what they buy in the stores.
|
This is sad. A lot of people are pushed into drug use by society. The government should help people off drugs, not punishing them even more.
Maybe I have too much faith in humanity. I do not believe that people who are given a fair chance in life would willingly start abusing drugs. Florida should try to keep people off drugs by rewarding those who do not do drugs. Punishing those who do is not the right way to go!
In short, it is bad welfare systems that put a lot of these people into drug problems to start with and I can only imagine that this will make matters worse.
|
While I should probably expect anger towards the idea, is it really that bad?
Personally I work full time and use the funds to pay my bills and use the rest to get high. In theory, I have a pretty big problem with someones taking but never giving back anything, cause lets be honest nobody wants to do shit after smoking up, except groceries. ( I say in theory cause I've never met anyone like this, and after I did I'd probably like them cause people who get high are usually pretty awesome. )
But for drugs beyond weed, I don't know because it would make heroin addicts ( arbitrary ) have to decide between a welfare paid shelter and their habbit, and my understanding is many of them would chose the drug and go homeless.
I should probably go read the rest of the thread, but I want to watch slayers alicia rolllllll
|
On June 10 2011 05:21 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Dude. "Consent". Look it up.
|
When you apply for welfare a thorough background check is already conducted: Your SSN is checked for legitimacy, your family's immigration status, your criminal history, medical history, substance abuse history, etc.
Most if not all of this information is protected by various laws and regulations.
When you submit an application to a federally funded organization (public assistance, welfare, food stamps, etc) the legislature (as a voice for the public) has every right to set regulations and restrictions.
If you don't meet them, you aren't eligible.
All of this is the same.
|
On June 10 2011 04:28 SpoR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 04:27 Kamuy wrote:
I'm sorry, whats wrong with this? You stick your hand out asking me for money, I want some assurance its not going to be injected into your arm or smoked. Beggar's can't be choosers. because the honest people who don't actually do drugs. And it's not like they stick their hand out, they pay into it every paycheck when they were actually working. AND it costs a lot more money to run the testing.
Yeah, but that's like saying that airport security is stupid because most people are innocent. Why not test? It's just a small safety precaution that weeds out drug users
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
