|
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.
I haven't been following your back and forth with Omni; however, I do agree that is isn't a fourth amendment issue but it is a right to privacy issue, which isn't drawn from one single amendment, and the federal regulations of welfare (even though this references and claims to speak only of the state specific expenditure on welfare).
It wouldn't be the first time a state law would be removed due to it being unconstitutional or because it contradicted a federal law, regulation or mandate
I agree that there SHOULD be a debate on what qualifies one to receive welfare, but with how the current welfare system stands this has to be held on the federal level and not on the state level.
|
On June 10 2011 05:21 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Do you know people that do nothing, live off a welfare check, and do drugs for a living with no interest of changing their situation? If you don't, then you really don't have an educated foot to stand on in this argument.
On June 10 2011 05:23 TS-Rupbar wrote:
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!
The sad truth is that lots and lots of people who are given a fair chance willingly abuse drugs. Florida IS rewarding people who aren't on drugs by allowing them to receive aid...
|
Floridian here. If you're going to drug test, drug test everybody. Guess what? Rick Scott and his staff won't be getting drug tested even though they are State Employees and get our Tax Dollars.
The SOLE reason this is being implemented is because he and his medical industry buddies will benefit monetarily from it. Don't worry all that money that the state "saves" from kicking druggies off welfare will go directly to the drug testing companies and to the regular population when crime goes up. Also each person will have to pay for their own drug test(cut from the check they get) and won't get compensated if they come out clean. That's also less money to people who did ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong that just vanishes.
Few will benefit and the majority will suffer. I'm interested to see how much money Florida "saves" after this boondoggle.
|
United States24784 Posts
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.
What if your "financial needs" are mostly needing to purchase drugs to get high? The nature of the financial needs is important.
|
If this is unconstitutional than aren't TSA screenings just as illegal?
|
On June 10 2011 05:26 Scorcher2k wrote:
Do you know people that do nothing, live off a welfare check, and do drugs for a living with no interest of changing their situation? If you don't, then you really don't have an educated foot to stand on in this argument.
You have provided no argument, you're just moving the goalpost. Please provide one, so I can debunk it.
|
On June 10 2011 05:21 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +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 - 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.
You bleeding-heart liberals never cease to amaze me, I hope you're trolling.
If you test positive for a drug because of medication, show proof of medication from a doctor's note or something. If the test fails, retake it if its only a small percentage that it errors.
And now you go on some ridiculous rant that makes no sense. Intestinal cancer? Frivolous sex behavior? I won't tell you, but theres one glaring difference between those 2 and what I suggested.
+ Show Spoiler +Frivolous sex and intestinal cancer ISN'T ILLEGAL.
I'll stop replying here and let you think about this one for a while, its quite obvious you need to.
|
while it seems that this is prejudice in a way, I certainly would NOT WANT ANYONE who is using our welfare system to be spending that money on drugs...
|
On June 10 2011 05:30 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:26 Scorcher2k wrote:
Do you know people that do nothing, live off a welfare check, and do drugs for a living with no interest of changing their situation? If you don't, then you really don't have an educated foot to stand on in this argument. You have provided no argument, you're just moving the goalpost. Please provide one, so I can debunk it.
I moved the goal post because you are simply playing devil's advocate and it isn't needed. If you don't have experience with people like this then you have no place just spewing crap from your mouth. It is that simple.
|
On June 10 2011 05:24 Kaitlin 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. Dude. "Consent". Look it up.
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.
|
welfare is minuscule in romania, you would live a very limited life if relying on it
i completely agree with this check though, i mean you're living off on the money from the people who actually do something for a living instead on leeching off the others.
the state has every right to check everything, including urine / blood tests. you don't want to be tested, then gtfo it's not like anyone is forcing you to test.
i hope that in the future medical technology will develop and obtain cheap, reliable and fast methods to check for illegal substances. and also those found to be using drugs should be getting a criminal record
|
On June 10 2011 05:29 micronesia 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. What if your "financial needs" are mostly needing to purchase drugs to get high? The nature of the financial needs is important.
Who is to determine the importance of any specific purchase? You say drugs aren't, but you aren't the one making the purchase nor are you the one receiving this financial aid. You don't know the utility that those drugs have for the person. And yes, I just took a very bullshit approach.
I'm a firm supporter of allowing those in poverty to have more than their fair share of alcohol and illicit drugs. We can't all have two to three minimum wage jobs, we can't all be captains of industry, we can't all make ends meet by ourselves, and some of us have to live below the line. I'm for letting them using something to make life a little more bearable and enjoyable. Are you going to tell them they have to shop at thrift store instead of purchasing brand name clothing?
And, I'm just curious, it's easy to get behind the band wagon of making it harder for drug users to obtain their drugs, but what if this legislation targeted those who had an abortion? It's an outrageous comparison, I know, but it still stands as a valid argument and question. IF you can target drug users, why can't you target others that might engage in otherwise illicit, nefarious, or ethically questionable activities?
|
This sounds like a great idea to me.
|
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.
|
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. Show nested quote +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.
|
There are several things wrong with this. First of all, poor drug addicts are the type of people society should be trying to help the most. We shouldn't be turning our backs to these people. Second, just because someone tests positive for drug use doesnt mean they are a drug addict. Third, just because someone tests positive for drugs doesn't mean the person spent any money on drugs. What if my friend smoked a joint with me for free? That means I shouldn't be able to receive welfare? Terrible, just terrible.
|
On June 10 2011 05:42 Mastermind wrote:
There are several things wrong with this. First of all, poor drug addicts are the type of people society should be trying to help the most. We shouldn't be turning our backs to these people. Second, just because someone tests positive for drug use doesnt mean they are a drug addict. Third, just because someone tests positive for drugs doesn't mean the person spent any money on drugs. What if my friend smoked a joint with me for free? That means I shouldn't be able to receive welfare? Terrible, just terrible.
You would probably only be on welfare if you were a single parent anyway, so....Yes, if you smoked pot around your children (or otherwise neglected them by leaving them unattended) then you don't deserve to receive welfare.
|
On June 10 2011 05:42 Mastermind wrote:
There are several things wrong with this. First of all, poor drug addicts are the type of people society should be trying to help the most. We shouldn't be turning our backs to these people. Second, just because someone tests positive for drug use doesnt mean they are a drug addict. Third, just because someone tests positive for drugs doesn't mean the person spent any money on drugs. What if my friend smoked a joint with me for free? That means I shouldn't be able to receive welfare? Terrible, just terrible.
No one is advocating the destruction of food stamps, public needle recycling programs, rehabilitation centers, or anything like that.
However, the welfare program (actual welfare, not food stamps or ssdi etc.) is a cash assistance program. You are literally sent a check from the government.
The government is entitled to make requirements as to the eligibility to receive these funds.
If passing a drug test periodically is required to receive said funds, then that is the perogative of the legislature.
No one is mentioning that this program is just that, a program. It was created less than 100 years ago and is a financial benefit program for the severely destitute.
It is meant as a surplus system to instill upward mobility into destitute individuals and families.
|
On June 10 2011 05:42 Mastermind wrote:
There are several things wrong with this. First of all, poor drug addicts are the type of people society should be trying to help the most. We shouldn't be turning our backs to these people. Second, just because someone tests positive for drug use doesnt mean they are a drug addict. Third, just because someone tests positive for drugs doesn't mean the person spent any money on drugs. What if my friend smoked a joint with me for free? That means I shouldn't be able to receive welfare? Terrible, just terrible.
Your first point is true, drug addicts need help, there are some honest ones that wouldn't waste the money.
Your second point doesn't matter. If they test positive it means they used a drug recently, where that money could have went towards food or shelter.
Your third point doesn't matter. If you are on welfare, you shouldn't be smoking weed or doing any other drugs that make time pass, you should be looking for work with 100% of your time.
|
Actually, welfare is really intended to keep people from turning to drugs/alcohol when their situation financially gets really bad.
It is intended to keep people afloat and prevent them from becoming homeless and destitute.
Destitute citizens provide nothing to to the economy or country as a whole, so this policy makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
