|
On June 10 2011 05:36 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:29 micronesia 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. 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?
Yes. If you live off welfare checks, you probably SHOULD shop cheaply. And no, you SHOULDN'T do drugs. This subjective morality BS is so sickening. It annoys me. "Well, their life sucks, they should be able to do so and so." Darn it, no they shouldn't. You can't justify wrong with more wrong. For God's sake, wake up folks. Life is not fair. It never has been. Imo, there should not be welfare in the first place. It is not the government's job or right to start handing out checks to people. Sorry, it is just how it is. And I can say this stuff. I live in a lower-middle class family. (And even if I didn't, it wouldn't really matter) I'm thankful to have internet. This thing where we are okay with drugs (which tear families apart) and the poor taking money that we, the taxpayers give them (because gov't forces us to, which I believe is a breach of rights. I should be giving the poor money out of my own kindness and charitable will, not because some men in a suit are forcing me to do so) and spend it on things that are not helping them pay their bills and climb up the ladder. You want to stay at the bottom? Stay at the damn bottom, but do not take my money and do so. If you're going to take the money the gov't takes from hard-working citizens just so satisfy your deplorable little "oh, feel sorry for me, I'm poor" attitude, you're stealing our money and you don't deserve a damn penny.
Whoo! Man, I feel better after that. /endrant/
|
Corporations are allowed to drug test you if you want a job with them. But the government can't drug test someone in order to see if they deserve free money? Hilarious. Perhaps you guys should start rallying against walmart for invading their employees privacy instead of the government.
|
On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it. Makes perfect sense to me.
I see what you did there ^_^
This is pretty crazy, it kinda makes sense but seems harsh as fuck to me. Also won't it increase crime rates by making it the only resort for people on welfare with drug problems?
|
On June 10 2011 05:49 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it. Makes perfect sense to me. I see what you did there ^_^ This is pretty crazy, it kinda makes sense but seems harsh as fuck to me. Also won't it increase crime rates by making it the only resort for people on welfare with drug problems?
Life is harsh, bro. Too bad. They can stay poor and on drugs if they want, but they'd better do it with their own darn money.
|
On June 10 2011 05:51 Alexhandr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:49 jello_biafra wrote:On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it. Makes perfect sense to me. I see what you did there ^_^ This is pretty crazy, it kinda makes sense but seems harsh as fuck to me. Also won't it increase crime rates by making it the only resort for people on welfare with drug problems? Life is harsh, bro. Too bad. They can stay poor and on drugs if they want, but they'd better do it with their own darn money.
I see what you're saying but my point is their own darn money without welfare usually means other people's money that they stole.
|
On June 10 2011 05:49 shinosai wrote:
Corporations are allowed to drug test you if you want a job with them. But the government can't drug test someone in order to see if they deserve free money? Hilarious. Perhaps you guys should start rallying against walmart for invading their employees privacy instead of the government.
There is a VERY important difference between corporations and the government. It's public vs private sector. You can not hold a corporation to the same standard you hold the government.
|
On June 10 2011 05:53 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:51 Alexhandr wrote:On June 10 2011 05:49 jello_biafra wrote:On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it. Makes perfect sense to me. I see what you did there ^_^ This is pretty crazy, it kinda makes sense but seems harsh as fuck to me. Also won't it increase crime rates by making it the only resort for people on welfare with drug problems? Life is harsh, bro. Too bad. They can stay poor and on drugs if they want, but they'd better do it with their own darn money. I see what you're saying but my point is their own darn money without welfare usually means other people's money that they stole.
Sad, isn't it? But you cannot help those who shall not help themselves. :c
On June 10 2011 05:53 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:49 shinosai wrote:
Corporations are allowed to drug test you if you want a job with them. But the government can't drug test someone in order to see if they deserve free money? Hilarious. Perhaps you guys should start rallying against walmart for invading their employees privacy instead of the government. There is a VERY important difference between corporations and the government. It's public vs private sector. You can not hold a corporation to the same standard you hold the government.
This is actually quite true. But even so, our money. OUR money. I don't want OUR money being spent on their drugs. Use your own darn money and ruin what little your family has. Your choice.
|
I work with several people on food stamps who I know also do drugs. I wish they did this in my state. Hell, maybe if they didn't spend there limited money on cigarretes as well, maybe they could afford food for themselves without government assistance.
|
On June 10 2011 05:56 damageinc wrote:
I work with several people on food stamps who I know also do drugs. I wish they did this in my state. Hell, maybe if they didn't spend there limited money on cigarretes as well, maybe they could afford food for themselves without government assistance.
My sister uses food stamps. She spends her money on useless crap and then wonders, "Oh, where is money for my food?" Her poor children. -Sighs.- ;c
|
On June 10 2011 05:58 Alexhandr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:56 damageinc wrote:
I work with several people on food stamps who I know also do drugs. I wish they did this in my state. Hell, maybe if they didn't spend there limited money on cigarretes as well, maybe they could afford food for themselves without government assistance. My sister uses food stamps. She spends her money on useless crap and then wonders, "Oh, where is money for my food?" Her poor children. -Sighs.- ;c
Honestly, the children are who I feel for the most. Whether their parents are on drugs or not, I can't help but feel that they don't even have a fighting chance in all of this mess.
|
On June 10 2011 05:51 Alexhandr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:49 jello_biafra wrote:On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it. Makes perfect sense to me. I see what you did there ^_^ This is pretty crazy, it kinda makes sense but seems harsh as fuck to me. Also won't it increase crime rates by making it the only resort for people on welfare with drug problems? Life is harsh, bro. Too bad. They can stay poor and on drugs if they want, but they'd better do it with their own darn money. So you think
- poor people is not a social problem that affects you in any way whatsoever.
- Or do you agree it's a problem, but doesn't think we should do anything to solve the problem?
- Or do you think it's a problem, we do need a solution. But welfare and welfare drug testing aren't solutions? If so, what are?
|
Its a condition for receiving the money, no ones being forced into a drug test. There is absolutely no violation of the 4th amendment here.
|
On June 10 2011 05:59 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:58 Alexhandr wrote:On June 10 2011 05:56 damageinc wrote:
I work with several people on food stamps who I know also do drugs. I wish they did this in my state. Hell, maybe if they didn't spend there limited money on cigarretes as well, maybe they could afford food for themselves without government assistance. My sister uses food stamps. She spends her money on useless crap and then wonders, "Oh, where is money for my food?" Her poor children. -Sighs.- ;c Honestly, the children are who I feel for the most. Whether their parents are on drugs or not, I can't help but feel that they don't even have a fighting chance in all of this mess.
Tell me about it. :/ I take care of my little niece and nephews very often. They drive me crazy. They have disabilities and handicaps, and they are a handful... but I love them with all my heart and many times I'm afraid to let them go.
On June 10 2011 06:00 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:51 Alexhandr wrote:On June 10 2011 05:49 jello_biafra wrote:On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it. Makes perfect sense to me. I see what you did there ^_^ This is pretty crazy, it kinda makes sense but seems harsh as fuck to me. Also won't it increase crime rates by making it the only resort for people on welfare with drug problems? Life is harsh, bro. Too bad. They can stay poor and on drugs if they want, but they'd better do it with their own darn money. So you think - poor people is not a social problem that affects you in any way whatsoever. - Or do you agree it's a problem, but doesn't think we should do anything to solve the problem? - Or do you think it's a problem, we do need a solution. But welfare and welfare drug testing aren't solutions? If so, what are?
The third. The solution? People need to help people. Gov't can stay out of it. Also, those people that are poor need to help themselves. They rely too much on the government, and not enough on themselves and the people who love them. But alas, we have welfare, so we may as well have welfare drug testing to make sure our money doesn't go to things it should not (drugs).
|
This is good legislation. There is no constitutional issue unless you're really reaching. As someone stated previously, people are entitled to an equal opportunity to apply for welfare. Whether or not they receive it is up to state qualifications. The money is not guaranteed to be handed to you. This should be nationwide legislation. Free money should not be used on drugs. The "it doesn't matter where it came from argument" is pretty ridiculous. Of course it matters because the public at large is the original owner and gifts the money to help society in the end. The money should not and be used in the comission of crime period. You are NOT free to partake in criminal acts, nowhere in the bill of rights is that stated. If you have been found to take drugs, ie commit a felony, you are not entitled to welfare. This isn't a hard concept it's entirely legal and a step forward.
|
Well not giving out money will force them into committing crimes, an addict will always get the fix no matter what. How much are the drug tests gonna cost the state? What if its only a low percentage of the welfare users that use drugs, won't they actually LOSE money by doing this then? And how much will be saved by doing this? If they find drug use will they help the drug user or just throw them back to the streets?
Where is the trust? USA starting to look more and more like a police state "better safe then sorry!" amirite?
|
On June 10 2011 06:00 Alexhandr wrote:
The solution? People need to help people. Gov't can stay out of it. Also, those people that are poor need to help themselves. They rely too much on the government, and not enough on themselves and the people who love them. But alas, we have welfare, so we may as well have welfare drug testing to make sure our money doesn't go to things it should not (drugs). But how do we apply that? How do we solve that problem without the government?
And don't you think that whatever we decide to do to help them, the government has enough resources to help us to help them? So why must they stay out if they can be part of the solution?
|
On June 10 2011 06:00 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:51 Alexhandr wrote:On June 10 2011 05:49 jello_biafra wrote:On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it. Makes perfect sense to me. I see what you did there ^_^ This is pretty crazy, it kinda makes sense but seems harsh as fuck to me. Also won't it increase crime rates by making it the only resort for people on welfare with drug problems? Life is harsh, bro. Too bad. They can stay poor and on drugs if they want, but they'd better do it with their own darn money. So you think - poor people is not a social problem that affects you in any way whatsoever. - Or do you agree it's a problem, but doesn't think we should do anything to solve the problem? - Or do you think it's a problem, we do need a solution. But welfare and welfare drug testing aren't solutions? If so, what are?
Communities coming together and helping the poor in a completely voluntary way. They'd be more effective at it then a federal bureaucrat, and more efficient with the money. No middle man would be getting paid a massive salary, and no one would have a gun pointed at there head and told to help the poor. Spending someone else's money is not an act of compassion. If you gathered all the money from all the government programs designed to help the poor, and divided it by the number of people bellow the poverty line, they would live quite comfortably and not be in poverty. But the money doesn't go to them. It goes to someones salary. It goes to a parasitic organism, sucking off of and bogging down the economy by lowering the disposable income of the productive bit of society.
|
Just from thinking about it for two seconds, wouldn't this cost more money than it would save?
|
On June 10 2011 05:53 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:49 shinosai wrote:
Corporations are allowed to drug test you if you want a job with them. But the government can't drug test someone in order to see if they deserve free money? Hilarious. Perhaps you guys should start rallying against walmart for invading their employees privacy instead of the government. There is a VERY important difference between corporations and the government. It's public vs private sector. You can not hold a corporation to the same standard you hold the government.
Oh, I see. Invasion of privacy only matters if the public sector is doing it. And more importantly we're holding the government to a 'higher' standard so we won't allow them to determine where our tax dollars go... actually, this sort of seems like you expect me to hold them to a lower standard.
|
This is an absolute brilliant idea. Welfare countries like Canada and Australia should follow suit. Because of freeloaders reliant on welfare, people like myself who work hard for a little bit of money have to pay a shit ton of income taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
