Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
States consider drug tests for welfare recipients
deviliscious
Member UncommonPosts: 4,359
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_bi_ge/states_welfare_with_strings
They should have done this a loong time ago. But it should also include alcohol testing ... If they cannot afford to feed themselves, they cannot afford drugs/ alcohol. Tax payers supporting drug habits has gone on entirely too long.
Comments
well,
there goes 80% of the recepients lol.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
It's a mixed bag if you dig far to think about privacy rights. Yes it's nearly impossible to argue but still worth mentioning in a strange contorted sort of way.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
eh
my opinion is this:
If a company has the right to conduct drug testing in order to work for money then the State can do the same thing to those wanting free money.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
Their privacy rights stop at the tax payers expense. If they want to do drugs they are going to have to find a way to support themselves rather than expect someone else to do it for them.
I'm actually conflicted on this one...
I don't like forcing people who don't abuse their welfare checks, who only use them to take care of their family and kids, to have to submit to drug testing. It doesn't sit right with me and I worry about those who are so uncomfortable with the idea that they refuse welfare rather than submit to screening even though they are perfectly clean. I also don't like the idea of denying welfare to people who only smoke a little pot from time to time.
I think screening for government assistance beyond welfare is not a bad idea, but welfare is sometimes the last line of defense against hunger or homelessness. I think other methods should be used to make sure the right people are getting the money. Drug screening just seems like too much of a political idea with no real substance behind it.
This isn;t reason enough?
METRO NEWS BRIEFS: NEW YORK; Food Stamps Used In Illegal Drug Trade
www.nytimes.com/1999/03/15/nyregion/metro-news-briefs-new-york-food-stamps-used-in-illegal-drug-trade.html
No it is not enough. Contrary to Enigma's snide and hateful estimate of 80%, there are far more responsible welfare recipients out there than there are those who abuse it.
Wait... that arguement sounds familiar.....oh yeah! Sounds a lot like the argument the NRA uses. You can't have it both ways bud.
I'm in favor of this.
These people get welfare support, and all they ask is a check to make sure you don't abuse that support.
Sure some would argue about "privacy" but really, all they are checking for is your alcahol/drug use, or lack thereof. Nothing more.
The right to keep arms and ammunitions is protected by law, drugs are not. We do not need to prove our right to keep arms, that right was protected by our founders.
They can keep their gun, but not their drugs.
I just want to interject into this conversation a hypothetical scenario.
1. Woman has 5 kids to feed but loses job, so she applies for welfare.
2. Woman is rejected becase she had a puff on a joint with her friend a week prior.
3. Woman is not able to feed children so Protective Services comes and takes them away.
4. Woman starves to death.
OK I guess the mission was accomplished here right? because now the government has the 5 kids and the women is dead. If that's the aim, I think this idea would manifest that end.
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
i agree with this. as to the argue about the privacy. i think alcohol and drug are no longer personal issues but social, so they ain't totally dealing with privacy. to help to keep the stability of the society, i favour this.
The founders also put anything about the privacy of a person?
Because if they put a clause that you have the right to have a gattling gun I am pretty sure they would have thought of that too.
I find it at the very least inexcusable that any company or the state, performs drug tests anyway. Why then do you pay for the police or detox centers? And apart of that it is degrading to most people.
Personally I find it a huge breach on the right of privacy but also an inability to keep a check on the drug addicts.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
She can prove herself to get her kids back, there are currently free programs to get them off drugs. She can go into a program that not only gets her off drugs it also gives her the tools to get another job. They do this all the time there are programs like genesis shelter that exist just for this reason.
Is that so? In that case gun possesion is not a personal issue but social, since if someone has a grudge against someone else they can casually pull a gun on him. To help the stability of society do you favor also, mental checks and gun control?
The point is that what do you do with your personal life is your damn bussiness. Nobody has the right to interfere and/or peruse it casually. If your private bussiness though interferes with the world outside in a negative way then it becomes an issue to be dealt with.
Pre emptive strikes should not be applied liberally....
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I disagree. Because a company has a right to know that their workers are competent. In many jobs an employee can cause death or injury to another employee and the public by being under the infuence of any substance. Pilots have many lives depending on them, doctors have lives depending on them, airplane mechanics, crane operators have lives depending on them.
If these people can afford to support a drug habit they can use that money to buy their own food. If they cannot afford drugs or food, this should not be an issue. People are actually using government funds to buy their drugs and it is not right for tax payers to be forced to pay for this.
Just end welfare.
One more example of how socialism eventually destroys other rights and liberties -- in this case, privacy.
fishermage.blogspot.com
/agree
edit: However it must be acknowledged that every person is going to eat regardless of if they have a job, if they have a drug habit, or anything else. It's just a matter of how that hungry person gets theirs. But they will get theirs, or die trying.
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
Well, when we think of privacy law in the United States, we usually mean what is summed up in the 4th and 5th amendments.
The Fourth:
“ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Fifth:
“ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
As you can see, we have a right to be SECURE in our persons and our stuff that means the government can't even look at it -- unless they have a search warrant.
That's a right to privacy of body and stuff.
then the fifth means that you can't be forced to bear witness against yourself (privacy of past actions), and that nothing of yours can be taken without rule of law (meaning they have to obey the constitution, including the above fourth.
We definitely have a right to privacy of a "person." Right there in the bill of rights.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I disagree. Because a company has a right to know that their workers are competent. In many jobs an employee can cause death or injury to another employee by being under the infuence of any substance. Pilots have many lives depending on them, doctors have lives depending on them, airplane mechanics, crane operators have lives depending on them.
If these people can afford to support a drug habit they can use that money to buy their own food. If they cannot afford drugs or food, this should not be an issue. People are actually using government funds to buy their drugs and it is not right for tax payers to be forced to pay for this.
I agree with part of your logic, but the end doesn't justify the means.
For companies. If the employee has a clean criminal record I see no reason to breach his or her privacy. What you are saying here is that it's ok to take pre emptive strikes against threats. That's where I disagree. There are plenty of ways that are not invasive including psycological testing that can give quite accurate information on a subject without breaching his rights and above all his dignity. In Europe it was never an issue why it has been the case in US?
If people are drug users is the issue. I disagree in taking the right of privacy with just an "If". If they have a record or they have been arrested then yes by all means remove them from welfare. Fund better the police and remove its corruption to be able to work drug cases better. But invading basic rights such as this opens a new can of worms.
As I wrote in the previous post, someone can use that argument to perform mental tests to people, to see if they are capable of owning guns. See here how 2 rights are being breached?
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Now I don;t think that the government should be drug testing all citizens against their will .. no far from that. But think about jobs that many lives are at risk.. how do you feel about those postitons? Pilots, nurses, doctors, heavy machine operators, airplane mechanics.. all of these things could be devestating left unchecked.
Well, when we think of privacy law in the United States, we usually mean what is summed up in the 4th and 5th amendments.
The Fourth:
“ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Fifth:
“ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
As you can see, we have a right to be SECURE in our persons and our stuff that means the government can't even look at it -- unless they have a search warrant.
That's a right to privacy of body and stuff.
then the fifth means that you can't be forced to bear witness against yourself (privacy of past actions), and that nothing of yours can be taken without rule of law (meaning they have to obey the constitution, including the above fourth.
We definitely have a right to privacy of a "person." Right there in the bill of rights.
So if I understand it right, it means that work places that check their employees are pretty much illegal?
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I disagree. Because a company has a right to know that their workers are competent. In many jobs an employee can cause death or injury to another employee by being under the infuence of any substance. Pilots have many lives depending on them, doctors have lives depending on them, airplane mechanics, crane operators have lives depending on them.
If these people can afford to support a drug habit they can use that money to buy their own food. If they cannot afford drugs or food, this should not be an issue. People are actually using government funds to buy their drugs and it is not right for tax payers to be forced to pay for this.
I agree with part of your logic, but the end doesn't justify the means.
For companies. If the employee has a clean criminal record I see no reason to breach his or her privacy. What you are saying here is that it's ok to take pre emptive strikes against threats. That's where I disagree. There are plenty of ways that are not invasive including psycological testing that can give quite accurate information on a subject without breaching his rights and above all his dignity. In Europe it was never an issue why it has been the case in US?
If people are drug users is the issue. I disagree in taking the right of privacy with just an "If". If they have a record or they have been arrested then yes by all means remove them from welfare. Fund better the police and remove its corruption to be able to work drug cases better. But invading basic rights such as this opens a new can of worms.
As I wrote in the previous post, someone can use that argument to perform mental tests to people, to see if they are capable of owning guns. See here how 2 rights are being breached?
Aparently you have never worked in the medical field ... I was very grateful when they started testing the nurses... so many tested positive ( primarily speed and painkillers) and were taken off the floor. It is very dangerous to have people working under the influence when lives are at stake, and yes it was an alarming amount of them at the time.
I think that any employer has the right to have this as a qualification for the job along with any other qualification they deem necessary to do the job. Just as jobs require degrees, knowledge, ability.... they should have the ability to determine who they have working for them.
I don;t think the government should go around drug testing everyone.. far from it, but in order to qualify for benefits because you claim you are too poor to afford food, you would be too poor to afford drugs as well, so that shouldn;t be an issue right?
Now I don;t think that the government should be drug testing all citizens against their will .. no far from that. But think about jobs that many lives are at risk.. how do you feel about those postitons? Pilots, nurses, doctors, heavy machine operators, airplane mechanics.. all of these things could be devestating left unchecked.
Absolutely a fair point. But so what if a airplane mechanic has a joint on his day off?
Heres what I don't understand; If a guy is doing his job well everything is fine. But suddenly his piss test says he smokes pot so now he's fired. What kind of sense does that make? If someones drug abuse is creating a problem at work then engage the problem. But this "Oh theres no problems with your performance, but your pee had non traditional substances in it so you're fired" stuff is just a bridge too far for me.
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
Now I don;t think that the government should be drug testing all citizens against their will .. no far from that. But think about jobs that many lives are at risk.. how do you feel about those postitons? Pilots, nurses, doctors, heavy machine operators, airplane mechanics.. all of these things could be devestating left unchecked.
Absolutely a fair point. But so what if a airplane mechanic has a joint on his day off?
Heres what I don't understand; If a guy is doing his job well everything is fine. But suddenly his piss test says he smokes pot so now he's fired. What kind of sense does that make? If someones drug abuse is creating a problem at work then engage the problem. But this "Oh theres no problems with your performance, but your pee had non traditional substances in it so you're fired" stuff is just a bridge too far for me.
I also agree with legalization, and if he was doing a good job, his boss does has the option to place them on probation rather than fire them. His job performance should be considered as well, but that should be left up to the Discretion of the employer not a law.
ha! I was being conservative when I said 80%
Not snide or hateful comment whatsoever. But then again, you like everything that is opposite to common sense so there is no point in debating this with you
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.