Disclaimer Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 No, only 'drugs' as the gov't defines them. You can abuse prescription meds, alcohol, and cigs all you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drc32-0 Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 I'm all for drug testing the true welfare recipients...politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Ignorant opinions would be a huge improvement over regurgitated misinformation.lol thats true. i think what it really is, the politicians KNOW that joe public thinks that 80% of people on welfare are on drugs. the politicians know thats not true, and that drug use rates of people on welfare mirror that of the general population. about 2-3%, and that 70% of people who are using illegal drugs have full time jobs.but since joe public is ignorant of the facts, they use it for political capital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 abuse is not rare - rampant is a better word for itdo you have any empirical evidence to back that up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gooner Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 should be mandatory.There is a lot of things that should be done on top of that as well.I am all for helping out but welfare should become work-fare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 Case Study Drug Testing the Poor: Bad Policy, Even Worse LawRead more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2090871,00.html#ixzz1WZPiKKZ2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 No, only 'drugs' as the gov't defines them. You can abuse prescription meds, alcohol, and cigs all you want. excellentpoi.t this law doesn't go far enough especially since the federal government has no authority to tax me for welfare. We should force them on birth control or at least not allow them to collect for any children more than they originally sign to for, drug, alcohol, and tobacco test the recipient, their children, and the live in bf/baby's daddy and if any come up positive they get zero federal money for one year. Or we could eliminate the federal welfare spending. Now Justin if you want you good little liberal you can explain to me where the federal government has the power to tax for welfare and NO the general welfare clause doesn't give them the power. The general welfare if laid out in the 18 enumerated powers, now the states can tax for a welfare program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 I'm against it. I don't think the FedGov/StateGov has the power to violate anybody's right to privacy. I also don't feel they have the power to steal my money and give it to some punk bitch asshole that won't work for their drugs. The only favorable solution' date=' that doesn't violate any rights at all, is to completely abolish the entitlement.. altogether.[/quote']I agree that we should do away with it, but I disagree that it is an invasion of their privacy. They don't have to accept or apply for welfare so they have an option. Is it a violation of my privacy to be forced by the federal motor carrier safety administration to be randomly drug tested? This is a slippery slope, because if it violates their privacy it violates mine. Do you want me or any other commercial driver driving with a drug problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 ^ ditto. I take the same tests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) I agree that we should do away with it, but I disagree that it is an invasion of their privacy. They don't have to accept or apply for welfare so they have an option. Is it a violation of my privacy to be forced by the federal motor carrier safety administration to be randomly drug tested? This is a slippery slope, because if it violates their privacy it violates mine. Do you want me or any other commercial driver driving with a drug problem?I would like to agree with you, but the government can't ask you to waive a fundamental constitutional right. Private parties (like employers) can though.Think of it in terms of fundamental right, other than privacy. The Gov't couldn't say, "hey, you can only accept welfare if you give up your right to free speech." That would be unconstitutional.But your employer can essentially do that. You talk badly about your company, and they fire you. The same is true of drug testing.There are different standards for legislation and private citizens. Yes, people are applying for welfare, but that doesn't mean the gov't can infringe upon their rights when applying conditions to that welfare program.I'm with Pauly on this one - just abolish welfare all together. The government is not supposed to be a charity. I think charity is a good thing; just not a good thing the government should be getting involved in. Edited August 31, 2011 by redkow97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 I totally agree abolish it, but too many people won't agree and politicians want the recipient's vote. I think we should eliminate all entitlements people need to grow up and stop depending the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 I don't recall if it was in this thread or another on the same topic, but there are 2 constitutional arguments against the drug testing:1) self incrimination (you're not exactly on trial, but arguably, you're being asked to testify against yourself). I think that one's flimsy, as it's not really a "testimonial" piece of evidence.2) right to privacy. Even IF the government has the right to test you for illegal drugs as a condition of accepting state aid (and that's a big "if"), you have the right to privacy regarding the results they uncover.Say I piss in the cup willingly, and they're testing for illegal drugs. What if I'm on methadone, because i'm a recovering heroine addict? I've been clean for years, but the methadone will still register as a narcotic even though it's legal. Or even just prescription drugs. The government has no business knowing what medication I'm on just because I am applying for welfare.I like what they're trying to do, but the application is problematic. Eliminating welfare makes more sense than trying to "fix" it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost1888 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 I'm not going to get into the details but at one point I received some govt. ass. Drug testing would be a good start but not good enough. Many of the people that use this assistance will and do work every direction possible for their own personal benefit. Personally I would like to see welfare done away with. Many of the people I lived around in GMHA didn't and still don't try to get out of the system and play every angle possible to get more. It's broken and can never be fixed. Thank God I'm out of that life!I'm in the process of buying another house so bare with my stupid analogy-When you place a bid on a house you can not lower your bid. Sellers/ banks (in my case) don't go backwards on $. Same goes for welfare. Once one has received it and learns there is no need to work or work harder to get out. They just want more and more and more. It will never stop because once it was offered and taken good luck taking it back.I would really love to see family's helping families and communities helping communities directly with no govt. intervention. Never going to happen though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT requires me to pee in a cup to drive a truck. I bold the federal this time so you can see FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Now if it is an invasion of a welfare recipient's privacy then the FMCSA requiring me and other CDL holders to drug test is an invasion. Be warned there are unintended consequences! While on this topic the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT requiring me to pass a physical is an invasion of my privacy. To not allow an insulin dependent diabetic or epileptic to drive a truck or bus is discrimination then too right? Drug testing and background checking school teachers and bus drivers is an invasion of their privacy right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost1888 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 We need a revolution I tell you. One big ass revolution! Shit is so backwards it makes me sick. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron505 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 I guess I'm missing the complexity....wouldn't be the first time.Employees receive benefits (money) from Employers (therefore drug tested)Welfare recipients receive benefits (money) from the govt. (why not drug test)There has to be some kind of motivation to get off of welfare, even if would only work for some. And if they stop doing drugs, just maybe they'll get cleaned up and want to do something with their lives.Sad that I see it this way because I have always been one to say less govt. is more. But this in particular, hits a little too close to home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 We need a revolution I tell you. One big ass revolution! Shit is so backwards it makes me sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost1888 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 There has to be some kind of motivation to get off of welfare, even if would only work for some. And if they stop doing drugs, just maybe they'll get cleaned up and want to do something with their lives.Sad that I see it this way because I have always been one to say less govt. is more. But this in particular, hits a little too close to home.From personal experience. The majority of the drug users are the men and the majority of those men aren't married to the women. So, the women get the assistance and the guys get to keep more of their paychecks without having to pay for things like groceries, clothes and school supplies etc. Local charities and fed assistance provides what they actually need and they spend their monies on what they want. Backward b.s. I can remember several people giving me a lecture about how I am stupid for getting married just for the reason stated above. You know the marriage penalty? Guess what it's true, I know first hand. But I still got married and still payed my bills. There is always going to be a way around the system. Because the system can't see or do everything. That's why we as Americans need to stand up and say NO, it's time for you to do for you, not me do for you. Quit enabling these people! But some won't do that because they "feel" good helping them. Maybe you would feel better to see them survive on their own. But they would never know that because that's not what their looking for. Feelings, votes, and the like is not what made this country great. The people who did what they didn't/ don't think they could do made this country great. Most of the time with great struggle and perseverance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedTriple44444 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 I'm telling you... start cutting off the drug supply chain and watch it all turn around. Kill anybody dealing hard drugs, 1 appeal, 1 year max imprisonment before the sentence is carried out. When the supply line dries up, what's left will be so expensive that the majority won't be able to afford it. Welfare needs to be this: Meals, housing, clothing, and medicine for children and those with real disabilities, and also for those that are of age and not disabled, but are under-employed (note, I didn't say not working). Those that are able and will not work... tough. You had better be a good dumpster diver.It has to be tough but compassionate, which is a difficult balance to acheive. The only thing we've done so far is create a dependent social class that is trapped in their poverty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost1888 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 Welfare needs to be this: Meals, housing, clothing, and medicine for children and those with real disabilities, and also for those that are of age and not disabled, but are under-employed (note, I didn't say not working). Those that are able and will not work... tough. You had better be a good dumpster diver.It has to be tough but compassionate, which is a difficult balance to achieve. The only thing we've done so far is create a dependent social class that is trapped in their poverty.True on the last part. I do have a question though. Who is going to determine who qualifies to your first paragraph? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedTriple44444 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 The first unquoted or the first part of the second paragraph? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 Cut them all off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 I guess I'm missing the complexity....wouldn't be the first time.Employees receive benefits (money) from Employers (therefore drug tested)Welfare recipients receive benefits (money) from the govt. (why not drug test)your employer can ask you to waive your constitutional rights.The government cannot draft legislation that does the same; at least not without the Supreme Court overturning it. That is the distinction.It's a case of the constitution being TOO fair, arguably in a similar manner to flag burning, or protesting a soldier's funeral being protected speech. sometimes it's constitutional to be an asshole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Eliminate federal taxation for welfare! And the eliminate it at the state level! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBWalker Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Tuesday's Question:State Senate proposal would require drug testing for anyone seeking public assistance in Ohio. Thoughts? -------------------------------------------------i dont think its fair that only peeps seeking public assistance get to test drugs. Edited September 1, 2011 by JBWalker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.