U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should people be required to submit to a drug screen before receiving unemployment benefits or welfa
Yes 118 65.19%
No 63 34.81%
Voters: 181. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-20-2010, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
28,316 posts, read 43,710,523 times
Reputation: 18887

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn View Post
I've been in the habit of quoting everyone, even if I agree with them. And I do agree with you 100%.
Ah, okay... I was just confused, and thought maybe you'd misread my post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2010, 11:46 AM
 
20,536 posts, read 26,707,551 times
Reputation: 13375
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post

You also have no provided any alternative, have you? If so, please tell me which post. Instead of adding nothing to the discussion by just going on rants about Bush and Nazis and dumbing down the conversation by saying everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, how about you provide some alternatives to drug testing to ensure that abuse of our welfare system is stopped?
The only way around the 4th amendment issue here would be to do something like require the recipient to either enroll in a treatment program or attend some sort of required job training deal. With the treatment option, that would involve routine testing. If someone chooses that, it can be legally construed as as admission of a problem, which is why it gets around the 4th amendment.

As far as welfare recipients giving up most of their privacy anyway...the 4th amendment is extremely strong on the right to privacy when it comes to someone's physical body. I know it may sound good in theory...but think about the possible ramications to society as a whole if 4th amendment protections were modified (it isn't possible to modify them only for a certain demographic)

Now...at one time in my life I saw almost my entire neighborhood go to complete hell because a man bought a few rental houses on the block and wasn't very picky about who he had as tenants. He preferred the Section 8 type, I guess so there was some guarantee of rent. So I can understand the subjective objections posted here by people who "knew someone" who scammed the system. It used to infuriate me to come home from work exhausted and have to put up with stupid drug related bs in my neighborhood, and I know that the people in question were recieving welfare. Wouldn't have made much difference though if they hadn't been, they would have still been up to the same crap and they weren't very good about keeping it to the privacy of their own homes.

So yeah, it can be a hell of a mess and I in no way condone that way of life. It's one thing to say that what someone does with their body is their own business, but the druggie lifestyle can have a devastating affect on entire neighborhoods. But setting dangerous legal precendent by eroding the 4th amendment would have even more disastrous effects on society in general.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 12:00 PM
 
20,536 posts, read 26,707,551 times
Reputation: 13375
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post

I'm still waiting on someone who thinks it's okay for people to take $400 in food stamps each month while supporting a $100/week drug habit.
I don't know how to put this delicately....and this is just of course subjective observation on my part...but when my neighborhood fell victim to a lot of meth use, the female users (and most welfare recipients are) didn't seem to have any trouble getting their drugs for "free".

And drug testing...hell, it doesn't even work for employers, why should it work for the government? We don't drug test in our business because we're small and we're seasonal, so there is no real insurance benefit for us there. I'm glad we don't, because I wouldn't want to turn down an applicant who smoked a joint two weeks ago in favor of someone who did meth three days ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 4,001,526 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
I don't know how to put this delicately....and this is just of course subjective observation on my part...but when my neighborhood fell victim to a lot of meth use, the female users (and most welfare recipients are) didn't seem to have any trouble getting their drugs for "free".
Blech!

Quote:
And drug testing...hell, it doesn't even work for employers, why should it work for the government? We don't drug test in our business because we're small and we're seasonal, so there is no real insurance benefit for us there. I'm glad we don't, because I wouldn't want to turn down an applicant who smoked a joint two weeks ago in favor of someone who did meth three days ago.

Ideally, drug testing would be a good thing. But I do see (after reading all the responses) that it might not be practical. But still, there HAS to be some way to weed out the ne'er-do-wells.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
28,316 posts, read 43,710,523 times
Reputation: 18887
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post
Ideally, drug testing would be a good thing. But I do see (after reading all the responses) that it might not be practical. But still, there HAS to be some way to weed out the ne'er-do-wells.
I guess we just have to let them dig their own graves... let's face facts, welfare doesn't last forever (unless you're an excellent scam artist), and really doesn't pay that much. So eventually the "ne'er-do-wells" will run out of this money, and suffer the consequences of their actions - either being forced to support their habits another way, or finally making something better of their lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Boise
2,008 posts, read 2,919,267 times
Reputation: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post

I'm still waiting on someone who thinks it's okay for people to take $400 in food stamps each month while supporting a $100/week drug habit.
The problem with drug testing is that not everyone who pees positive on the test is spending $100 on drugs. They could have got high one time at a party on someone else's stuff. Or spent $20 on some for themselves.

And I can't see a single problem in giving food stamps to someone like that who parties responsibly.

We have to get away from the propaganda, the cliche platitudes and the hysteria about drug use. Just as there are people out there who can responsibly drink, there are people out there who can responsibly smoke a joint sometimes. If we go into something like this with America's typically irrational Reefer Madness mentality we're going to get a typically irrational outcome.

Instead of treating drug users like they're some kind of social cancer, locking them up, disenfranchising them and putting forth every effort to make them go away we have to acknowledge that human beings are going to alter their consciousness, they have done so for as long as there have been human beings and they are going to continue to do so because that is human nature. Drug use isn't some recent social phenomenon. It's not some leftover residue from the hippies. Drug use is what human beings do, what they've done and what they're going to continue doing.

If it's that big of a deal we should treat drug users as we do alcoholics, instead of calling them criminals and treating them as such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 02:43 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,298,403 times
Reputation: 13396
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis View Post
And I can't see a single problem in giving food stamps to someone like that who parties responsibly.
Perhaps this person that can't afford to buy food should be working rather than partying. Just an idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 03:23 PM
 
20,536 posts, read 26,707,551 times
Reputation: 13375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
Perhaps this person that can't afford to buy food should be working rather than partying. Just an idea.
I agree. What do you think about making them wearing ankle monitoring devices to make sure they aren't having any fun? But first we'll have to demolish that ridiculous little 4th amendment...are you ready for that?

Andrea--we've certainly created a monster. I really don't know what the answer is. It used to be that they cut off benefits during the summer months for those on assistance because there was always work available on farms. This was way back in my grandparents' day though, and I know that because they owned a family farm and people would come to work for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 03:28 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,298,403 times
Reputation: 13396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
I agree. What do you think about making them wearing ankle monitoring devices to make sure they aren't having any fun? But first we'll have to demolish that ridiculous little 4th amendment...are you ready for that?
Instead of all that, how about you (general you) get your hand the hell out of my pocket? Is that possible? Please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 03:37 PM
 
20,536 posts, read 26,707,551 times
Reputation: 13375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
Instead of all that, how about you (general you) get your hand the hell out of my pocket? Is that possible? Please.
My collective hands aren't in your pocket.

Personally I'd love to be able to keep more of my tax dollars for my own use. I was just looking over my prospective income tax bill for this year and it isn't a pretty sight. When I think of the bottles of good vintages I could buy with that money it damn near tears me up inside.

But I'll just buy something cheaper and make a toast to the United States Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top