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.
Oh I see, they want their drugs and our money too.
Yes, they are all guilty because of your belief that they are.
Quote:
Essentially by disagreeing with drug testing welfare recipients is acknowledging these people aren't out looking for work, they're out looking for the next fix which is like having a full time job.
It's obvious that you don't want to register your gun because you plan to use it in a crime.
Yes, they are all guilty because of your belief that they are.
It's obvious that you don't want to register your gun because you plan to use it in a crime.
Ok, lets go with your lame debate. So what reason would they not want to take the test or show gun registration? It's kind of like Lerner with the IRS scandal pleading the 5th because there is guilt.
To get welfare they have to take a drug test. <whine, scream, all of a sudden they believe in the constitution>
Show me your gun registration.... <ok, here it is>
You see, I don't have a problem with drug testing or showing a gun registration because I am not guilty.
This has been tried several times and has existed as proposed legislation in more than one state. It doesn't work and it is FAR from cost effective. In the instances a program such as this has been given a trial run, a very small percentage of those tested were found to test positive for any illicit drugs and the testing ended up being significantly more expensive than simply administering the food stamps, TANF, day care assistance, etc.
Here's an example just from one state:
Quote:
Efforts to identify and prevent Oklahomans high on illegal drugs from receiving certain taxpayer-financed welfare benefits cost the state more than $82,700 in the first seven months after a new law took effect.
The net result was 83 adults — about 4.4 percent of those applying — were denied benefits.
Oklahoma's drug screening and testing program is more expensive — and arguably less reliable — than the one originally envisioned and proposed by then-state Rep. Guy Liebmann, R-Oklahoma City, back in Jan. 2012.
And here is an article with a more expansive (multi-state) scope:
Quote:
As state legislatures convene across the country, proposals keep cropping up to drug test applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, or welfare. Bills have been introduced so far in Montana, Texas, and West Virginia, with a handful of others also considering such a move. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has gone further, proposing to drug test applicants for food stamps and unemployment benefits. They follow recent bills put into action in Maine, Michigan, and Mississippi.
Proponents of these bills claim they will save money by getting drug users off the dole and thus reduce spending on benefits. But states that are looking at bills of their own may want to consider the fact that the drug testing programs that are already up and running haven’t seen such results.
According to the state data gathered, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.
This has been tried several times and has existed as proposed legislation in more than one state. It doesn't work and it is FAR from cost effective. In the instances a program such as this has been given a trial run, a very small percentage of those tested were found to test positive for any illicit drugs and the testing ended up being significantly more expensive than simply administering the food stamps, TANF, day care assistance, etc.
Oh here we go again. Another version of the voter ID. They want to be part of the community but don't want to be required to do what the rest of the community is required to do. Those special needs people
Ok, lets go with your lame debate. So what reason would they not want to take the test or show gun registration?
I'm not sure how many times I have to do this. It seems in debates like this I have to repeat myself over and over for some reason. Because it's unConstitutional.
Quote:
It's kind of like Lerner with the IRS scandal pleading the 5th because there is guilt.
She like everyone has that right. Guilty or not she has the constitutional protection against self incrimination.
Quote:
To get welfare they have to take a drug test. <whine, scream, all of a sudden they believe in the constitution>
Show me your gun registration.... <ok, here it is>
You see, I don't have a problem with drug testing or showing a gun registration because I am not guilty.
The U.S. has a Constitution. If you don't like it get the hell out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
So what if the UK doesn't have a constitution. This is the United States of America! If Morgan doesn't like the American way then get the hell on a plain and go home.
Oh here we go again. Another version of the voter ID. They want to be part of the community but don't want to be required to do what the rest of the community is required to do. Those special needs people
What do you think you are talking about? Where is an entire community mandated to be drug tested? This is completely nonsensical.
I think if employers can randomly do it then those on welfare can have same to qualify. Neither has anything to do with guilt in criminal law.
No one is required by law to take a job. A drug test is voluntary, and an applicant can refuse to take it. An employer can also waive it arbitrarily as well.
That is entirely different than a mandatory law. Getting on welfare should have requirements, restrictions, and limits by law, and they do exist. But the present restrictions and all apply only to a person's financial status, just as they should.
The rest of any person's life, on welfare or not, is their concern and is private. Intrusion into that privacy breaches freedom and liberty. We are all free to make bad choices right along with good choices. That's how liberty works.
If drug testing is required for welfare, when will it start becoming a requirement for other people's lives? Once begun it opens up a door that could easily be abused by government officials for the rest of us.
No, sir. Mandatory testing should only be done when someone has someone else's life in their hands routinely. I don't object to airline pilots being mandatorily tested, EMTs, firemen, or cops because they must be sober on the job. But they too, were completely free to turn their jobs down if they didn't want to be tested.
Are you willing to pay for the massive amounts needed to test millions of people? I'm not. It is a huge waste of money in addition to being a threat to our rights.
LOL so how do you prove innocence or guilt if you can't test. When I worked in the medical field they could drug test anytime. If they could drug test me to keep my job why shouldn't they be able to drug test people to keep their welfare?
One reason is that while what you agree to allow your employer to do to you is your business, it constitutes unreasonable search and seizure when done by your government. This has been the legal stance whenever the legality of such is brought before the court, to my knowledge. Another reason is that it doesn't produce results; the money saved on not paying benefits to people who fail the tests is more than burned up in reimbursing those who pass.
No, we all are innocent until proven guilty. If you get arrested for something a part of the due process can be regular checks but for people who have not there is no reason to force them to do anything.
A drug test as condition of something is not forcing them to do anything. Drug test to get a job, drug test to play in a sports tournament, drug test to get welfare benefits, this has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty.
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.
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.
