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.
Using that same logic.....how about testing farmers? they get government money what about bankers? get the msg. Uh, drug DEALERS DON'T NEED WELFARE! they make enough money.
You mean farmers who are on welfare? I guess if they're on welfare, they're not farmers anymore. The farmers I know who get subsidies work, and they work hard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime
Actually, it is quite the opposite if people are working they won't have time or the energy to do drugs. If the little bit of money that they do get is cut off .....guess whose house will be broken into?
Good reason not to test, because if they test positive, then the money is cut off and then the neighbor's house is broken into. Good reasoning?
You said "Mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients"
and then you provide a link that says
A federal appellate court threw out Michigan's random drug testing law in 2003, saying it violated the constitutional ban against unreasonable search and seizure.
Had you done your case law research you would know that 100% testing is not unconstitutional.
Naturally, as everyone would expect, Michigan botched it (just like they botch everything else) and was only conducting random tests. Had they written the law to require 100% testing of all recipients instead of random testing they wouldn't have had a problem.
One way around this for Michigan is also to enact legislation that all new applicants for welfare must submit to testing. Those refusing to submit can be denied benefits.
Actually, it was mandatory random testing. Still mandatory, even though it was randomly selected; you could not refuse. This is the definition of mandatory.
Also, the ruling of unconstitutionality refers to the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. It was considered unreasonable to search one's person in order to provide benefits. Therefore, Michigan changed their criteria to what most states do - testing when there is a reasonable suspicion that a person is a drug user.
You mean farmers who are on welfare? I guess if they're on welfare, they're not farmers anymore. The farmers I know who get subsidies work, and they work hard.
Do you know how subsidies work? They get paid a certain amount of money regardless of how much they actually grow. They also get paid NOT to grow more then a certain amount of a given product. It is the reason why grains and other food stuff prices remain high or low. Getting paid for nothing sounds like welfare to me
Good reason not to test, because if they test positive, then the money is cut off and then the neighbor's house is broken into. Good reasoning?
It does not matter if it is good reasoning or not, it is reality. An addict will get high rather you give them the money or they take it.
You did hear that the recession has been over for a year now!
Great! I will go down the block and let calvin the crackhead know that!
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.
The farmers I know who get subsidies work, and they work hard.
