GA Republican Who Wrote Bill to Require Drug Testing for Welfare Is Arrested For DUI

P R I V A C Y !

Where is this right?

 

1. If the supreme court ruled it to be constitutional, which thwy have not, I would be very disappointed and would hope that they reverse their decision as I am opposed to such extension of government power.

2. No. That is not at all what I said. I do, however, feel it is an unreasonable violation of a person's 4 th amendment rights to be forced by the government to submit to a drug test under the ridiculous notion that it will somehow help them get a better job.

3. Your arguments were about the advantages of drug testing welfare recipients, not about why it is legally necessary.

4. A. Not everyone that tests positive for drugs is purchasing drugs. B. Drugs are not the only illegal/unwise purchase people can make with welfare benefits. C. This does not justify wholescale drug testing of welfare benefits.

5. How does treating all people receiving benefits as guilty until proven innocent help them improve their financial condition?

6. Do you think someone trying to find a job should be mentally competent?

 

In the 4th amendment like I just told you.

You really should stop making such emotionally charged childish posts.

 

Not mentioned. It is pure leftwad invention. Try facts instead of feelings.

 

While I don't necessarily agree with the basis of your assertion, I do favor decentralization of government and as part of that decentralization, I do favor such public benefits being funded and controlled at the state and local level.

 

So your answer is no, you have no other argument against testing?

So, using drugs cannot prevent them from getting a better job?

So you have no arguments refuting my posts?

So your answer is no? I cant really tell.

Not really looking for a question here, was looking for an answer. I have given you reasons and examples. Please just answer the question.

Again, not looking for a question to my question. A simple yes or no would suffice.

 

No, my argument against testing is that it is a violation of the rights afforded in the 4th amendment of the US constitution against unreasonable search.

Poor health choices can prevent them from getting a better job, so can poor education choices. Should we require that the government monitor all such choices of anyone receiving public benefits?

Your posts do not provide a justification for violation of the constitutional right to privacy. Your posts do not justify treating all welfare recipients as being guilty of drug use until proven innocent.

My answer is that your question and the point behind it are irrelevant to the topic. It is not justifiable to violate the rights of everyone on welfare because you're afraid some drug users might use welfare money to buy drugs.

Do you think child molesters would be more enabled to molest children if they are given welfare money? Should we not require all welfare recipients to prove they aren't child molesters?

I know you weren't looking for questions, but my questions were relevant to your points. Your questions are aimed at drawing conclusions based on predispositions that my questions counter. You can answer them or not. It is entirely up to you.

 

Slinked off, eh? It takes more than the usual leftwad tool to admit they're wrong.

No worries. I'm used to it.

 

OK, thank you. I just wanted to verify that you had no other argument for your stance other than it is unreasonable search. We disagree on unreasonable but it is not our decision to make, it is the decision of the courts.

Totally different subject but to some extent, yes we should. The same way we do for unemployment. They should have training and job placement services that are tied to their benefits. Job training or college classes should be a part of public assistance.

Putting forth an argument for your stance other than "you are wrong" is just usual practice.

We have established you have no argument other than you believe it to be unreasonable search. It is not unreasonable search when the laws are passed to require it unless the courts say it is. The courts do not rule something constitutional until it is ruled unconstitutional first.

Can you say unrelated? We are talking about the prevention of public assistance money that is meant to support peoples basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing being used to support ones ability to obtain drugs.

I have been answering your questions all along. You have not answered mine. It is hard to have an intelligent conversation/debate with someone when they cannot answer basic questions relating to the subject. I will be ignoring your future posts on this subject unless they contain at least some answers to my previous questions. Until then enjoy your bubble world that promotes continued reliance on welfare and protects abuses of the system. Good day sir

 

Is that really how you think or is it a joke? I'll assume that you actually mean what you say and that you aren't simply a clown attempting (but failing miserably) to be funny.

Are you really so childish, ignorant and naive that you believe only Republicans lie? For example, I'm sure you are fully aware that Obama promised not to make use of signing statements. It made sense at the time. After all, he criticized Bush for using them. How many times has he used signing statements now? Could it be around 20? Doesn't that make him a liar? If so, does that mean he is a Republican? In fact, if we assume that you actually follow politics (which I think is a safe assumption to make, since you are attempting to argue them here), then you knew about Obama's lies, making your assertion a lie. Does that make you a Republican too?

 

The entire stance on this hinges on what is determined to be unreasonable.

Just as a hopeful employee may have to prove he is not on drugs to land a job to get the paycheck he/she needs...I don't see what is unreasonable about expecting those collecting free benefits to show they are also clean. Noone wants to foot the bill for someone happy to sit at home doing drugs.

I'm not sure how the Constitution can be on both sides of this issue depending on what the job, or lack of one in this topic, is. Certainly if drug tests violate the constitution...they do so for all Citizens, not just those without jobs.

Knowing that drug tests are routine for many jobs now, and noone has stopped the practice on these Constitutional grounds shows the 4th amendment defense to be questionable.

 

Thank goodness the police are doing their job. Are they the same ones that are in charge of the drug testing? I hope so, seeing that they're doing their job.

 

Originally Posted by homerjay_s View Post
No, my argument against testing is that it is a violation of the rights afforded in the 4th amendment of the US constitution against unreasonable search.

But drug testing isn't unreasonable.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) straight,I had to take a drug test in order to earn my money. People on welfare should have to do the same . The company that I worked for was under the jurisdiction of the DOT,so we had no choice but to submit to testing.

 

again how can you compare doing a legal substance to those doing illegal substances???

i could see the huge hypocrisy if this guy was a big supporter of M.A.D.D. or wrote a tougher law on drunk driving, but in this case i dont see the major conflict since the guy was caught with alchohol in his system and not marijuana lol.

hopefully like most DUI offenders he will be punished for his actions, but likely not since he is a politician and politicians get their ass licked and given a get out of jail free card. hell there are like 2 politicians here who have been caught numerous times being drunk behind the wheel or driving on suspended license and they never get truly punished like you or i would. hell if we did what they did our cars would be crushed and we would be in jail serving time and when we get released have to pay a huge ass fine as well as not being able to drive for probably another year lol.

now if we are talking about politicians being held to the same standards as us when being caught doing wrong, sign me up for the revolution lol. but if this is just a shady attempt with (*)(*)(*)(*) poor execution of trying to compare legal to illegal substances, im just gonna laugh.

 

What exactly does DUI for alcohol (LEGAL) have to do with testing for ILLEGAL drugs? There is no connection so why is this thread even here?

 

If they are getting assistance at the expense of taxpayers they should be more than willing to submit to testing.

 

I suppose that is the choice you make when you want hard earned money from the TAX PAYERS

 

Well using illegal drugs is against the law and driving drunk is against the law.

I didn't say it was a major conflict, I just stated that driving drunk is illegal.

True.

[qute] hell there are like 2 politicians here who have been caught numerous times being drunk behind the wheel or driving on suspended license and they never get truly punished like you or i would.[/quote]

True.

True.

I'm not comparing them, I just stated driving drunk is illegal.

 

Didnt Obama's illegal alien uncle get busted for DUI?

 

I don't know, sounds like it would make a good thread. Start it up.

 

It has to do with the idea that liberals want a drug-free society - meaning that all drugs are free and legal.

 

It is reasonable that an employer would require drug testing as an employer is liable for the actions of the employee while working for the employer. There is no direct responsibility that the government takes over a welfare recipient that makes the government liable for the welfare recipient's actions that makes drug testing reasonably necessary. Drug testing for employment is not analogous to and does not provide reasonability for drug testing welfare recipients.

 

Can anyone here imagine if Wall-Street employees had been Drug tested over the last Decade?

 

Or even investigated for regulation compliance...