Welfare recipients to be drug tested

An excellent point that Mr. Palos seems unwilling to acknowledge!

Requiring welfare receipients to have random drug tests is no more of an iinfringement upon civil rights than requiring motorists to provide proof of insurance at a roadside checkpoint.

 

I would agree with you if we had not been paying for a War on Poverty for over thirty years and had already solved for a natural unemployment rate, via market friendly means.

Otherwise, simply denying and disparaging individual liberty while not solving the problem is contrary to plain reason and legal axioms.

You may be resorting to special pleading since some persons may be addicted to legal drugs which are not tested for; and which had the effect of denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of other citizens.

And, it could solve official poverty for that individual who has the individual liberty to use those funds as their conscience may dictate toward the pursuit of Happiness.

 

Driving on public roads may endanger the lives of other people and it is a privilege that may not be required to earn a livelihood. Being denied and disparaged in a public assistance program that functions a social safety net also denies that livelihood and only worsens the dilemma of poverty; which we are trying to correct through public sector intervention in that market.

It would make more sense to require drug treatment and education while on public assistance than to engender more poverty while we are engaged in a War on Poverty.

 

Even though I haven't been posting, I have been reading this thread as it grows.

I must say I feel the need to reiterate that drug testing welfare recipients will do little more than force them to learn how to fake a drug test.

Also, the #1 drug purchased by anyone in this country is caffeine, followed by nicotine.

The drug test aren't going to catch either of those. If they did, they wouldn't care anyway.

So to the people wanting to drug test welfare recipients: Why the selective outrage over certain drugs? More welfare money is spent on caffeine and nicotine than all other illegal drugs combined. Why not go after those instead? Why not seek a solution like we have for food stamps? Give them a form of currency that you can't buy drugs with.

To the people who think it's a violation of rights and privacy: Go fight for the people that deserve the rights. Go fight against random drug tests in the workplace. Go fight against those drugs carrying a criminal charge. Put pressure on your representatives to come up with a better solution.

Personally, I think people receiving welfare should have the same right to privacy as elected officials; none at all. We are paying you, so we have a right to know what you are doing. If you don't like it, find another job.

 

disagree because drug testing for welfare is not the same as drug testing for a job.

welfare recipients should not have to choose between losing their liberties and money their entitled to.

 

Copy and pasted from previously...

OH - HELL'S NAH!!!!

If "The Man" is giving you money - then you need to obide by "The Man's" law! If that state is paying you and they drug test their employees - make sure they are not in trouble with the law then they need to do the same for anyone that is getting money from said state!!

If the workers for a state WORK and have to go through all that crap - then why do people who don't work who get their money from the same pool of funds get a free ticket? Background checks... the whole NINE YARDS!!!!

Get money for free while those that work have to jump through flaming hoops of invasions of privacy?

No No --- HELL NO!!!!

 

If they are breaking the law it sure the (*)(*)(*)(*) does!!!

 

It would mean so much more, if people who claim to care about the law; actually cared about the rule of law, instead of simply jumping on the bandwagon without a Cause.

 

The laws regarding recreational drugs?

 

Other than stating this opinion that you have about the rights of welfare recipients, do you care to share WHY you believe this? I think that would be the more entertaining statement.

 

*shrug* At least they're learning something.

 

equal enforcement under the law

many drug users do not need welfare and it is unfair to those that do, it is similar to singling out illegal immigrants with racial profiling.

 

wait... wait... it's unfair that some drug users need welfare and others don't? We shouldn't catch the ones on welfare, because they have an unfair disadvantage to breaking the law?

​

... and I guess all police officers should conduct foot races in wheel chairs? So we have equal enforcement against paraplegic purse snatchers?

 

the law should be enforced fairly

drug testing makes them more vulnerable than other americans

 

So is appearing on celebrity rehab... you don't have to ask to be there, you don't have to ask for a government handout. They are vulnerable because they are breaking the law. That a cop catches more folks who speed in red cars than those who speed in blue is not an argument to let the next red car have a free pass.

 

In my opinion, the War on Poverty in our republic has been a less effective and perhaps excessive use of the police power since its inception. And, it denies and disparages a States' right to its sovereign freedom and security.

The police power is usually more expensive than a power to simply Regulate forms of Commerce among the several States of the Union.

Why not eliminate that which is more expensive and does not work, for a simpler public policy choice that could engender a positive multiplier effect and promote, and, provide for the general welfare and common defense.

 

Actually, the law is what entitles people to this money. The legislature passed a law that indicated that people who have less than a certain amount of income would be given taxpayer money.

The law that created the entitlement has been modified by this law which added one more requirement - passing a drug test. The very source of that entitlement - the rule of law - is the source of this requirement. People in Florida are now only entitled to taxpayer money if they make less than a certain amount of money and pass a drug test. People who earn more and people who fail drug tests are not entitled to anything.

A second point - should people be forced to choose between loosing their liberties and holding down a job? How about choosing between their liberties and competing in professional sports?

 

Take money for a service (i.e. being fat and stupid in the case of welfare) and you are subject to scrutiny. The ANSWER, of course, is to eliminate the discriminatory program entirely. Either give government cheese to everyone or no one.

 

Many drug users who do not need welfare are probably dealing drugs, stealing from taxpayers and committing all sorts of other crimes as well. Also, if they're working and using drugs but just haven't gotten caught, they're contributing to the taxation system, not living off it.

Criminals will go to prison when caught. Welfare recipients just won't get our tax dollars if they are using drugs. Apples and oranges. If you receive tax dollars because you don't have a job, great. If you receive tax dollars and don't have a job because drugs have taken over your life, sober up so you can receive tax dollars. That's fair enough.

 

In my opinion, administering a drug test to persons who already know how to "game the system" is only wasting more of our tax money on an alleged, conservative, "feel good" public policy scheme that only serves to deny and disparage individual liberty and our civil rights, through the use of more arbitrary command economics; while claiming the need for a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge and stating they hate communism or socialism. It could be McCarthyism at its finest.

 

Wanting welfare recipients to pass drug tests is a long way from McCarthyism.

Wanting everyone in America to pass a drug test on a daily basis, under penalty of imprisonment, could be considered McCarthyism.

 

Besides Welfare recipients.....Gays and Lesbians should be drug and blood tested on a mandatory quarterly basis.

Carriers of Aides desease and other un-normal transferable crap.​

 

Both could be considered forms of McCarthyism simply because they both rely on the abomination of hypocrisy to deny and disparage individual liberty and civil rights; how moral is that, with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge of allegiance to our own republic?

How does simply requiring a drug test help us win our War on Poverty for those persons who would otherwise be in poverty, but for that public assistance? Shouldn't the end justify the means according to plain reason and legal axioms? I would agree with you if simply requiring a drug test could help us win our war on poverty so people would not need as much public assistance.

 

The article is very misleading. Is it only Applicants that are tested or are they really going after Recipients? I suspect only applicants at this time. You've got to start somewhere.

 

Let's start with ending our wasteful and useless, War on Drugs; maybe we should require drug tests of elected representatives before they can enact public policy decisions which have the effect of denying and disparaging individual liberty, and that have not worked for over thirty years.

At what point does such a public policy decision become a boondoggle and generational form of theft that could have otherwise been used to actually solve poverty in our republic and lower our tax burden as a result?