PDA

View Full Version : At Last! A Common Sense Law!!



Diggindeeper
Jun 3rd 2011, 08:03 AM
A new law, which goes into effect July 1, will require the Florida Department of Children and Family Services to perform drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Welfare recipients will be responsible for the cost of the screening, but will regain the money in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the drug test may deligate another person to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.

Some Democrats are furious over the new legislation. CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_drug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS) reports that one Democrat even deemed the bill “downright unconstitutional.” "'Indeed, investigating people when there is probable cause to suspect they are abusing drugs is one thing,' Rep. Corinne Brown said in a joint statement," as mentioned by CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_drug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS). "'But these tests amount to strip searching our state's most vulnerable residents merely because they rely on the government for financial support during these difficult economic times.'"

Can a simple drug test truly be considered “strip searching” though? Employers perform drug tests on their most loyal employees all the time.

Gov. Rick Scott says it’s “’unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction,’” as noted by CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_drug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS). "’It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs.’"

Link:
Florida Governor Signs Welfare Drug Screening into Law - For What It's Worth - Comcast.net

http://xfinity.comcast.net/finance/forwhatitsworth/7671568/floridagovernorsignswelfaredrugscreeningintolaw/?cid=hero_media

Liquid Tension
Jun 3rd 2011, 08:29 AM
I think this is a good law. I don't see what is unconstitutional about this. If you are going to the government for assistance, they should be willing to follow whatever guidelines are set to receive this assistance.

Yes, very smart with a lot of common sense.

Cornflake
Jun 3rd 2011, 08:33 AM
I think this is a good law. I don't see what is unconstitutional about this.

I'm going to guess this is what people think makes it unconstitutional -


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Liquid Tension
Jun 3rd 2011, 09:00 AM
At my job, I was required to take and pass a drug test as a condition of employment. I don't feel that it was unconstitutional. If a person is going to the government for assistance, I don't see the problem with the gov't asking these people to take a drug test. If they pass the test, they get their money back anyway. If they don't, oh well.

Makes perfect sense to me............but what do I know.

shepherdsword
Jun 3rd 2011, 11:35 AM
At my job, I was required to take and pass a drug test as a condition of employment. I don't feel that it was unconstitutional. If a person is going to the government for assistance, I don't see the problem with the gov't asking these people to take a drug test. If they pass the test, they get their money back anyway. If they don't, oh well.

Makes perfect sense to me............but what do I know.

One of the many reasons I want to move back to South Florida ASAP!

quiet dove
Jun 3rd 2011, 11:39 AM
What if they can't afford the upfront cost of the drug test?

Not saying it is a bad thing, just asking if someone already dead broke can't afford the upfront cost, even being reimbursed is not really helping because one can't afford it in the first place thus is shut out of the assistance?

slightlypuzzled
Jun 3rd 2011, 12:30 PM
That sounds good, but if you can afford to pay for the test, why do you need the assistance? I think it is a 'sounds good' law that is just going to go nowhere except to discourage families that need help. I like the idea of drug screening, but the burden can be hard to impossible for those that need the help. It will, however, provide 'jobs' for those performing the tests...but then, 'zero tolerance' laws can boomeranging...

In many ways this sounds like a Catch-22 law....

-SEEKING-
Jun 3rd 2011, 12:35 PM
I can't see anything negative about this at all. I also had to do a drug test before I got my job. And I have to WORK for my money.

Cornflake
Jun 3rd 2011, 04:53 PM
At my job, I was required to take and pass a drug test as a condition of employment. I don't feel that it was unconstitutional.

It wasn't. And it has nothing to do with this situation.

Liquid Tension
Jun 3rd 2011, 06:22 PM
I can't see anything negative about this at all. I also had to do a drug test before I got my job. And I have to WORK for my money.

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Liquid Tension
Jun 3rd 2011, 06:27 PM
It wasn't. And it has nothing to do with this situation.

As I said earlier, this proposal makes perfect sense......but what do I know.


So, why don't you enlighten us, oh learned one. http://serve.mysmiley.net/rolleye/rolleye.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

bob
Jun 3rd 2011, 06:36 PM
I'm going to guess this is what people think makes it unconstitutional -
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Its not unreasonable. Thats the reason the TSA can do what it does, courts have ruled it legal, although they haven't heard a case about scanners yet.

Saved7
Jun 3rd 2011, 07:02 PM
A new law, which goes into effect July 1, will require the Florida Department of Children and Family Services to perform drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Welfare recipients will be responsible for the cost of the screening, but will regain the money in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the drug test may deligate another person to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.

Some Democrats are furious over the new legislation. CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_drug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS) reports that one Democrat even deemed the bill “downright unconstitutional.” "'Indeed, investigating people when there is probable cause to suspect they are abusing drugs is one thing,' Rep. Corinne Brown said in a joint statement," as mentioned by CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_drug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS). "'But these tests amount to strip searching our state's most vulnerable residents merely because they rely on the government for financial support during these difficult economic times.'"

Can a simple drug test truly be considered “strip searching” though? Employers perform drug tests on their most loyal employees all the time.

Gov. Rick Scott says it’s “’unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction,’” as noted by CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_drug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS). "’It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs.’"

Link:
Florida Governor Signs Welfare Drug Screening into Law - For What It's Worth - Comcast.net

http://xfinity.comcast.net/finance/forwhatitsworth/7671568/floridagovernorsignswelfaredrugscreeningintolaw/?cid=hero_media

At last a law that I have been saying should be in existence for as long as I've understood the system. I've known sooo many people on assistance and on drugs too.
And I don't know the democrats are crying about this, they aren't crying about us working folks having to take the same test in order to get a JOB. Why should they find it offensive that someone who is using our tax dollars should be drug tested? Personally, I think they should do it every 3-6 months, and it should be DNA testing....because you can find evidence of drug use in DNA for anywhere from 3-6 months.

Liquid Tension
Jun 3rd 2011, 07:19 PM
At last a law that I have been saying should be in existence for as long as I've understood the system. I've known sooo many people on assistance and on drugs too.
And I don't know the democrats are crying about this, they aren't crying about us working folks having to take the same test in order to get a JOB. Why should they find it offensive that someone who is using our tax dollars should be drug tested? Personally, I think they should do it every 3-6 months, and it should be DNA testing....because you can find evidence of drug use in DNA for anywhere from 3-6 months.

Hit that one waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of the park here!! Great post!!

Caleb
Jun 3rd 2011, 07:46 PM
Will they also be bringing out a tests, for alcohol use, gluttony, gambling, tobacco, etc, etc, etc?

tango
Jun 3rd 2011, 07:49 PM
At my job, I was required to take and pass a drug test as a condition of employment. I don't feel that it was unconstitutional. If a person is going to the government for assistance, I don't see the problem with the gov't asking these people to take a drug test. If they pass the test, they get their money back anyway. If they don't, oh well.

Makes perfect sense to me............but what do I know.


It seems to me the primary argument that says job-related drug tests are acceptable while welfare-related drug tests are unacceptable is that you are free to take up the issue with your employer if you dislike it, and indeed free to move to another job.

I can't help thinking that for as long as people are required to pass drug tests to maintain their employment and pay the taxes that fund welfare, the people who claim welfare should also be required to pass drug tests in order to receive welfare. Or, put another way, why should a working person pay taxes so someone else can use the money to buy drugs?

Liquid Tension
Jun 3rd 2011, 08:07 PM
I can't help thinking that for as long as people are required to pass drug tests to maintain their employment and pay the taxes that fund welfare, the people who claim welfare should also be required to pass drug tests in order to receive welfare. Or, put another way, why should a working person pay taxes so someone else can use the money to buy drugs?

Well said, talon'd one!

Cornflake
Jun 3rd 2011, 09:01 PM
Its not unreasonable. Thats the reason the TSA can do what it does, courts have ruled it legal, although they haven't heard a case about scanners yet.

People disagree with you on whether or not it's unreasonable. I have no idea what this has to do with the TSA as they don't drug test passengers and drug testing for food stamps is unlikely to save anyone from blowing anything up, among other reasons they're unrelated.

bob
Jun 3rd 2011, 09:14 PM
People disagree with you on whether or not it's unreasonable. I have no idea what this has to do with the TSA as they don't drug test passengers and drug testing for food stamps is unlikely to save anyone from blowing anything up, among other reasons they're unrelated.

No, they aren't disagreeing with me, but with the courts. Why you don't see the question of the 4th amendment in both instances? Thats what both are about, and they are quite similar, you want something, Feds wanna make sure you won't do something you shouldn't. If the government is reasonable about it, the courts will most likely rule the searches/tests legal. In both instances the government has a reasonable reason, not to mention that you consent to it, thats the main part, you agree of your own free will.

Cornflake
Jun 3rd 2011, 09:31 PM
No, they aren't disagreeing with me, but with the courts. Why you don't see the question of the 4th amendment in both instances? Thats what both are about, and they are quite similar, you want something, Feds wanna make sure you won't do something you shouldn't. If the government is reasonable about it, the courts will most likely rule the searches/tests legal. In both instances the government has a reasonable reason, not to mention that you consent to it, thats the main part, you agree of your own free will.
They don't disagree with the courts as, as far as I know, no court has ruled on the legality of drug testing as a requirement for receiving food stamps.

Airline screening and drug testing for food stamps have nothing at all in common. "Feds wanna make sure you won't do something you shouldn't" does not apply equally to blowing people up and smoking pot. There's just nothing even remotely conneted here.

Liquid Tension
Jun 3rd 2011, 09:57 PM
They don't disagree with the courts as, as far as I know, no court has ruled on the legality of drug testing as a requirement for receiving food stamps.

Airline screening and drug testing for food stamps have nothing at all in common. "Feds wanna make sure you won't do something you shouldn't" does not apply equally to blowing people up and smoking pot. There's just nothing even remotely conneted here.

I tell you what, since you don't seem to have a problem with giving welfare/foodstamp assistance to people who are drug addicts/abusers, why don't you go see your friendly neighborhood drug addict and give him/her some of your hard earned money (I assume you have a job) and tell him/her to buy a warm meal. I can almost gaurentee that person won't buy food with it.

bob
Jun 3rd 2011, 09:58 PM
They don't disagree with the courts as, as far as I know, no court has ruled on the legality of drug testing as a requirement for receiving food stamps.

Airline screening and drug testing for food stamps have nothing at all in common. "Feds wanna make sure you won't do something you shouldn't" does not apply equally to blowing people up and smoking pot. There's just nothing even remotely conneted here.

I'm talking about the TSA when I say they disagree with the courts, I'm not aware of any courts making rulings on requiring drug tests for food stamps; but we use drug tests for other things, I see no reason they won't allow them to be used in this instance.

The Federal government does have an interest in what you do with the taxpayer's money. Just like it has an interest in whether or not you might kill people. The point is that in each case the government has reasonable motive for the searches/tests. I never said that airline screening and food stamps have things in common, maybe you didn't pay close attention when you read, I was talking about the searches/tests, perhaps you didn't realize that. The principle behind the 4th amendment rights is the same, I never said flying and getting food stamps were, unless you can show me where I did. You consent to the tests/searches in both instances, and in both instances the government has reasonable intentions in the searches/tests.

I also notice you immediately assume its pot smokers they're looking for.....

You just really seem to want to argue, you don't even want to argue the legality, you just want to nit-pick my posts, apparently looking for some small satisfaction for pointing out if I overreached in my anology, terribly sorry if I did, mea culpa.

Liquid Tension
Jun 3rd 2011, 10:11 PM
You just really seem to want to argue, you don't even want to argue the legality, you just want to nit-pick my posts, apparently looking for some small satisfaction for pointing out if I overreached in my anology, terribly sorry if I did, mea culpa.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

To quote another member here said to me, CF will argue with a fence post.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Cornflake
Jun 3rd 2011, 10:32 PM
I'm talking about the TSA when I say they disagree with the courts, I'm not aware of any courts making rulings on requiring drug tests for food stamps; but we use drug tests for other things, I see no reason they won't allow them to be used in this instance.

The Federal government does have an interest in what you do with the taxpayer's money. Just like it has an interest in whether or not you might kill people. The point is that in each case the government has reasonable motive for the searches/tests. I never said that airline screening and food stamps have things in common, maybe you didn't pay close attention when you read, I was talking about the searches/tests, perhaps you didn't realize that. The principle behind the 4th amendment rights is the same, I never said flying and getting food stamps were, unless you can show me where I did. You consent to the tests/searches in both instances, and in both instances the government has reasonable intentions in the searches/tests.

I also notice you immediately assume its pot smokers they're looking for.....

You just really seem to want to argue, you don't even want to argue the legality, you just want to nit-pick my posts, apparently looking for some small satisfaction for pointing out if I overreached in my anology, terribly sorry if I did, mea culpa.
I'm not nit-picking your posts. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever to me. I thought this was a discussion. Apparently I'm supposed to just say you're correct and move on even if I disagree and don't understand?

Because you see no reason the a court will put the kibosh on this doesn't mean they won't.

This part -


I never said that airline screening and food stamps have things in common, maybe you didn't pay close attention when you read, I was talking about the searches/tests, perhaps you didn't realize that. The principle behind the 4th amendment rights is the same, I never said flying and getting food stamps were, unless you can show me where I did. You consent to the tests/searches in both instances, and in both instances the government has reasonable intentions in the searches/tests.

Still makes no earthly sense. You're comparing the TSA and food stamps, yes, because you're assuming the law would see them the exact same way. Why not compare searching people in police custody clutching weaponry to food stamp applicants, as we're talking about the same amendment?

As there are abundant differences...


I tell you what, since you don't seem to have a problem with giving welfare/foodstamp assistance to people who are drug addicts/abusers, why don't you go see your friendly neighborhood drug addict and give him/her some of your hard earned money (I assume you have a job) and tell him/her to buy a warm meal. I can almost gaurentee that person won't buy food with it.

I have a problem with violating the Constitution, first off, and I think this may cross that line. I also have a problem denying children food because their parents have issues. The coda in this legislation is that other people can get the food stamps for kids in trust - but they have to be clean as well and willing to sign documents and take charge of the assistance. It's not as if the government hands over cash that people just use for drugs. It's a grocery card, which only purchases certain things (like no cigarettes, etc.), and yes, it can theoretically be sold but it's not as simple or easy to transfer as cash would be. Also, drug users also actually need food - as do their kids, elderly parents, etc.

You've never given money to a homeless person?

bob
Jun 3rd 2011, 10:45 PM
I'm not nit-picking your posts. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever to me. I thought this was a discussion. Apparently I'm supposed to just say you're correct and move on even if I disagree and don't understand?

Because you see no reason the a court will put the kibosh on this doesn't mean they won't.

This part -



Still makes no earthly sense. You're comparing the TSA and food stamps, yes, because you're assuming the law would see them the exact same way. Why not compare searching people in police custody clutching weaponry to food stamp applicants, as we're talking about the same amendment?

As there are abundant differences...



I have a problem with violating the Constitution, first off, and I think this may cross that line. I also have a problem denying children food because their parents have issues. The coda in this legislation is that other people can get the food stamps for kids in trust - but they have to be clean as well and willing to sign documents and take charge of the assistance. It's not as if the government hands over cash that people just use for drugs. It's a grocery card, which only purchases certain things (like no cigarettes, etc.), and yes, it can theoretically be sold but it's not as simple or easy to transfer as cash would be. Also, drug users also actually need food - as do their kids, elderly parents, etc.

You've never given money to a homeless person?

I'm comparing reasonable search and seizure. Both are related to the 4th amendment, both drug tests for food stamps and aiport security are having their "reasonability" challenged. I want you to quote one of my posts where I said drug tests for food stamps and pat downs at an airport were the same; I only said "Thats why the TSA can do what it does." Courts have ruled it legal. In the other post I said "Both are about the 4th amendment." I never said they had something "in common". I am only discussing the application of the 4th amendment, the "reasonable" part, both of these instances here are reasonable, doesn't matter if they have nothing in common, they must only be shown reasonable. I also never said the law will see them in the same way, its the "reasonable" part that is the same. That is my whole point, do you read this? I only care about the reasonable part, not what they do or don't have in common.

You are still nitpicking my post, you haven't made any comment on why it isn't legal, just why my anology is wrong. I suggest we forget about the 4th amendment comparison, and you explain with evidence your view on why it is illegal to make adults submit to a drug test to prevent the misuse of taxpayer money that could be suporting children being used instead for drugs.

Furthermore, you are wrong when you say that kids won't be able to get food, the parents will not receive the food stamps, but they can have them given to someone else on "behalf of the child".

Liquid Tension
Jun 3rd 2011, 10:46 PM
I have a problem with violating the Constitution, first off, and I think this may cross that line. I also have a problem denying children food because their parents have issues. The coda in this legislation is that other people can get the food stamps for kids in trust - but they have to be clean as well and willing to sign documents and take charge of the assistance. It's not as if the government hands over cash that people just use for drugs. It's a grocery card, which only purchases certain things (like no cigarettes, etc.), and yes, it can theoretically be sold but it's not as simple or easy to transfer as cash would be. Also, drug users also actually need food - as do their kids, elderly parents, etc.

You've never given money to a homeless person?

Is my jobs request for me to take/pass a pre-employment drug test a violation of my constitutional rights?? I don't believe so. Same as this law. Also, selling foodstamp benefits are easy: someone on EBT/foodstamps can offer to by my food with their card in return for cash. Did mention how easy it is?? Well, with cash in hand, what do they spend it on??

And no, I have never given a homeless person money. However, I have bought food for them.

Diggindeeper
Jun 3rd 2011, 10:49 PM
I'm not nit-picking your posts. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever to me. I thought this was a discussion. Apparently I'm supposed to just say you're correct and move on even if I disagree and don't understand?

Because you see no reason the a court will put the kibosh on this doesn't mean they won't.

This part -



Still makes no earthly sense. You're comparing the TSA and food stamps, yes, because you're assuming the law would see them the exact same way. Why not compare searching people in police custody clutching weaponry to food stamp applicants, as we're talking about the same amendment?

As there are abundant differences...



I have a problem with violating the Constitution, first off, and I think this may cross that line. I also have a problem denying children food because their parents have issues. The coda in this legislation is that other people can get the food stamps for kids in trust - but they have to be clean as well and willing to sign documents and take charge of the assistance. It's not as if the government hands over cash that people just use for drugs. It's a grocery card, which only purchases certain things (like no cigarettes, etc.), and yes, it can theoretically be sold but it's not as simple or easy to transfer as cash would be. Also, drug users also actually need food - as do their kids, elderly parents, etc.

You've never given money to a homeless person?

Wait...hold on here a minute...
I don't see anywhere it mentions in the OP article that the welfare benefits are FOOD STAMPS.

And as far as your fuss about 'denying food stamps for kids in trust'.......THIS is a direct quote from the news article. It says:

Those who fail the drug test may deligate another person to receive the benefits on behalf of their children."


No children will be denied food. Where did you get that?

Cornflake
Jun 3rd 2011, 10:55 PM
You are still nitpicking my post, you haven't made any comment on why it isn't legal, just why my anology is wrong. I suggest we forget about the 4th amendment comparison, and you explain with evidence your view on why it is illegal to make adults submit to a drug test to prevent the misuse of taxpayer money that could be suporting children being used instead for drugs.

Furthermore, you are wrong when you say that kids won't be able to get food, the parents will not receive the food stamps, but they can have them given to someone else on "behalf of the child".
Are you reading my posts? Because I addressed the latter in the post you just quoted.

I also said that I. THINK. IT. CROSSES. A. CONSTITUTIONAL. LINE. Just because you keep SAYING that it's reasonable does not actually mean I or any court will agree with you. As your reasoning seems to me to be that other, utterly different in circumstance, searches are reasonable thus therefore this one must be, I don't know how you're not comparing the two events, but whatever.


Is my jobs request for me to take/pass a pre-employment drug test a violation of my constitutional rights?? I don't believe so. Same as this law.
No, it's not a violation, any more than your employer telling you you can't yell curses at people in the office is a violation of your right to free speech.

They can buy your food, if you're buying things that the card will allow to be bought and you're both there and yada yada. They can spend it on any number of things, plenty of people on assistance are not druggies. I'm not thrilled with someone on food assistance theoretically not using the money for food either, but I don't think this would do much to stop it and I think it seems a violation regardless.

bob
Jun 3rd 2011, 11:01 PM
Are you reading my posts? Because I addressed the latter in the post you just quoted.

I also said that I. THINK. IT. CROSSES. A. CONSTITUTIONAL. LINE. Just because you keep SAYING that it's reasonable does not actually mean I or any court will agree with you. As your reasoning seems to me to be that other, utterly different in circumstance, searches are reasonable thus therefore this one must be, I don't know how you're not comparing the two events, but whatever.


No, it's not a violation, any more than your employer telling you you can't yell curses at people in the office is a violation of your right to free speech.

They can buy your food, if you're buying things that the card will allow to be bought and you're both there and yada yada. They can spend it on any number of things, plenty of people on assistance are not druggies. I'm not thrilled with someone on food assistance theoretically not using the money for food either, but I don't think this would do much to stop it and I think it seems a violation regardless.

Let me see.... Government's money, it decides to kindly give you some, wants to make certain you won't spend it on drugs and make your kids starve, seems reasonable (MY WHOLE POINT RIGHT HERE, THIS IS THE LOGIC BEHIND IT BEING REASONABLE, I CHALLENGED YOU TO SHOW ME WHERE I SAID TSA PAT DOWNS AND FOOD STAMPS ARE THE SAME, THAT IS NOT MY LOGIC FOR THE "REASONABLE" PART), if you disagree, tell me why, I already pointed out the kids still get it, any other objections? Why isn't it reasonable?

Liquid Tension
Jun 3rd 2011, 11:04 PM
Are you reading my posts? Because I addressed the latter in the post you just quoted.

I also said that I. THINK. IT. CROSSES. A. CONSTITUTIONAL. LINE. Just because you keep SAYING that it's reasonable does not actually mean I or any court will agree with you. As your reasoning seems to me to be that other, utterly different in circumstance, searches are reasonable thus therefore this one must be, I don't know how you're not comparing the two events, but whatever.


No, it's not a violation, any more than your employer telling you you can't yell curses at people in the office is a violation of your right to free speech.

They can buy your food, if you're buying things that the card will allow to be bought and you're both there and yada yada. They can spend it on any number of things, plenty of people on assistance are not druggies. I'm not thrilled with someone on food assistance theoretically not using the money for food either, but I don't think this would do much to stop it and I think it seems a violation regardless.


It may not stop it, but a law which would help cut down on welfare abuse I'm all for, including drug tests. Also, you say you think it crosses a constitutional line, I don't believe it does.

Cornflake
Jun 3rd 2011, 11:16 PM
Government's money, it decides to kindly give you some, wants to make certain you won't spend it on drugs and make your kids starve, seems reasonable

Ok, reasonable in the 'unreasonable searches' does not mean like, you find the logic of wanting it reasonable. It means the search, which should be backed by a warrant, must have reasonable cause. Testing everyone applying for food stamps or other assistance - when there's no evidence such people are more likely than anyone else in the world to use drugs, or use the benefits FOR drugs, or etc., and there's not any gain from it and I can't see it being used for prosecution, falls to unreasonable imo. It's targetting poor people for drug testing (after all, there's no call to drug test senors receiving SS, other people receiving SS benefits, those receiving unemployment, etc.). I think that's a clear violation on more than one count.

If you disagree, please explain how besides that it seems reasonable to you, thus it doesn't meet the unreasonable standard, because that's not a legal argument and we're talking about a legal standard.



It may not stop it, but a law which would help cut down on welfare abuse I'm all for, including drug tests. Also, you say you think it crosses a constitutional line, I don't believe it does.

Ok, I'm not demanding everyone agree with me, or anything close. I'm saying I disagree and that seems to be a problem.

Saved7
Jun 4th 2011, 12:53 AM
Will they also be bringing out a tests, for alcohol use, gluttony, gambling, tobacco, etc, etc, etc?

Hey, I say if you are collecting my hard earned tax dollars so you can stay at home, then by all means, HECK YES! The majority of folks on welfare are on drugs and spending that money they get on drugs, they even used to trade their foods stamps for drugs....so by all means, give them regulations to keep the money coming in. If I have to show up for work every day, sober and do my job, and respect my boss, then these folks can earn it too by being responsible with it.

bob
Jun 4th 2011, 12:58 AM
Ok, reasonable in the 'unreasonable searches' does not mean like, you find the logic of wanting it reasonable. It means the search, which should be backed by a warrant, must have reasonable cause. Testing everyone applying for food stamps or other assistance - when there's no evidence such people are more likely than anyone else in the world to use drugs, or use the benefits FOR drugs, or etc., and there's not any gain from it and I can't see it being used for prosecution, falls to unreasonable imo. It's targetting poor people for drug testing (after all, there's no call to drug test senors receiving SS, other people receiving SS benefits, those receiving unemployment, etc.). I think that's a clear violation on more than one count.

If you disagree, please explain how besides that it seems reasonable to you, thus it doesn't meet the unreasonable standard, because that's not a legal argument and we're talking about a legal standard.



Ok, I'm not demanding everyone agree with me, or anything close. I'm saying I disagree and that seems to be a problem.

Searches do not always need a warrant, I can think of several instances where they are not required; your point is not valid. Furthermore, the part of about not having a good suspicion; that you are not more likely to use drugs then any other person, well, let me ask you this question. Do we search people for weapons/bombs without a good reason for suspecting that they are terrorists? Yes, we do. I wasn't aware it was our seniors who were the most addicted class of citizens, unless you have studies to show us that seniors are using illegal drugs in significant numbers, we don't need to test them before they get SS. You are concerned about kids starving, yes? So you should make certain they will receive that money.. Food stamps are not something people are entitled to, if the government wants to make certain people will use the money properly, and actually feed their kids with it, the government has every right to do that, show me a law where it says they can't.

Cornflake
Jun 4th 2011, 01:50 AM
The majority of folks on welfare are on drugs and spending that money they get on drugsWhere do you get that information?


Searches do not always need a warrant, I can think of several instances where they are not required; your point is not valid.Oy, vey iz mir. Right. Sometimes they don't require a warrant. When there's... wait for it... reasonable cause.


Do we search people for weapons/bombs without a good reason for suspecting that they are terrorists? If you're, again, talking about airline searches - they're everyone or they're random or there's cause. That is WHY they're random or they're everyone or there's cause.


I wasn't aware it was our seniors who were the most addicted class of citizens, unless you have studies to show us that seniors are using illegal drugs in significant numbers, we don't need to test them before they get SS. I wasn't aware that people seeking assistance were the most addicted class of citizens. Can you show me significant numbers to prove that?


if the government wants to make certain people will use the money properly, and actually feed their kids with it, the government has every right to do that, show me a law where it says they can't. See one of my first posts in this thread where I quoted the Constitution. I could add other clauses, if you wish...


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

bob
Jun 4th 2011, 02:31 AM
Where do you get that information?

Oy, vey iz mir. Right. Sometimes they don't require a warrant. When there's... wait for it... reasonable cause.

If you're, again, talking about airline searches - they're everyone or they're random or there's cause. That is WHY they're random or they're everyone or there's cause.

I wasn't aware that people seeking assistance were the most addicted class of citizens. Can you show me significant numbers to prove that?

See one of my first posts in this thread where I quoted the Constitution. I could add other clauses, if you wish...

I never said low income Americans are the most addicted class, but if you're gonna make the absurd suggestion that seniors are so addicted and are using SS money for druhs, expect me to call you out, low income Americans are far more likely to use illegal drugs. I have proof for that:

Study here, http://www.researchforum.org/media/RFdsd04.pdf although the data on substance abuse isn't perfect since it relies on the participant, not actual testing.

Heres one from NPR. Read the part from this poll about those who earn less than twice the poverty line, about 34k grand a year or less. Drug abuse is considered among them the biggest cause of poverty. http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/poll/poverty/

Ireland reaches similar conclusions. http://www.mqi.ie/page.php?id=20


This data is not meant to prove they are the most addicted, but show the problems we have wih poverty and drugs...
Still waiting for your statistics on seniors. Got those for me?

Furthermore, the constitution protects against unreasonable searches, since you are not entitled to welfare, and since you submit of your own free will, and since the test is to make certain this money isn't used by people who will use it improperly and don't starve, it is perfectly legal for the government to ask. You have no case against its legality, you have to prove its unreasonable, that is what the constitution protects against, and you have been unable to show that it is unreasonable.

Diggindeeper
Jun 4th 2011, 02:55 AM
That's how I see it too, Bob. Poverty, as sad as it is, oftentimes truly is connected to to sub-culture that is heavy into drugs.

And, the states issuing any welfare, including food stamps (or cards) has the right to have certain 'guidelines' as to who is eligible and how the stamps or cards are to be used.

I see NOTHING wrong with drug testing before just handing the welfare over.

Cornflake
Jun 4th 2011, 03:21 AM
This data is not meant to prove they are the most addicted, but show the problems we have wih poverty and drugs...
Still waiting for your statistics on seniors. Got those for me?
I didn't say seniors were addicted to anything, I said if your argument is that the government should test people collecting government subsidies, then we should also be testing seniors, etc. You assumed that meant I thought they were druggies.


Furthermore, the constitution protects against unreasonable searches, since you are not entitled to welfare, and since you submit of your own free will, and since the test is to make certain this money isn't used by people who will use it improperly and don't starve, it is perfectly legal for the government to ask. You have no case against its legality, you have to prove its unreasonable, that is what the constitution protects against, and you have been unable to show that it is unreasonable. I don't even know where to start, honestly. If you meet the income requirements, yes, you are entitled to assistance.

I don't know where to begin with the rest because you seem either wholly incapable or unwilling to recognize that your opinion is your opinion. It is not fact. This has not been adjudicated so you cannot say that it's legal and I've "been unable to show" that it's unreasonable. I made an argument for my position. You've done nothing but declare that, for reasons unknown besides that you think so, this is perfectly legal and reasonable. Just because you think that doesn't make it fact.

I have my opinion, you have yours. Why you can't either discuss those differences or just accept we have differing opinions I don't understand, but have at it, I give up.

bob
Jun 4th 2011, 04:14 AM
I didn't say seniors were addicted to anything, I said if your argument is that the government should test people collecting government subsidies, then we should also be testing seniors, etc. You assumed that meant I thought they were druggies.

I don't even know where to start, honestly. If you meet the income requirements, yes, you are entitled to assistance.

I don't know where to begin with the rest because you seem either wholly incapable or unwilling to recognize that your opinion is your opinion. It is not fact. This has not been adjudicated so you cannot say that it's legal and I've "been unable to show" that it's unreasonable. I made an argument for my position. You've done nothing but declare that, for reasons unknown besides that you think so, this is perfectly legal and reasonable. Just because you think that doesn't make it fact.

I have my opinion, you have yours. Why you can't either discuss those differences or just accept we have differing opinions I don't understand, but have at it, I give up.

You have no consritutional entitlement to food stamps, not a mandate, otherwise the government was violating it all the time it didn't offer them, the government decides to give them out, and it can place restrictions if it wants. Like an income limit.

I may not be able to prove its reasonable, but neither have you answered any question about why its unreasonable, so you're one to talk. I can easily admit there a good chance I'm wrong, I'm not a law scholar, but can you admit you can be wrong? I haven't seen you say your opinion could be wrong, just telling everyone else that we are wrong.

I'm aware of a 6th circuit court en banc ruling declaring a law like this unconstitutional, it overturned the three judge opinion, but I know the en banc ruling was a perfect split, so I think the SCOTUS would overrule it, they ruled a school can conduct drug tests on students for extracurricular activities.

EarlyCall
Jun 4th 2011, 05:44 AM
I'm going to guess this is what people think makes it unconstitutional -

On the other hand, I suppose the proper way to look at this would be that a requirement must be met in order for these people to get something given to them. If they do not like the deal, they are certainly free to not accept. That is rather simple and there is no violation of any constitutional right when there is no force being applied.

When I took my job, I had to first pass a drug test. I was free to refuse and they were free to not give me the job. Same principle at work here. But, either the dem Rep is ignorant or just plain dumb - or he could be simply lying. But he is at least one of the three and possibly all three.

Hunter121
Jun 4th 2011, 06:01 AM
Wow this is great, now I know my taxes won't go completely to waste when I start to pay them.

Cornflake
Jun 4th 2011, 06:05 AM
That is rather simple and there is no violation of any constitutional right when there is no force being applied.

When I took my job, I had to first pass a drug test. I was free to refuse and they were free to not give me the job. Same principle at work here. But, either the dem Rep is ignorant or just plain dumb - or he could be simply lying. But he is at least one of the three and possibly all three.
Or he disagrees with you, which is apparently not a possibility?

As I just looked up the Michigan case, two courts have now found that type of provision unconstitutional. It's not an idea I made up that it can be seen as unconstitutional. As other states are trying again, I'm sure it'll end up back in court and we'll see how far either side will go and maybe SCOTUS will end up making a decision. Until then, it's a discussion - not 'well it just IS legal and anyone who says otherwise is lying or dumb.' eh?

Amos_with_goats
Jun 4th 2011, 06:27 AM
A couple of things about the law;

Negative results will trigger reimbursement for the test....

Drug offenses are currently used as a 'dis qualifier' for food stamps in FL (as are other offenses)... a family unit has that member subtracted from their totally allocation.

Drug testing is used in other states to maintain eligibility for subsidized housing.

While the ACLU will likely oppose this, there are no obvious reasons it will fail.... we shall see.

Reynolds357
Jun 4th 2011, 06:34 AM
I'm going to guess this is what people think makes it unconstitutional -

The law does not say they have to take a drug test. It says if you want welfare, you must take a drug test. Welfare is not a Constitutional right, it is a social program.

Cornflake
Jun 4th 2011, 06:39 AM
While the ACLU will likely oppose this, there are no obvious reasons it will fail.... we shall see.

Two courts have thus far found reasons such a provision was unconstitutional. I assume states likely tried to write the new provisions to skirt the objections, but I've read neither the code itself nor the full decisions from the failed law so I don't know what or if they changed. Presumably it will go back to court, yes.

Amos_with_goats
Jun 4th 2011, 06:43 AM
Two courts have thus far found reasons such a provision was unconstitutional. I assume states likely tried to write the new provisions to skirt the objections, but I've read neither the code itself nor the full decisions from the failed law so I don't know what or if they changed. Presumably it will go back to court, yes.

DO you think the law is a good or bad idea?

EarlyCall
Jun 4th 2011, 12:31 PM
Or he disagrees with you, which is apparently not a possibility?

As I just looked up the Michigan case, two courts have now found that type of provision unconstitutional. It's not an idea I made up that it can be seen as unconstitutional. As other states are trying again, I'm sure it'll end up back in court and we'll see how far either side will go and maybe SCOTUS will end up making a decision. Until then, it's a discussion - not 'well it just IS legal and anyone who says otherwise is lying or dumb.' eh?

First, you should use my entire post in this particular as it gives full context, and the part you left out takes from the context in this instance. Second, courts do not always get it right.

I'd like to take this moment to remind you that courts often disagree with one another. So, if you are attempting to use a court ruling as evidence something is right, you are in error. As an example - abortion. Are you really willing to tell me the court got that one right?

Now, one more time. These people are not entitled to these benefits. That is where we should start. Therefore, since they are not entitled, and since it is a free handout to them paid for by others through their taxes, it is reasonable they meet some requirements. Now, if this particular requirement in this specific instance is unconstitutional, then give them nothing and require nothing from them. Problem solved. Now, if they still insist upon getting the benefits, then make them take the test.

the sound
Jun 4th 2011, 01:20 PM
i refuse to take a drug test for any job, even though i would pass. so my opinion of this law pretty low.

here is my issue with it. let's say it comes back positive for a man with 3 kids and wife... what is done then to help him get off the drugs... this law helps no one just punishs people who are at their lowest.

bob
Jun 4th 2011, 03:36 PM
Two courts have thus far found reasons such a provision was unconstitutional. I assume states likely tried to write the new provisions to skirt the objections, but I've read neither the code itself nor the full decisions from the failed law so I don't know what or if they changed. Presumably it will go back to court, yes.

The Marchwinski case was a perfect split in the en banc ruling, the three judge panel ruled it legal. The SCOTUS ruled that it is legal for a school to mandate drug tests on students for extracurricular activities; I expect them to rule that the government can require drug tests for welfare. I may be wrong, bet we'll see.

On another note, you guys who are required to take drug tests for work, does your work involve any kind of risk? I know there was a ruling deciding it was legal to order drug tests if the work was hazardous, but I don't know about non hazardous work.

bob
Jun 4th 2011, 03:39 PM
i refuse to take a drug test for any job, even though i would pass. so my opinion of this law pretty low.

here is my issue with it. let's say it comes back positive for a man with 3 kids and wife... what is done then to help him get off the drugs... this law helps no one just punishs people who are at their lowest.

If he was on drugs in the first place then neither taking the drug test nor not taking the drug test has any effect on his addiction. I don't see how it punishes; can you explain that more?

Cornflake
Jun 4th 2011, 04:47 PM
DO you think the law is a good or bad idea?

I think I've been pretty clear in that I think it's unconstitutional. Besides that, I think it's a bad idea. It's a giant waste of money for no purpse. As Michigan demonstrated, the percent of people who tested positive proved the same as drug users in the general population, and the majority of that small percent tested positive for pot.

I think the entire thing is set up to make the uneducated who think that welfare is some big percent of the budget and a large percent of "their tax money" feel better. Seems to me it'd be cheaper and more effective to educate those people than to stigmatize and punish the poor.

Diggindeeper
Jun 4th 2011, 05:02 PM
It would not put the welfare system in the position of ENABLING people to use the government provided assistance for drugs. By requiring drug testing, the government would not be an ENABLER, it seems to me.

Saved7
Jun 4th 2011, 05:07 PM
Where do you get that information?

..

I get it from being involved with a guy and living with him and hanging out with him and his friends, (a number of years ago) who lived in a city where nearly half the residents of that city were on welfare and on drugs, most of which were doing crack and I watched how they got their hands on it, I knew where they got their money from, I also had friends who were on welfare and living in urban areas where more than half were on drugs and on welfare...if they have no source of income apart from welfare, where do you suppose they get their money to buy drugs from??? I get my information from experience.

Liquid Tension
Jun 4th 2011, 06:55 PM
First, you should use my entire post in this particular as it gives full context, and the part you left out takes from the context in this instance. Second, courts do not always get it right.

I'd like to take this moment to remind you that courts often disagree with one another. So, if you are attempting to use a court ruling as evidence something is right, you are in error. As an example - abortion. Are you really willing to tell me the court got that one right?

Now, one more time. These people are not entitled to these benefits. That is where we should start. Therefore, since they are not entitled, and since it is a free handout to them paid for by others through their taxes, it is reasonable they meet some requirements. Now, if this particular requirement in this specific instance is unconstitutional, then give them nothing and require nothing from them. Problem solved. Now, if they still insist upon getting the benefits, then make them take the test.

Very well thought post here. The last paragraph is an excellent point. Game, set, match I'd imagine.

Liquid Tension
Jun 4th 2011, 07:04 PM
i refuse to take a drug test for any job, even though i would pass. so my opinion of this law pretty low.

here is my issue with it. let's say it comes back positive for a man with 3 kids and wife... what is done then to help him get off the drugs... this law helps no one just punishs people who are at their lowest.

If that man, with 3 kids and a wife puts abusing drugs above providing for his family, then he doesn't deserve the assistance. Simple. Now, if the wife isn't on drugs, she could go on the program, or even another family member. In case you didn't read the whole article.....


Those who fail the drug test may deligate another person to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.

...so again, how does this law punish these people???? If they are on drugs, it's up to them to seek help.

Liquid Tension
Jun 4th 2011, 07:16 PM
I think I've been pretty clear in that I think it's unconstitutional. Besides that, I think it's a bad idea. It's a giant waste of money for no purpse. As Michigan demonstrated, the percent of people who tested positive proved the same as drug users in the general population, and the majority of that small percent tested positive for pot.

So, the gov't trying to do a good thing is a waste of money???? :o :o :o :o :o And you do realize that drug abusers are normally way beyond pot, right??


I think the entire thing is set up to make the uneducated who think that welfare is some big percent of the budget and a large percent of "their tax money" feel better. Seems to me it'd be cheaper and more effective to educate those people than to stigmatize and punish the poor.

Sooooooo, because I don't part of my tax dollars going to drug abusers, or those who don't want to work, I'm uneducated??? Then educate me, OH LEARNED ONE!!! http://serve.mysmiley.net/rolleye/rolleye0011.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

You might want to think about your choice of words before typing them, son!!!

Amos_with_goats
Jun 4th 2011, 07:51 PM
I think I've been pretty clear in that I think it's unconstitutional. Besides that, I think it's a bad idea. It's a giant waste of money for no purpse......

Yes, the entitlement programs are clearly not constitutional, but it is a little too late to do much about that now.

(yea, I know that was not what you were talking about). ;)

I believe a 1:1 tax breaks for people providing voluntary support might be a much more equatable way to 'promote the general warfare'.... private citizens (who have labored for their money) would be much less likely to promote a 'welfare culture' that does at least as much harm as good.

That is really why this is law was necessary... and will be so popular. Hard working people have no trouble 'chipping in' to help people... panhandlers have long known that the best 'pickings' are in blue collar areas... people close to poverty are often the most generous.

People want to help. Sadly, our current system places government into that equation.. and most people (rightly) believe that government does not do a good job of figuring out how to 'help' without making things worse...

This law seems to be an effort to at least inject SOME accountability into a system that is currently lacking in that area.

Cornflake
Jun 4th 2011, 11:20 PM
So, the gov't trying to do a good thing is a waste of money???? :o :o :o :o :o And you do realize that drug abusers are normally way beyond pot, right??
I don't think it's a good thing, I think it's a waste of money based on trying to placate people who have a misguided idea.


Sooooooo, because I don't part of my tax dollars going to drug abusers, or those who don't want to work, I'm uneducated??? Then educate me, OH LEARNED ONE!!! http://serve.mysmiley.net/rolleye/rolleye0011.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

You might want to think about your choice of words before typing them, son!!!You might want to think about reading my words before getting all offended. I said -


I think the entire thing is set up to make the uneducated who think that welfare is some big percent of the budget and a large percent of "their tax money" feel better. Seems to me it'd be cheaper and more effective to educate those people than to stigmatize and punish the poor.I'm specifcially talking about people who are uneducated about the cost of 'welfare.' If someone thinks welfare is a big percent of the general national budgetary spending or a large percent of where their tax money goes then yes, they're uneducated on that matter.

If you don't want the minute amount you pay into the system going to the presumably fewer than one out of ten people in the system who smoke pot, that's your right. I'm saying people often have the idea that these programs cost a lot and that lots of their money goes into them and that's not the case.

Amos_with_goats
Jun 4th 2011, 11:31 PM
.....I'm saying people often have the idea that these programs cost a lot and that lots of their money goes into them and that's not the case.

Well, social programs are the largest portion of our federal budget, at approximately 40% (http://moneyning.com/money-news/federal-budget-breakdown-2011/) between the 'big3'. I don't think that the benefits that are likely going not to be paid is going to make a bit of difference in the numbers... Of course we are talking apples and oranges here because some are likely thinking of the national budget, not the state budget in Florida.....

I doubt that the 'savings' are what makes this law so attractive. I believe it is more likely that the government of Florida is taking some step (and not unreasonable) to prevent the abuse of the benefits...

Cornflake
Jun 4th 2011, 11:44 PM
Well, social programs are the largest portion of our federal budget, at approximately 40% between the 'big3'. I don't think that the benefits that are likely going not to be paid is going to make a bit of difference in the numbers... Of course we are talking apples and oranges here because some are likely thinking of the national budget, not the state budget in Florida.....

That's mostly SS and medicare/aid though. Food AND housing assistance combined are less than 5% of the budget. If someone paid (and didn't get back at tax time) $10,000 in taxes in a year, that's less than $500 for welfare. At, according to the program in Michigan, fewer than one in ten people receiving assistance testing positive, that's $40-odd. Like I said, if someone doesn't want their $45 or whatever going to feed someone and their kids because they do drugs, that's their business, I'm not arguing. I just think people don't understand what money we're talking about - and how much will be spent on the testing program, which will invariably be far more than 'saved' if they cut off all the drug users.

Amos_with_goats
Jun 5th 2011, 12:01 AM
Ok, first let's set aside the legal argument for a moment, and look at the title...


Re: At Last! A Common Sense Law!!



Cornflake, I am not going to send you a dollar. You are not entitled to that dollar, and I will not pay it!

I think this may cross that line. I also have a problem denying children food because their parents have issues.Is it reasonable that I not send you a dollar? Maybe I am denying your children food by not doing so? :confused

See the flaw here?

bob
Jun 5th 2011, 12:05 AM
Ok, first let's set aside the legal argument for a moment, and look at the title...



Cornflake, I am not going to send you a dollar. You are not entitled to that dollar, and I will not pay it!


Is it reasonable that I not send you a dollar? Maybe I am denying your children food by not doing so? :confused

See the flaw here?




I don't know if you've read the whole thread, but we noted a couple pages ago that the law wouldn't affect the children, the benefits can be delegated to someone else. The whole point of this law is to make certain that the money is used for those who need it; I think Cornflake was just trying to guilt-trip us.

Amos_with_goats
Jun 5th 2011, 12:16 AM
....if someone doesn't want their $45 or whatever going to feed someone and their kids because they do drugs, that's their business, I'm not arguing. I just think people don't understand what money we're talking about - and how much will be spent on the testing program, which will invariably be far more than 'saved' if they cut off all the drug users.

yea, I am no expert... but I think you are. :lol:

Which is ok, I just think it is funny how on one hand you are saying that it is such a HUGE waste of money to test... yet it is such an insignificant sum spent on the benefits..

Personally I think it is really unfortunate that we (the Church) ever let the government get into the business of doing what we are to do.

bob
Jun 5th 2011, 12:21 AM
Personally I think it is really unfortunate that we (the Church) ever let the government get into the business of doing what we are to do.

Back in the 1800's we had a democrat president, I think it was McKinley, he refused to send money to farmeres in Texas who's crops and were devestated and needed money to survive. He said that it was the job of fellow American's to do it. I know he didn't say the job of he Church, but it is our responsibility; now of course we can't provide for everyone, but we can do a better job than we are currently.

But think about this, when was the last time you heard of a democrat refusing money to people?!?! Not gonna happen again anytime soon.

EarlyCall
Jun 5th 2011, 04:10 AM
I think I've been pretty clear in that I think it's unconstitutional. Besides that, I think it's a bad idea. It's a giant waste of money for no purpse. As Michigan demonstrated, the percent of people who tested positive proved the same as drug users in the general population, and the majority of that small percent tested positive for pot.

I think the entire thing is set up to make the uneducated who think that welfare is some big percent of the budget and a large percent of "their tax money" feel better. Seems to me it'd be cheaper and more effective to educate those people than to stigmatize and punish the poor.

Count me as one of the uneducated fools who think that $434 billion in fiscal year 2000 is a small amount of taxpayer monies. Mere pocket change.

Why don't I just pick up the entire welfare tab for fiscal year 2011. You can get next year.

Now, yes, I'm stating the the cost here and it includes more than just the welfare program. Tell me something. If I rip you off for just a few hundred dollars, a small percentage of what you make in a year, I am assuming, you wouldn't mind would you? After all, I'm merely working off the same principle you state above in your argument that is is a small percentage and us uneducated fools shouldn't get upset about it. Stands to reason, I think then, that if I rip you off just a few hundred dollars, you shouldn't get upset about it... unless of course you're one of the uneducated like so many of the rest of us.

Cornflake
Jun 5th 2011, 07:09 AM
Which is ok, I just think it is funny how on one hand you are saying that it is such a HUGE waste of money to test... yet it is such an insignificant sum spent on the benefits..

Personally I think it is really unfortunate that we (the Church) ever let the government get into the business of doing what we are to do.

I was basing that the money for testing would be more not on specific numbers or anything, but from one of the earlier posts (not mine) saying testing would cost like $25 per person tested - not counting the money to start up the program, pay the people to administer the tests, keep track of the tests, do the paperwork, etc., etc.

That vs. paying for the - if we believe Michigan's results would be the same generally for other states - fewer than one of ten people on assistance who would test positive... it seemed to me it'd be much more expensive for the program to exist than it'd be possible to save by cutting off the people on drugs. And if the benefits are given to them by proxy, then it seems it'd be even less. I'm not working off anything but theoretical numbers, so I could be way wrong, but that was my logic, as it were.

As for your second point, I agree, but I don't know that it's feasible to reverse at this point, for a whole lot of reasons.


Count me as one of the uneducated fools who think that $434 billion in fiscal year 2000 is a small amount of taxpayer monies. Mere pocket change.

Why don't I just pick up the entire welfare tab for fiscal year 2011. You can get next year.

Now, yes, I'm stating the the cost here and it includes more than just the welfare program. Tell me something. If I rip you off for just a few hundred dollars, a small percentage of what you make in a year, I am assuming, you wouldn't mind would you? After all, I'm merely working off the same principle you state above in your argument that is is a small percentage and us uneducated fools shouldn't get upset about it. Stands to reason, I think then, that if I rip you off just a few hundred dollars, you shouldn't get upset about it... unless of course you're one of the uneducated like so many of the rest of us. I didn't call anyone a fool, I didn't mean to imply anyone was foolish, truly. I meant, as I said, that I think that there are people in the country who misestimate how much is spent on these programs. In a recent poll (http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/as-congress-debates-budget-poll-shows-public-is-woefully-misinformed), it was found that -


19% of Americans believes we could balance the budget by just cutting off welfare and food stamps. In reality, approximately 5% of the federal budget goes to these programs.

A sizeable minority would like to see food and housing assistance for the poor on the chopping block, but Americans’ estimates of how much the government spends on those programs are three to four times higher than the actual price tag.That was all I was saying - that I, personally, think the program to drug test welfare recipients will spend a lot more than it will save, and it's designed as more p.r. than anything else, because many people (as per the poll, I'm not talking about posters here) overestimate what is spent on those programs.

I don't generally think of uneducated as a pejorative - there are tons of things I'm uneducated about... it doesn't mean stupid to me, just that someone hasn't learned about something, which is true of everyone for some things, if you know what I mean. I did not mean it to be insulting or mean people who answered the poll that way were foolish.

Honestly, if someone ripped me off for a small amount I wouldn't, obviously, be happy, but nor would I be that upset. As I said, I understand that someone wouldn't want their money going to someone who used drugs; that's their perogative and their business.

EarlyCall
Jun 5th 2011, 11:57 AM
I was basing that the money for testing would be more not on specific numbers or anything, but from one of the earlier posts (not mine) saying testing would cost like $25 per person tested - not counting the money to start up the program, pay the people to administer the tests, keep track of the tests, do the paperwork, etc., etc.

That vs. paying for the - if we believe Michigan's results would be the same generally for other states - fewer than one of ten people on assistance who would test positive... it seemed to me it'd be much more expensive for the program to exist than it'd be possible to save by cutting off the people on drugs. And if the benefits are given to them by proxy, then it seems it'd be even less. I'm not working off anything but theoretical numbers, so I could be way wrong, but that was my logic, as it were.

As for your second point, I agree, but I don't know that it's feasible to reverse at this point, for a whole lot of reasons.

I didn't call anyone a fool, I didn't mean to imply anyone was foolish, truly. I meant, as I said, that I think that there are people in the country who misestimate how much is spent on these programs. In a recent poll (http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/as-congress-debates-budget-poll-shows-public-is-woefully-misinformed), it was found that -

That was all I was saying - that I, personally, think the program to drug test welfare recipients will spend a lot more than it will save, and it's designed as more p.r. than anything else, because many people (as per the poll, I'm not talking about posters here) overestimate what is spent on those programs.

I don't generally think of uneducated as a pejorative - there are tons of things I'm uneducated about... it doesn't mean stupid to me, just that someone hasn't learned about something, which is true of everyone for some things, if you know what I mean. I did not mean it to be insulting or mean people who answered the poll that way were foolish.

Honestly, if someone ripped me off for a small amount I wouldn't, obviously, be happy, but nor would I be that upset. As I said, I understand that someone wouldn't want their money going to someone who used drugs; that's their perogative and their business.

Oh, no, you did not call nor in my opinion even imply that anyone was a fool. That was my choice of words. So you owe no apology. And yes, okay, I now understand better your reference to the uneducated. Indeed, it is as you say: we are all ignorant of much - ignorant here also not meant in any sort of demeaning manner.

The point I and others are attempting to convey is that we are fed up with those who deserve nothing getting much and the government, often at all levels, taking so much of our money and wasting it. We are truly sick and tired of it and yet they continually want more of our money.

Most of us are employing a principle here and arguing from that perspective: it is wrong to receive when you do not deserve. Now this is Biblical. It is also Biblical not to give to those who do not deserve. It is just as Biblical as it is to give to those who do deserve.

So, what we have then is the government violating Biblical principles and forcing us to be a part of it. And as well, they already get enough of our money.

Oh, and I appreciate your reply. :)

Caleb
Jun 6th 2011, 12:09 AM
Hey, I say if you are collecting my hard earned tax dollars so you can stay at home, then by all means, HECK YES! The majority of folks on welfare are on drugs and spending that money they get on drugs, they even used to trade their foods stamps for drugs....so by all means, give them regulations to keep the money coming in. If I have to show up for work every day, sober and do my job, and respect my boss, then these folks can earn it too by being responsible with it.

Perhaps they don't want to just stay at home?
Perhaps they want a job and want to pay taxes, but cannot get a job because they take drugs, or drinks alcohol, or gamble or smoke tobacco, or are gluttons etc.

What about those who do none of those things, but just don't want to get a job?

What if the guy who cannot get welfare because he takes drugs, nominates someone who is a alcoholic or gambler to receive the money?

Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men--swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.
Luke 18:12 I fast twice a week, I tithe on all things, as many as I acquire.'

Caleb
Jun 6th 2011, 12:23 AM
Now, one more time. These people are not entitled to these benefits. That is where we should start. Therefore, since they are not entitled, and since it is a free handout to them paid for by others through their taxes, it is reasonable they meet some requirements. Now, if this particular requirement in this specific instance is unconstitutional, then give them nothing and require nothing from them. Problem solved. Now, if they still insist upon getting the benefits, then make them take the test.

But what if that person has (up to this point) worked hard for many years, and paid all their taxes without fail?

EarlyCall
Jun 6th 2011, 10:03 PM
But what if that person has (up to this point) worked hard for many years, and paid all their taxes without fail?

Well, I think this is a fair and reasonable question. I think, rather than throw good money to bad habits, the first problem of drug addiction needs resolved, and then you can successfully address the secondary problems. I believe that until the drug issue is resolved, the other issues in a persons life are not going to be resolved. In the end then, wouldn't it be enabling a person by giving them money even while the drug problem goes unresolved?

keck553
Jun 6th 2011, 10:25 PM
Well, I think this is a fair and reasonable question. I think, rather than throw good money to bad habits, the first problem of drug addiction needs resolved, and then you can successfully address the secondary problems. I believe that until the drug issue is resolved, the other issues in a persons life are not going to be resolved. In the end then, wouldn't it be enabling a person by giving them money even while the drug problem goes unresolved?


The bottom line is that taxpayers (now less than 50% of wage-earners) have a right to demand accountability for the payroll taxes extracted from their gross income. This Government ceases to be a responsible entity that serves all its citizens at the point the funds it takes from citizens us is given to people who misappropriate the intent of those funds.

EarlyCall
Jun 6th 2011, 10:29 PM
The bottom line is that taxpayers (now less than 50% of wage-earners) have a right to demand accountability for the payroll taxes extracted from their gross income. This Government ceases to be a responsible entity that serves all its citizens at the point the funds it takes from citizens us is given to people who misappropriate the intent of those funds.

I agree. I would only add that I think that 50% is going to continue to shrink, and presently has under obama. Of course the other percentage at play then increases - naturally.

Caleb
Jun 6th 2011, 10:42 PM
Well, I think this is a fair and reasonable question. I think, rather than throw good money to bad habits, the first problem of drug addiction needs resolved, and then you can successfully address the secondary problems. I believe that until the drug issue is resolved, the other issues in a persons life are not going to be resolved. In the end then, wouldn't it be enabling a person by giving them money even while the drug problem goes unresolved?

So, it is ok to equally contribute to the system, but not ok to equally benefit from the system.

Is it 'fair' to just single out one bad habit?

What about all the other bad habits out there, like gambling and alcohol, gluttony, sex addiction.

keck553
Jun 6th 2011, 10:45 PM
I agree. I would only add that I think that 50% is going to continue to shrink, and presently has under obama. Of course the other percentage at play then increases - naturally.

Believe me, I feel it. People on foodstamps eat way better (and miss fewer meals) than I do, and folks on Medicaid get way better medical care than I can afford with my (recently tightened up) insurance plan.

Heck of a change from just a few years ago.

keck553
Jun 6th 2011, 10:54 PM
So, it is ok to equally contribute to the system, but not ok to equally benefit from the system.

Is it 'fair' to just single out one bad habit?

What about all the other bad habits out there, like gambling and alcohol, gluttony, sex addiction.

There is no "equal contribution to the system." More than half the adults living in the US today don't have any of their payroll taken from them for "equal contribution."

Living in a nanny state is not fair either. Forcefully taking money without permission from working people and giving it to others is not fair. But if done, the government has a very high responsibility to ensure our money is not misappropriated, nor used to feed the addictions that probably led to the allocation in the first place.

Yes, all who receive money taken from taxpayers should be held accountable to the penny what they spend it on. The purpose of welfare is not to entertain folks, the purpose is a safety net to fill in the gap so these folks can survive until they can take care of themselves.

Liquid Tension
Jun 7th 2011, 12:34 AM
Believe me, I feel it. People on foodstamps eat way better (and miss fewer meals) than I do, and folks on Medicaid get way better medical care than I can afford with my (recently tightened up) insurance plan.

Heck of a change from just a few years ago.


Not all on foodstamps, but, yes, many do. I've spent many years in the past, after paying bills, scraping to make sure I had enough money to buy rice, cans of spam, vienna (sp?) sausage, tuna, bread and bologna to eat.................steak????..................may be once every 3-4 months if I was lucky.

Even now days, Ribeye and crab legs........I just enjoy feeling them in my hands as it passes thru my checkstand. :D

EarlyCall
Jun 7th 2011, 01:08 AM
So, it is ok to equally contribute to the system, but not ok to equally benefit from the system.

Is it 'fair' to just single out one bad habit?

What about all the other bad habits out there, like gambling and alcohol, gluttony, sex addiction.

Well, you're trying to deflect a bit here. First, lumping everything together and calling them all equal is a mistake. Not all things are equal nor have the same ultimate effect. Let's go back to the specific issue at hand and not muddy the waters. If someone needs benefits but is a drug addict and we give them aid, we enable them to continue that habit. Do you think this is a good idea? I do not.

As for other habits, we can take each one if you like and make a determination whether they should receive benefits. Remember, no one is entitled to benefits by the constitution. It ain't in there - period.

As for someone contributing to society and then being entitled to the benefits because they helped to create those benefits, yes, there is an argument to be made for that - to a degree. But it has its limits, and it should have it boundaries as well.

ow, my impression is that you are for giving these people the benefits. And I am for it too - provided they get your money and not mine. I work hard for my money> So, if you are for these people getting these benefits, then they can have your money, but not mine.

In short, I am tired of the government and people being so free with my money. It ain't your money and it ain't the government's money - it is my money. i worked for it and I earned it. Neither you nor the government did.

How do feel about that? What do you think?

EarlyCall
Jun 7th 2011, 01:12 AM
Believe me, I feel it. People on foodstamps eat way better (and miss fewer meals) than I do, and folks on Medicaid get way better medical care than I can afford with my (recently tightened up) insurance plan.

Heck of a change from just a few years ago.


Yes, I can't help but think of that one lady that said that now that obama was president she didn't have to worry about her mortgage or gas in her car. I'd love to hear from her again, but I think the liberal media prefer she didn't speak to the matter.

Caleb
Jun 7th 2011, 02:05 PM
Well, you're trying to deflect a bit here. First, lumping everything together and calling them all equal is a mistake. Not all things are equal nor have the same ultimate effect. Let's go back to the specific issue at hand and not muddy the waters. If someone needs benefits but is a drug addict and we give them aid, we enable them to continue that habit. Do you think this is a good idea? I do not.

As for other habits, we can take each one if you like and make a determination whether they should receive benefits. Remember, no one is entitled to benefits by the constitution. It ain't in there - period.

As for someone contributing to society and then being entitled to the benefits because they helped to create those benefits, yes, there is an argument to be made for that - to a degree. But it has its limits, and it should have it boundaries as well.

ow, my impression is that you are for giving these people the benefits. And I am for it too - provided they get your money and not mine. I work hard for my money> So, if you are for these people getting these benefits, then they can have your money, but not mine.

In short, I am tired of the government and people being so free with my money. It ain't your money and it ain't the government's money - it is my money. i worked for it and I earned it. Neither you nor the government did.

How do feel about that? What do you think?

I guess we have a different system in the UK. As well as paying taxes we also pay National Insurance (just another tax) The NI (supposedly) pays for sickness and unemployment benefit etc.

There is not only employment taxes that get paid, but also goods tax (VAT)

As for my money (taxes paid) I don’t see it that way.
Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.
What Caesar does with what is his, is no concern of mine.

Caleb
Jun 7th 2011, 02:09 PM
Well, you're trying to deflect a bit here. First, lumping everything together and calling them all equal is a mistake. Not all things are equal nor have the same ultimate effect.

What I meant by this is that two people could both pay equally into the system. Both come out of work, and one get benefit and the other does not.

keck553
Jun 7th 2011, 05:11 PM
Not all on foodstamps, but, yes, many do. I've spent many years in the past, after paying bills, scraping to make sure I had enough money to buy rice, cans of spam, vienna (sp?) sausage, tuna, bread and bologna to eat.................steak????..................may be once every 3-4 months if I was lucky.

Even now days, Ribeye and crab legs........I just enjoy feeling them in my hands as it passes thru my checkstand. :D

Well, I suppose it's good to be humbled, so we can relate to others' hardships, so we can give them our best, however there's barely enough to survive after the 45% government tithe extracted out of the average wage earner's paycheck combined with the government fees exacted on folks for existing. But I will not dip into the pockets of my fellow citizens for sustanance. We're supposed to rely of God for that, not be a yoke on the backs of others who are struggling to survive.

keck553
Jun 7th 2011, 05:12 PM
IAs for my money (taxes paid) I don’t see it that way.
Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.
What Caesar does with what is his, is no concern of mine.

Out of context.

Caleb
Jun 7th 2011, 10:31 PM
Out of context.

Not in my bible, but please feel free to give your reasons for saying it is out of context.

EarlyCall
Jun 7th 2011, 11:43 PM
I guess we have a different system in the UK. As well as paying taxes we also pay National Insurance (just another tax) The NI (supposedly) pays for sickness and unemployment benefit etc.

There is not only employment taxes that get paid, but also goods tax (VAT)

As for my money (taxes paid) I don’t see it that way.
Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.
What Caesar does with what is his, is no concern of mine.

Only ignorant fools in my country believe in higher taxes. And yes, they are ignorant fools. They do not understand what over-taxation does to a people, and because of their ignorance, my life, the lives of my family and their children and so on and our futures are being destroyed. I should feel good and be kind to such ignorant fools? I think not.

Over-taxation oppresses and suppresses a people. It destroys lives and futures.

EarlyCall
Jun 7th 2011, 11:49 PM
What I meant by this is that two people could both pay equally into the system. Both come out of work, and one get benefit and the other does not.


Yes, understood. But I think that if you are doing drugs, it cancels out your having paid in. Just chalk it up to charity on your part. After all, if we pay into the benefit pot all our lives and die never having collected anything from it, well, we lose what we put in and someone, plenty of someones that put nothing into are getting much out of it.

keck553
Jun 7th 2011, 11:55 PM
Not in my bible, but please feel free to give your reasons for saying it is out of context.

Jesus wasn't referring to Jewish income or increase, He was referring to symbols of wealth that represented a foreign and unholy occupying nation. Even the temple wouldn't accept Roman coin.

HaveMercy
Jun 8th 2011, 03:34 AM
I should feel good and be kind to such ignorant fools? I think not.

Maybe you should be kind to such "ignorant fools" because the Bible tells us to be so. If you are being unkind towards someone just because they hold a different political view than yourself then you aren't really acting in a Christ-like manner. I know politics has become a massively important aspect of Christianity in this day and age but I still think we should at least attempt to show compassion and kindness towards others who hold different political viewpoints.

keck553
Jun 8th 2011, 10:50 PM
Maybe you should be kind to such "ignorant fools" because the Bible tells us to be so. If you are being unkind towards someone just because they hold a different political view than yourself then you aren't really acting in a Christ-like manner. I know politics has become a massively important aspect of Christianity in this day and age but I still think we should at least attempt to show compassion and kindness towards others who hold different political viewpoints.

The Bible also commands us to work for a living, not pick the pockets of others, nor abuse charitable resources allocated to feed and clothe children to fund their own drug and alchohol addictions.

Liquid Tension
Jun 9th 2011, 12:59 AM
The Bible also commands us to work for a living, not pick the pockets of others, nor abuse charitable resources allocated to feed and clothe children to fund their own drug and alchohol addictions.

And there you have it. Game, set, match.

Cornflake
Jun 9th 2011, 01:37 AM
And there you have it. Game, set, match.

So the 90-year-old woman living on a fixed income who can't afford the increasing food prices should get off her duff and get a job?

Bandit
Jun 9th 2011, 01:49 AM
So the 90-year-old woman living on a fixed income who can't afford the increasing food prices should get off her duff and get a job?

You know, there was once a time where families took care of there own elderly. Every family took care of their own, and the those elderly without families were often cared for by mostly private groups. But now it is getting that we are all being taxed by a large, inefficient, overregulated federal bureaucracy which requires us to pay in to support taking care of other people's elderly, while leaving us too broke to take care of our own - forcing us to depend upon the "system."

Dravenhawk
Jun 9th 2011, 02:24 AM
I remember way Way back in the day where people had a good old fashoned sense of shame about being on the dole. There was a time when people who enrolled on welfare programs felt genuine shame over having to get handouts over honest work. I look at todays society and see people who feel entitled to an handout rather than working for it. South Florida has a good start on this and there is no reason why a person who wants a handout can't put out a little effort to earn the money to get the drug test. If one is too stoned and lazy to do such a minor effort then one is not deserving of the goodies. Furthermore if a recippient of the dole is using alcohol or cigarettes then they have plenty of money to buy food and they should test for those too. The state should also require that a person on the dole turn in proof on having activily searched for work by producing 9 different copies of job applications each week. Persons recieving SSI should be reguarly tested for drugs and when found dirty they lose their free ride.

Dravenhawk

Liquid Tension
Jun 9th 2011, 07:03 AM
So the 90-year-old woman living on a fixed income who can't afford the increasing food prices should get off her duff and get a job?

http://serve.mysmiley.net/rolleye/rolleye.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-innocent-smileys.php)

OK, let's get this through your skull........read slowly.........There are people who need the assistance, (i.e. the elderly, handicapped, those who work their butts off but have a hard time making ends meet), I have no problem helping people in these situations. However, there are many who refuse to "get off their duff" to get a job, who expect their mortgages and gas paid for them, who are waiting for Obama's stash, have a job but blow their money up their nose, or find a way to cheat the system who should not be getting money from the gov't.

Do you understand that?????? Do you get what I'm saying??????

While I don't wish to speak for anyone else here, I do believe that was the point of keck553's post.

Don't hurt yourself next time you try to stretch for a response to a post. http://serve.mysmiley.net/rolleye/rolleye.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-innocent-smileys.php)

Jeanne D
Jun 9th 2011, 11:54 AM
http://serve.mysmiley.net/rolleye/rolleye.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-innocent-smileys.php)

OK, let's get this through your skull........read slowly.........There are people who need the assistance, (i.e. the elderly, handicapped, those who work their butts off but have a hard time making ends meet), I have no problem helping people in these situations. However, there are many who refuse to "get off their duff" to get a job, who expect their mortgages and gas paid for them, who are waiting for Obama's stash, have a job but blow their money up their nose, or find a way to cheat the system who should not be getting money from the gov't.

Do you understand that?????? Do you get what I'm saying??????

While I don't wish to speak for anyone else here, I do believe that was the point of keck553's post.

Don't hurt yourself next time you try to stretch for a response to a post. http://serve.mysmiley.net/rolleye/rolleye.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-innocent-smileys.php)

Disagreeing is just fine, but let's not be condescending and rude in the process, ok?

Thank you.

Jeanne

HaveMercy
Jun 9th 2011, 01:42 PM
The Bible also commands us to work for a living, not pick the pockets of others, nor abuse charitable resources allocated to feed and clothe children to fund their own drug and alchohol addictions.

And I agree. What does that have to do with my post?

the sound
Jun 9th 2011, 03:45 PM
If he was on drugs in the first place then neither taking the drug test nor not taking the drug test has any effect on his addiction. I don't see how it punishes; can you explain that more?

if they are really out to help people, there should be a rehabilation program enacted to get these people off drugs and back to work. instead of just punishing people who use by denying them programs. if they arn't willing to do that then they probably shouldn't be asking questions.

the sound
Jun 9th 2011, 03:50 PM
If that man, with 3 kids and a wife puts abusing drugs above providing for his family, then he doesn't deserve the assistance. Simple. Now, if the wife isn't on drugs, she could go on the program, or even another family member. In case you didn't read the whole article.....



...so again, how does this law punish these people???? If they are on drugs, it's up to them to seek help.

no i read the article, i suppose i didn't do a good enough job explaning what i meant. if they are on drugs and the state knows this instead making it impossable for them to eat they should have a program to get people off drugs so they could eventualy get back to work.

and yes the state should pay for it.

keck553
Jun 9th 2011, 04:16 PM
So the 90-year-old woman living on a fixed income who can't afford the increasing food prices should get off her duff and get a job?

90 year old women get about $10.00 per month in welfare. Stop deflecting. You know we're discussing the majority of generational welfare dependency.

keck553
Jun 9th 2011, 04:18 PM
And I agree. What does that have to do with my post?

You invoked one manifestation of Christianity, so I invoked the others.

keck553
Jun 9th 2011, 04:20 PM
no i read the article, i suppose i didn't do a good enough job explaning what i meant. if they are on drugs and the state knows this instead making it impossable for them to eat they should have a program to get people off drugs so they could eventualy get back to work.

and yes the state should pay for it.

Hogwash. They want to eat, then quit their habit. The state is not responsible for anyone's irresponsibility. Enough of this victim mentality.
The best rehabilitaion program on the planet is a canteen of water, some crackers, a few seeds, a patch of cracked dry land and a shovel.

Alchohol and drug abuse are not diseases, they are sin.

As Jesus would say: "Stop sinning."

Frecs
Jun 9th 2011, 04:37 PM
Disclaimer: I have not read through the thread. This means that what I'm about to say may or may not be a repeat. No need to beat me about the head and neck if I repeat someone else. :D

As with most things in life, there are no easy answers to this problem.

Do we want to subsidize an addicts habit? No. But, in refusing them money for food and shelter, we are not "encouraging" them to clean up their lives. More likely, we are leading them to commit crimes to get what they need. How does the State decide which ones to help and which ones are lost causes? Do we want the State deciding issues of social care and provision? Why don't churches get involved and provide services to help those who want to be helped? Oh, yeah, that would require Christians to get off their judgemental butts and show some compassion. It just gets complicateder and complicateder.

Do we want to pay for rehabilitation of drug addicts? Personally, no, I don't. First, because most don't really want to be rehab'ed and without that desire (and a financial dog in the fight) they aren't going to get cleaned up. Money down the drain. Now, in there may well be some who truly do want to be rehab'ed and either can not find a place with space and/or can't afford it. There are religious based facilities but there are still waiting lists and financial expenses. It just gets complicateder and complicateder.

Then, in the midst of all this political battling are the children. What of the children? Do we take them out of homes of these welfare recipients who are testing positive for drugs? or, do we stick with the current social services policy of keeping the family together if at all possible? There are not enough foster homes. Perhaps more Christians should become foster parents to help this situation? Oops, that's right, it would require we get off our judgemental butts and put our faith into action. Keep families together means leaving children in situations where abuse and neglect are not just theories or political ploys...they are reality. Do we try to keep the family together and try to find ways to be sure that welfare and food stamps are spent on food and shelter? How do we do that? Do we want the State making those decisions/policies and/or enforcing them (don't even get me started with how well that usually works out)? It just gets complicateder and complicateder.

Cornflake
Jun 9th 2011, 05:05 PM
90 year old women get about $10.00 per month in welfare. Stop deflecting. You know we're discussing the majority of generational welfare dependency.
I'm not deflecting. Someone quoted that passage and said game, set, match, implying that the biblical principle of needing to work to eat was the only thing anyone needed to know to deal with this issue. I was pointing out that we don't apply that scripture to everyone so it's not game, set, match.

And... since when are we discussing the majority of generational welfare dependency? I thought this was about the few people who do drugs and receive assistance.

If we're paying for rehab, and paying for this testing program, we're spending far, far, far more money on those things than we would just paying out benefits to the people who smoke pot and get benefits. I don't think it passes constitutional muster, personally, but besides that, it's a big added expense. How does the party of small government and stopping spending justify this?

keck553
Jun 9th 2011, 05:42 PM
I'm not deflecting. Someone quoted that passage and said game, set, match, implying that the biblical principle of needing to work to eat was the only thing anyone needed to know to deal with this issue. I was pointing out that we don't apply that scripture to everyone so it's not game, set, match.

The command to care for orphans and widows is an individual mandate, not a state sponsored collective one. Biblically. Of course 99% of folks here say the Law of Moses is done away with, so maybe applying Scripture is unprofitable.



And... since when are we discussing the majority of generational welfare dependency? I thought this was about the few people who do drugs and receive assistance.

Apparently you do not know anyone working in the capacity of a social worker. If you did, I think you would have a different perspective.
And generational welfare dependancy is just as socially destructive as any drug.



If we're paying for rehab, and paying for this testing program, we're spending far, far, far more money on those things than we would just paying out benefits to the people who smoke pot and get benefits. I don't think it passes constitutional muster, personally, but besides that, it's a big added expense. How does the party of small government and stopping spending justify this?

Correctly deployed rehab would be more profitable than it would cost, and yes, it could easily be constitutional.

And I am not a republican, so please leave that innuendo out of the conversation.

Cornflake
Jun 9th 2011, 05:49 PM
Correctly deployed rehab would be more profitable than it would cost, and yes, it could easily be constitutional.

And I am not a republican, so please leave that innuendo out of the conversation.

I wasn't speaking only to you with the latter, only with the direct reply to your comment really.

I disagree it's constitutional, but the rehab thing - first, it has to be added to the cost of testing everyone, otherwise, no idea who to send to rehab. Second, rehab generally fails, so how many times do we send people? It just seems like a huge amount of money for little to no gain.

the sound
Jun 9th 2011, 07:27 PM
Hogwash. They want to eat, then quit their habit. The state is not responsible for anyone's irresponsibility. Enough of this victim mentality.
The best rehabilitaion program on the planet is a canteen of water, some crackers, a few seeds, a patch of cracked dry land and a shovel.

Alchohol and drug abuse are not diseases, they are sin.

As Jesus would say: "Stop sinning."

so you think it's best if they just them starve to death?

EarlyCall
Jun 9th 2011, 09:43 PM
Maybe you should be kind to such "ignorant fools" because the Bible tells us to be so. If you are being unkind towards someone just because they hold a different political view than yourself then you aren't really acting in a Christ-like manner. I know politics has become a massively important aspect of Christianity in this day and age but I still think we should at least attempt to show compassion and kindness towards others who hold different political viewpoints.

I was speaking generally and not specifically. On a one-to-one basis I will suffer some fools a little and some who are not fools but disagree with me I will engage often in good discussion.

Now, you missed something. I do not have to be kind towards such fools. My not being kind to them does not mean I am being unkind towards them; I merely need have nothing to do with them. Do you understand what I mean?

EarlyCall
Jun 9th 2011, 09:47 PM
So the 90-year-old woman living on a fixed income who can't afford the increasing food prices should get off her duff and get a job?

What does the bible say about this? Do you know? It does not say that the government should take care of the woman! Nevertheless, while the church and her own family, if she has one, should take care of her, still we are a rich nation and we can provide for such people. But you giving this example does not set the rule any more than some old lady is the rule - or norm. We are not discussing little old ladies in dire need now are we?

keck553
Jun 9th 2011, 09:56 PM
I wasn't speaking only to you with the latter, only with the direct reply to your comment really.

I disagree it's constitutional, but the rehab thing - first, it has to be added to the cost of testing everyone, otherwise, no idea who to send to rehab. Second, rehab generally fails, so how many times do we send people? It just seems like a huge amount of money for little to no gain.

People constitutionally lose rights when the break laws. Instead of the government raping half the workers in this country of half ther income, these folks who broke laws can assist in producing, administration and distrubution and handing out the necessary life-giving resources necessary for poor folks as a temporary help while they are learning new skills to become a productive human being. This would be much, much cheaper than the bloated unionized state staffed duma's that cost the taxpayers more money than the resources they hand out.

keck553
Jun 9th 2011, 09:56 PM
so you think it's best if they just them starve to death?

What, do you think they are too stupid and lazy to take care of themselves? You must have a really low opinion of poor people's abilities. They are every bit as capable as any hard worker to be productive.

Take a dose of wisdom from Solomon:

The sluggard's craving will be the death of him, because his hands refuse
to work.

Liquid Tension
Jun 9th 2011, 10:10 PM
Disagreeing is just fine, but let's not be condescending and rude in the process, ok?

Thank you.

Jeanne

Point taken and agreed. I'm done here.

Thank you.

the sound
Jun 9th 2011, 10:11 PM
What, do you think they are too stupid and lazy to take care of themselves? You must have a really low opinion of poor people's abilities. They are every bit as capable as any hard worker to be productive.

Take a dose of wisdom from Solomon:

The sluggard's craving will be the death of him, because his hands refuse
to work.

no i wasn't saying that. but if you deny people the tools to recover from addication you are only setting them up to fail.

keck553
Jun 9th 2011, 10:42 PM
no i wasn't saying that. but if you deny people the tools to recover from addication you are only setting them up to fail.

I already stated what the necessary tools are.

Read my post #107. Failing that, a shovel and a task.

the sound
Jun 9th 2011, 10:45 PM
I already stated what the necessary tools are.

Read my post #107. Failing that, a shovel and a task.

you have never had a drug addication have you?

the sound
Jun 9th 2011, 10:55 PM
People constitutionally lose rights when the break laws. Instead of the government raping half the workers in this country of half ther income, these folks who broke laws can assist in producing, administration and distrubution and handing out the necessary life-giving resources necessary for poor folks as a temporary help while they are learning new skills to become a productive human being. This would be much, much cheaper than the bloated unionized state staffed duma's that cost the taxpayers more money than the resources they hand out.

please explain.

keck553
Jun 9th 2011, 11:00 PM
please explain.

What part of it do you not understand? This would provide much more dignity than picking trash in orange suits on the side of the highway, while providing necessary skills to be a productive member of society. The savings could be recycled into education.

the sound
Jun 9th 2011, 11:08 PM
What part of it do you not understand? This would provide much more dignity than picking trash in orange suits on the side of the highway, while providing necessary skills to be a productive member of society. The savings could be recycled into education.

so these people are suppose to be learning a skilled trade while trying to kick drugs on their own? that wouldn't work..

keck553
Jun 9th 2011, 11:15 PM
you have never had a drug addication have you?

We're all weak in the flesh.

keck553
Jun 9th 2011, 11:17 PM
so these people are suppose to be learning a skilled trade while trying to kick drugs on their own? that wouldn't work..

No trying necessary. Just stop, like I did. I'm nothing special.

tango
Jun 15th 2011, 03:01 PM
Do we want to subsidize an addicts habit? No. But, in refusing them money for food and shelter, we are not "encouraging" them to clean up their lives. More likely, we are leading them to commit crimes to get what they need. How does the State decide which ones to help and which ones are lost causes? Do we want the State deciding issues of social care and provision? Why don't churches get involved and provide services to help those who want to be helped? Oh, yeah, that would require Christians to get off their judgemental butts and show some compassion. It just gets complicateder and complicateder.

Do we want to pay for rehabilitation of drug addicts? Personally, no, I don't. First, because most don't really want to be rehab'ed and without that desire (and a financial dog in the fight) they aren't going to get cleaned up. Money down the drain. Now, in there may well be some who truly do want to be rehab'ed and either can not find a place with space and/or can't afford it. There are religious based facilities but there are still waiting lists and financial expenses. It just gets complicateder and complicateder.

Then, in the midst of all this political battling are the children. What of the children? Do we take them out of homes of these welfare recipients who are testing positive for drugs? or, do we stick with the current social services policy of keeping the family together if at all possible? There are not enough foster homes. Perhaps more Christians should become foster parents to help this situation? Oops, that's right, it would require we get off our judgemental butts and put our faith into action. Keep families together means leaving children in situations where abuse and neglect are not just theories or political ploys...they are reality. Do we try to keep the family together and try to find ways to be sure that welfare and food stamps are spent on food and shelter? How do we do that? Do we want the State making those decisions/policies and/or enforcing them (don't even get me started with how well that usually works out)? It just gets complicateder and complicateder.

You make some very good points Frecs, and along the way it leads me to ask the question whether the State should be involved in the welfare system at all.

As things stand the State appears to do a bad job of deciding who is and who is not deserving of assistance. As someone mentioned earlier it forces those who work to pay into a generic "welfare" pot, potentially to the point that it makes it harder for people to care for their own needy family members, which then of course means that our own needy family members are left claiming out of the generic "welfare" pot. And of course along the way a lot of the welfare pot is soaked up in administration costs, not to mention the fraud that always accompanies the offer of free money.

Doing away with most or all of the welfare system would mean a lot of people we might consider "needy" would go without. It would also mean that those who worked would get to keep far more of their income so they could decide for themselves who was "needy", "deserving" or whatever other term they wanted to apply, using whatever criteria they wanted to apply. If you want to provide for the old folks in your community, you've got more money in your pocket to do it. If you want to fund an individual addict through rehab, you've got extra money to do it. If you want to let them all suffer while you crack open another case of champagne, why should the government deny you that choice any more than the others?

If we decide for ourselves who we give to we also recreate the link between giver and recipient. If my next door neighbour is struggling to feed their kids and I give them some money (or some food, or whatever) they are unlikely to repay my kindness by hosting loud parties until all hours. If I am legally required to pay into a generic welfare pot, and my neighbour is legally entitled to receive a payment from that generic welfare pot, there is no specific incentive for them to consider anyone except themselves.

Of course shifting the responsibility from the State and onto individuals and charities would require people to give freely.

Lyndie
Jun 15th 2011, 03:16 PM
As someone who is a recovering addict, it is not as cut and dry to just give them a job. Recovering is a process. You can't say, stop doing abc, here's a shovel. People can die if they don't get the proper treatment. DT's from booze can kill a person. What should happen is if they are positive for drugs is they get mandatory rehab (which I'd rather pay for than their welfare check) and job training, then put them back out in the work force. I am willing to pay for them for a short time knowing in the long run they become productive. As far as this law being unconstitutional, we don't have the right to be doing something illegal and getting money for it in the process.

keck553
Jun 15th 2011, 05:42 PM
As someone who is a recovering addict, it is not as cut and dry to just give them a job. Recovering is a process. You can't say, stop doing abc, here's a shovel. People can die if they don't get the proper treatment. DT's from booze can kill a person. What should happen is if they are positive for drugs is they get mandatory rehab (which I'd rather pay for than their welfare check) and job training, then put them back out in the work force. I am willing to pay for them for a short time knowing in the long run they become productive. As far as this law being unconstitutional, we don't have the right to be doing something illegal and getting money for it in the process.

We are not collectively responsible for the consequences of someone's else addiction and sin. That individual is. If they die, they die by their own hand.

Helping someone get through their stuggles should be from the heart, not through state extortion that enriches institutions with low expectations.

Reynolds357
Jun 15th 2011, 06:21 PM
i refuse to take a drug test for any job, even though i would pass. so my opinion of this law pretty low.

here is my issue with it. let's say it comes back positive for a man with 3 kids and wife... what is done then to help him get off the drugs... this law helps no one just punishs people who are at their lowest.

Go work the project patrol 8-12 hours a day and see if you opinion does not change slightly.

Reynolds357
Jun 15th 2011, 06:25 PM
no i wasn't saying that. but if you deny people the tools to recover from addication you are only setting them up to fail.

Tools to recover from addiction, or tools to facilitate them to continue in addiction?
There is a real fine line there. To me, Prison is the best tool to cure an addict. We have a judge in our circuit who is hilarious. Defense attorneys will ask him to put their client in rehab. The judge will then say, "Sheriff (or deputy whomever is present in the court room) do your inmates get illegal drugs in your jail?" Sheriff then says, "no." Judge then says, "jail is the best rehab I know of."

Reynolds357
Jun 15th 2011, 06:26 PM
No trying necessary. Just stop, like I did. I'm nothing special.

It is amazing how Christ can instantly break addictions for those who trust in him.

Cornflake
Jun 15th 2011, 06:46 PM
Tools to recover from addiction, or tools to facilitate them to continue in addiction?
There is a real fine line there. To me, Prison is the best tool to cure an addict. We have a judge in our circuit who is hilarious. Defense attorneys will ask him to put their client in rehab. The judge will then say, "Sheriff (or deputy whomever is present in the court room) do your inmates get illegal drugs in your jail?" Sheriff then says, "no." Judge then says, "jail is the best rehab I know of." Even if there was such a thing as a drug-free prison, which I don't believe there to be in general as even supermax facilities can have these issues, that does nothing to "cure" addiction, any more than dropping an alcoholic on an island without alcohol for a year would "cure" alcoholism. The second they're out, they'll go back to doing just what they did before (and during) prison if they have no reason or motivation to change. And having been in prison or jail is generally not motivation to change, it's often a confirmation of their general belief that their lives cannot improve, so what the heck - hence the recidivism rate.

Reynolds357
Jun 15th 2011, 07:48 PM
Even if there was such a thing as a drug-free prison, which I don't believe there to be in general as even supermax facilities can have these issues, that does nothing to "cure" addiction, any more than dropping an alcoholic on an island without alcohol for a year would "cure" alcoholism. The second they're out, they'll go back to doing just what they did before (and during) prison if they have no reason or motivation to change. And having been in prison or jail is generally not motivation to change, it's often a confirmation of their general belief that their lives cannot improve, so what the heck - hence the recidivism rate.

What is the failure rate of rehab? You might want to look into that and see if you notice any similarities between it and the recidivism rates of prison.

keck553
Jun 15th 2011, 07:50 PM
It is amazing how Christ can instantly break addictions for those who trust in him.

Glory be to God Most High.

Can't give that honor to 'rehab centers.'

keck553
Jun 15th 2011, 07:52 PM
so these people are suppose to be learning a skilled trade while trying to kick drugs on their own? that wouldn't work..

What truely amazes me is how some believers will put more trust in a government funded institution to 'rehab' someone than in God. Perhaps a new anthem is needed:

Amazing State, how sweet the sound
that saved a wretch like me
I was lost but now am found
was blind but now I'm seen

The state has promised good to me
Their handouts my hope secures
The state my shield and portion be
From cradle to the grave

when we've been here ten thousand years
and worker's wages are sucked dry
we've no less days to sing the state's praise
for more workers the state will supply

Frecs
Jun 15th 2011, 11:27 PM
You make some very good points Frecs, and along the way it leads me to ask the question whether the State should be involved in the welfare system at all.

As things stand the State appears to do a bad job of deciding who is and who is not deserving of assistance. As someone mentioned earlier it forces those who work to pay into a generic "welfare" pot, potentially to the point that it makes it harder for people to care for their own needy family members, which then of course means that our own needy family members are left claiming out of the generic "welfare" pot. And of course along the way a lot of the welfare pot is soaked up in administration costs, not to mention the fraud that always accompanies the offer of free money.

Doing away with most or all of the welfare system would mean a lot of people we might consider "needy" would go without. It would also mean that those who worked would get to keep far more of their income so they could decide for themselves who was "needy", "deserving" or whatever other term they wanted to apply, using whatever criteria they wanted to apply. If you want to provide for the old folks in your community, you've got more money in your pocket to do it. If you want to fund an individual addict through rehab, you've got extra money to do it. If you want to let them all suffer while you crack open another case of champagne, why should the government deny you that choice any more than the others?

If we decide for ourselves who we give to we also recreate the link between giver and recipient. If my next door neighbour is struggling to feed their kids and I give them some money (or some food, or whatever) they are unlikely to repay my kindness by hosting loud parties until all hours. If I am legally required to pay into a generic welfare pot, and my neighbour is legally entitled to receive a payment from that generic welfare pot, there is no specific incentive for them to consider anyone except themselves.

Of course shifting the responsibility from the State and onto individuals and charities would require people to give freely.

Here's the thing: the State will not stop taking taxes to fund their programs because those programs buy votes at election time. So, we can not wait for the government to tax us less so we have more money to give 'to those in need'. IF, OTOH, we as followers of Jesus Christ, see with Christ's eyes and love with Christ's love and become the givers of grace and mercy that we are supposed to be then we can bring the days of public welfare to an end. Why in heaven's name do we have Christians on food stamps and welfare? Why are our widows and orphans relying on the State for help? Why? because the Church (that's us, folks) abducated our responsibilities. We've only ourselves to blame.

Cornflake
Jun 16th 2011, 03:31 AM
What is the failure rate of rehab? You might want to look into that and see if you notice any similarities between it and the recidivism rates of prison.
I know what the rates are. We're not talking either/or, but if they're combined - which statistics are hard to find on, as the separation in the record-keeping is not so specific - it appears to tend to reduce recidivism.

When we talk about specific types of incarceration and specific types of therapies, some places get excellent results, but they're costly and so far specific to certain types of offenses.

tango
Jun 16th 2011, 08:25 AM
Here's the thing: the State will not stop taking taxes to fund their programs because those programs buy votes at election time. So, we can not wait for the government to tax us less so we have more money to give 'to those in need'. IF, OTOH, we as followers of Jesus Christ, see with Christ's eyes and love with Christ's love and become the givers of grace and mercy that we are supposed to be then we can bring the days of public welfare to an end. Why in heaven's name do we have Christians on food stamps and welfare? Why are our widows and orphans relying on the State for help? Why? because the Church (that's us, folks) abducated our responsibilities. We've only ourselves to blame.

Whether the State will stop funding programs usually isn't a function of whether the State should stop funding programs.

When there is a State program to help people it seems to make little sense to provide private support to someone in a way that means they don't need to take the State's provision. If the State support is inadequate then by all means top it up or provide whatever other assistance is required. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning that says that although someone's income is sufficiently low for them to qualify for food stamps they shouldn't claim them because the church should feed them. If the food stamps they receive are inadequate to feed their family then the church should make sure they don't starve. To tell them not to claim the food stamps because the church will feed them would seem to mean the church will fill a gap that isn't there, and in so doing potentially leave itself less able to help someone who might not qualify for welfare (for whatever reason) but still be in need of assistance.

How is giving to the needy going to bring the days of public welfare to an end? For as long as people are entitled to receive welfare there will be a welfare system. It would be nice to think that if enough churches supported enough needy people that nobody claimed welfare, then the welfare system would be dissolved. In practise it's hard to see it happening even if such levels of giving were forthcoming.

Lyndie
Jun 16th 2011, 02:39 PM
Another problem is how many times have we seen a christian say, you messed up, get yourself out of this mess. I have seen it more times than I care to count. We want the church to help, but then we get to busy deciding who is deserving of our help. Would your (general your) church give to an addict? Or would you say comeback when you are clean and sober, then we will help you? Cause that is the attitude I am recently seeing in this thread. If you don't believe they should get any help from the state in any way, why would I believe your church would help them?

Reynolds357
Jun 16th 2011, 03:31 PM
I know what the rates are. We're not talking either/or, but if they're combined - which statistics are hard to find on, as the separation in the record-keeping is not so specific - it appears to tend to reduce recidivism.

When we talk about specific types of incarceration and specific types of therapies, some places get excellent results, but they're costly and so far specific to certain types of offenses.

If you look at the situation as a whole, you will quickly realize that the prison rehab programs that are faith based by far out perform anything else.

Frecs
Jun 16th 2011, 03:47 PM
Another problem is how many times have we seen a christian say, you messed up, get yourself out of this mess. I have seen it more times than I care to count. We want the church to help, but then we get to busy deciding who is deserving of our help. Would your (general your) church give to an addict? Or would you say comeback when you are clean and sober, then we will help you? Cause that is the attitude I am recently seeing in this thread. If you don't believe they should get any help from the state in any way, why would I believe your church would help them?

To anyone with the "clean up then I'll/we'll help you" attitude, I would ask to please show me the scripture that says we are to without God's grace and mercy from others until they "deserve" it. As I recall, there ain't a one of us who "deserves" one speck of God's grace and mercy! I don't think it is for us to decide who is worthy and who is taking advantage. Yes, I know the scripture that says "he who will not work, does not eat". Honestly, I'm not sure how to balance that with the greater need to show mercy. Perhaps we should spend less time trying to hammer out the specifics of who has to work when to get what and simply let God sort that out while we do what God has called us to do.

tango
Jun 16th 2011, 04:06 PM
Another problem is how many times have we seen a christian say, you messed up, get yourself out of this mess. I have seen it more times than I care to count. We want the church to help, but then we get to busy deciding who is deserving of our help. Would your (general your) church give to an addict? Or would you say comeback when you are clean and sober, then we will help you? Cause that is the attitude I am recently seeing in this thread. If you don't believe they should get any help from the state in any way, why would I believe your church would help them?

I think the crucial difference is that I do not believe I should be legally mandated to give anything to anyone. If I feel a moral obligation to help specific individuals I am free to help. My point is that if I feel no moral obligation to help someone else I should not be mandated by the law of the land to help them.

The problem with being legally mandated to help is that I lose the freedom to decide for myself who, how, and indeed whether, to help. For all we might take an individual stance that says this person or that cause is deserving, what gives any of us the right to impose our viewpoints on others? And if we do not have such a right to impose on others, why is legally mandated giving (via taxation and welfare) any different?

You are of course absolutely right when you say that it's very easy for the church to tell someone to go clean their life up and then come back, and it is a sad state of affairs when we collectively take such an unChristlike stance on anything.

tango
Jun 16th 2011, 04:08 PM
Yes, I know the scripture that says "he who will not work, does not eat". Honestly, I'm not sure how to balance that with the greater need to show mercy.

I think it can be reconciled easily enough. "He who will not work does not eat" is a pretty simple concept if you consider "does not eat" in the context of "does not have an automatic right to eat". If you work you earn money to buy food, you effectively earn the right to eat. If you will not work you don't have that automatic right, although someone else who has worked may freely choose to give you food to eat. Of course at the same time the person who has worked may freely choose not to give you that food, or to require something in return for the food.

keck553
Jun 16th 2011, 05:50 PM
To anyone with the "clean up then I'll/we'll help you" attitude, I would ask to please show me the scripture that says we are to without God's grace and mercy from others until they "deserve" it. As I recall, there ain't a one of us who "deserves" one speck of God's grace and mercy! I don't think it is for us to decide who is worthy and who is taking advantage. Yes, I know the scripture that says "he who will not work, does not eat". Honestly, I'm not sure how to balance that with the greater need to show mercy. Perhaps we should spend less time trying to hammer out the specifics of who has to work when to get what and simply let God sort that out while we do what God has called us to do.

The discussion is about the legislated theft of others' resources for the purpose of redistribution of weath, and how far the state penetrates a client's personal life in exchange for those coerced funds.

If we want to talk about Biblical charity, that is a separate issue for a separate thread.

Bandit
Jun 17th 2011, 01:24 AM
The discussion is about the legislated theft of others' resources for the purpose of redistribution of weath, and how far the state penetrates a client's personal life in exchange for those coerced funds.

If we want to talk about Biblical charity, that is a separate issue for a separate thread.

That may be one way of looking at it, but there is also the need for some level of responsibility and accountability. There are limited funds in the charity coffers (whether public or private), and we need to be careful how that money is distributed and to whom. As the opening post indicates, there is at least an attempt being made to insure that persons involved in drug use do not get certain public funds to help subsidise their habit. It is a tough call, but this bill is likely an attempt to address a known problem.

Frecs
Jun 17th 2011, 04:04 PM
The discussion is about the legislated theft of others' resources for the purpose of redistribution of weath, and how far the state penetrates a client's personal life in exchange for those coerced funds.

If we want to talk about Biblical charity, that is a separate issue for a separate thread.

That may be your POV of the topic but having read a number of responses, I'd say I'm right on target. The question is whether specific categories of persons are deserving of assistance with "our" money. Well, if The Church had not abdicated OUR responsibility, there would be no need for government programs. And, since as Christians, we should not be fighting to hold onto "our" money since we are stewards of GOD's money......

keck553
Jun 17th 2011, 04:09 PM
That may be one way of looking at it, but there is also the need for some level of responsibility and accountability. There are limited funds in the charity coffers (whether public or private), and we need to be careful how that money is distributed and to whom. As the opening post indicates, there is at least an attempt being made to insure that persons involved in drug use do not get certain public funds to help subsidise their habit. It is a tough call, but this bill is likely an attempt to address a known problem.

If wage-earners were allowed to keep more than 40% of their earnings, those coffers would increase. I believe that.

keck553
Jun 17th 2011, 04:11 PM
That may be your POV of the topic but having read a number of responses, I'd say I'm right on target. The question is whether specific categories of persons are deserving of assistance with "our" money. Well, if The Church had not abdicated OUR responsibility, there would be no need for government programs. And, since as Christians, we should not be fighting to hold onto "our" money since we are stewards of GOD's money......

Deserving? Is that your standard? None of us deserve anything.

But enabling sinful habits is sin iteself.

As to your comment about "the church" I don't know what your point is.

Frecs
Jun 17th 2011, 04:15 PM
Deserving? Is that your standard? None of us deserve anything.

But enabling sinful habits is sin iteself.

As to your comment about "the church" I don't know what your point is.

Go back and read my previous statements before you judge unjustly.

keck553
Jun 17th 2011, 04:57 PM
Go back and read my previous statements before you judge unjustly.

Ummm.. do you see the "?" symbol after the sentence? That means it's a question, not an accusation. Whew....

the sound
Jun 17th 2011, 05:26 PM
Go work the project patrol 8-12 hours a day and see if you opinion does not change slightly.

i lived in the "projects" for 4 years... i had too. my then wife and i worked in the community so we payed full market rent. I got to know the people, true there were some really bad people living there,there were some good hard working people who just couldn't make ends meet. there was also a lot of mental illness there as well.

I also learned some other things but those arn't ment for this thread.

tango
Jun 17th 2011, 05:32 PM
That may be your POV of the topic but having read a number of responses, I'd say I'm right on target. The question is whether specific categories of persons are deserving of assistance with "our" money. Well, if The Church had not abdicated OUR responsibility, there would be no need for government programs. And, since as Christians, we should not be fighting to hold onto "our" money since we are stewards of GOD's money......

I'd be interested to know whether state welfare came before or after the reduction in private charity.

It's very easy to figure we're already paying however much it is to support the welfare system, that people who are truly in need qualify for welfare, and therefore we don't need to do anything at an individual level.

Ultimately people with a heart to give will give and people with a heart to not give will not give.

the sound
Jun 17th 2011, 05:35 PM
Tools to recover from addiction, or tools to facilitate them to continue in addiction?
There is a real fine line there. To me, Prison is the best tool to cure an addict. We have a judge in our circuit who is hilarious. Defense attorneys will ask him to put their client in rehab. The judge will then say, "Sheriff (or deputy whomever is present in the court room) do your inmates get illegal drugs in your jail?" Sheriff then says, "no." Judge then says, "jail is the best rehab I know of."

so you think those people should just be arrested then?

BrianW
Jun 17th 2011, 06:34 PM
Tools to recover from addiction, or tools to facilitate them to continue in addiction?
There is a real fine line there. To me, Prison is the best tool to cure an addict. We have a judge in our circuit who is hilarious. Defense attorneys will ask him to put their client in rehab. The judge will then say, "Sheriff (or deputy whomever is present in the court room) do your inmates get illegal drugs in your jail?" Sheriff then says, "no." Judge then says, "jail is the best rehab I know of."

You and others may find that hilarious but I find it disgusting.

The judge, sheriff or deputy would know full well that jails and prisons are full of drugs. So by playing their little game they are being both deceptive and downright lying in a court of law.

Anyone that claims that there aren't any drugs in county jails or that there aren't any drugs in prisons is either a liar or just ignorant of the facts. Anyone working in the system knows the facts.

So what makes them any better than the criminal on trial? Nothing. It puts them on the same field but just on different sides of the ball because, as far as I know, lying under oath or from the bench is a crime.


That being said rehab is a joke. I can say that after having gone through rehab myself (By my own choice) and the only thing that came out of it was that I made more contacts for both buying and selling.

Cornflake
Jun 17th 2011, 06:49 PM
That being said rehab is a joke. I can say that after having gone through rehab myself (By my own choice) and the only thing that came out of it was that I made more contacts for both buying and selling.

Like anything, I think this depends. I'm with you on the prisons, as I've never heard of one that was drug-free either, no matter what the warden wants to think, but there are a lot of people who have been through rehabs that have been helped. They have a high relapse rate in general but some are better than others and in the end, they're there to provide people with the tools to make changes, not force them to change.

BrianW
Jun 17th 2011, 07:04 PM
After far more years dealing with the garbage than I would like to admit I can tell you true that the person who quits doing drugs or drinking only quits because they have the will and the mindset to do so. These people can benefit greatly from the tools offered in some places of rehabilitation.

For everyone else it's just a frustrating exercise in futility. Most time it's the person who needs fixed up and rehabbed and the addiction is just a component of the real problem.

In my case I just really liked to get high.

Frecs
Jun 17th 2011, 11:04 PM
Ummm.. do you see the "?" symbol after the sentence? That means it's a question, not an accusation. Whew....

Go back and read my posts in this thread...I have addressed you "?" before you asked it...

Frecs
Jun 17th 2011, 11:16 PM
I'd be interested to know whether state welfare came before or after the reduction in private charity.

It's very easy to figure we're already paying however much it is to support the welfare system, that people who are truly in need qualify for welfare, and therefore we don't need to do anything at an individual level.

Ultimately people with a heart to give will give and people with a heart to not give will not give.

I don't have the status at hand to quote but going from memory... the "welfare state" got it's start in the Great Depression when the need was truly great. Problem with any government program, once started, it is hard to stop it... After the Great Depression/WWII ended, people were working and the economy strong; but, that did not mean the end to government assistance. Along with the continued government "welfare" programs came a change in our economic focus from one of frugality and thrift to one of credit. This was not a good thing for individuals nor for our government. Now, I don't know how the decrease in Church charity efforts flows with these changes but there was clearly a parallel path away from Christians/Churches offering charity at about the same time government welfare was ramping up. I doubt there was an conscience thought amongst churches or christians that "well, since the government is doing it, I/we don't have to". More likely is the simple reality that as the amount of money taken from the paycheck to feed government grew, the amount of money to give to our churches and benevolence funds and charities have decreased. We (both individually and collectively) have developed the idea (and I see it here in this thread) at various levels of consciousness that because the government has "programs for those people" we don't need to reach out to them...or that "those people are lazy and taking advantage of 'our' money".

When thinking of "those people" on "the dole".... There but by the grace of God go I....

Reynolds357
Jun 18th 2011, 01:55 AM
i lived in the "projects" for 4 years... i had too. my then wife and i worked in the community so we payed full market rent. I got to know the people, true there were some really bad people living there,there were some good hard working people who just couldn't make ends meet. there was also a lot of mental illness there as well.

I also learned some other things but those arn't ment for this thread.

Why would any of those hard working people living there have their rights infringed upon by making them pass drug screens to live there?

Reynolds357
Jun 18th 2011, 02:00 AM
Like anything, I think this depends. I'm with you on the prisons, as I've never heard of one that was drug-free either, no matter what the warden wants to think, but there are a lot of people who have been through rehabs that have been helped. They have a high relapse rate in general but some are better than others and in the end, they're there to provide people with the tools to make changes, not force them to change.

The amount of drugs in prison is miniscule. A small amount is smuggled in and controlled by the gang leaders. They usually trade them out for sexual favors. Unless you are a high up in a gang or his boyfriend, you do not have access to drugs in prison.

the sound
Jun 18th 2011, 03:32 AM
Why would any of those hard working people living there have their rights infringed upon by making them pass drug screens to live there?

Why should they have to prove there innocents if being poor isn’t a crime?

Bandit
Jun 19th 2011, 08:29 PM
If wage-earners were allowed to keep more than 40% of their earnings, those coffers would increase. I believe that.

So do I, but they still would have their limits. We could still not afford to give everyone everything they would like. Nor would it be wise to do so.

Cornflake
Jun 20th 2011, 01:31 AM
The amount of drugs in prison is miniscule. A small amount is smuggled in and controlled by the gang leaders. They usually trade them out for sexual favors. Unless you are a high up in a gang or his boyfriend, you do not have access to drugs in prison.
That'd be a nice idea but I think it's naive.

keck553
Jun 20th 2011, 07:44 PM
Why should they have to prove there innocents if being poor isn’t a crime?

They don't have to prove anything as long as they don't take any assistance. Once the hand enters the cookie jar, accountability begins. It's not disposible income. It's emergency assistance to help them to survive, nothing more, nothing less. Taxpayers have a right to demand accountability of and also have the right to demand the proper use of the money that is taken from them.

Reynolds357
Jun 22nd 2011, 02:53 AM
Why should they have to prove there innocents if being poor isn’t a crime?
When you take money from the taxpayer, you give up some of your freedom.
Why should I have to take drug tests to keep my job?

Reynolds357
Jun 22nd 2011, 02:55 AM
That'd be a nice idea but I think it's naive.
When you actually spend some time working in a prison, then I will value your opinion on the matter a bit more. You think you know what goes on in prisons. I know what goes on in prisons.

Cornflake
Jun 22nd 2011, 05:07 AM
When you actually spend some time working in a prison, then I will value your opinion on the matter a bit more. You think you know what goes on in prisons. I know what goes on in prisons.
I don't recall posting my biographic information on here, but good you seem to know what I know and don't and how everyplace else works based on some small southern town so no point in discussing anything.

Amos_with_goats
Jun 22nd 2011, 05:11 AM
I don't recall posting my biographic information on here, but good you seem to know what I know and don't and how everyplace else works based on some small southern town so no point in discussing anything.

Do you mean you are not involved with the breakfast food industry? I am shocked, I really thought there was a connection somehow... :hmm:







:lol:

Cornflake
Jun 22nd 2011, 10:05 AM
Do you mean you are not involved with the breakfast food industry? I am shocked, I really thought there was a connection somehow... :hmm:







:lol:

I ... uhm... I don't want to discuss it!

*climbing into a bowl*

Leave me alone!

BrianW
Jun 22nd 2011, 12:15 PM
When you actually spend some time working in a prison, then I will value your opinion on the matter a bit more. You think you know what goes on in prisons. I know what goes on in prisons.

I've never worked in a prison nor have I ever been an inmate in a prison. I don't have to have worked in a prison to know what goes on in one.

I have had both family and friends who have been either guards or inmates. When you couple that with the readily available information out there you see that the fact is that there are still drug problems in prisons.

Wives, girlfriends, fellow gang members, family members, friends, mules, guards etc smuggle the stuff in on a daily basis.

There are even inmates who have been forced by other inmates to get people to bring the stuff into them because they have been threatened with death.

They have a pretty good system, in most places, set up to try and catch it before it enters into population and a pretty good system, in most places, to police the population after it has entered.

Drugs still get into prisons despite of this. I honestly wish it were otherwise but the sad reality is it there are drugs in prisons. Can any one in prison just buy (In what ever way they can "Pay" for it) and use drugs when ever they feel like it? Of course not.

But where there is a will, and people on the outside stupid enough to take a major risk, there is a way. That's reality man. Wish it away if you wish but it will still be there.

the sound
Jun 22nd 2011, 12:23 PM
When you take money from the taxpayer, you give up some of your freedom.
Why should I have to take drug tests to keep my job?


You shouldn't have too, that should stop as well... unless there is suspicion of drug use there is no reason to give someone a drug test.

the inside out
Jun 25th 2011, 01:47 PM
If they had that law here in NC, all of my friends in Greensboro on food stamps wouldn't have it. I used to work at a grocery store and people would use their EBT cards to buy cigarettes and alcohol. When I last lived in Greensboro I was living in the "ghetto" and I would buy groceries at the super discount supermarket and it always shocked me how I would be the only one in line that wouldn't pull out an EBT card. A lot of them were honestly down on their luck and needed help, but a lot of them just didn't want to do better because it meant giving up the free money. People who need it should have access to it, but it's too easy to get and hard to drop once you reap the benefits. I like the law, I think every state should have it. My 20-something friends who spend the money they work for on booze and drugs shouldn't have had it. And there should be a time limit. The government makes it way too easy for families to stay on food stamps for years, sometimes generations.

keck553
Jun 27th 2011, 03:25 PM
If they had that law here in NC, all of my friends in Greensboro on food stamps wouldn't have it. I used to work at a grocery store and people would use their EBT cards to buy cigarettes and alcohol. When I last lived in Greensboro I was living in the "ghetto" and I would buy groceries at the super discount supermarket and it always shocked me how I would be the only one in line that wouldn't pull out an EBT card. A lot of them were honestly down on their luck and needed help, but a lot of them just didn't want to do better because it meant giving up the free money. People who need it should have access to it, but it's too easy to get and hard to drop once you reap the benefits. I like the law, I think every state should have it. My 20-something friends who spend the money they work for on booze and drugs shouldn't have had it. And there should be a time limit. The government makes it way too easy for families to stay on food stamps for years, sometimes generations.

This is a different environment. Greensboro, Charlotte and area are under seige.

Reynolds357
Jun 27th 2011, 04:51 PM
I don't recall posting my biographic information on here, but good you seem to know what I know and don't and how everyplace else works based on some small southern town so no point in discussing anything.

I work in a hick town with a population of 5 people.Four of them leave when the sun goes down. Little hick towns like the Atlanta suburbs is where I was drug task force investigator for many years. I now work in a smaller town that the largest drug pipe line in the nation runs through.

the inside out
Jun 27th 2011, 09:03 PM
This is a different environment. Greensboro, Charlotte and area are under seige.
A person on drugs is the same no matter the environmnt. And a ghetto is a ghetto no matter where you go. And the grocery store where I worked was in Myrtle Beach. Food Stamps are abused EVERYWHERE.

keck553
Jun 27th 2011, 09:55 PM
A person on drugs is the same no matter the environmnt. And a ghetto is a ghetto no matter where you go. And the grocery store where I worked was in Myrtle Beach. Food Stamps are abused EVERYWHERE.

I agree with you. It's just that in the Charlotte area, people are routinely assasinated for practicing law enforcement.

Reynolds357
Jun 28th 2011, 02:38 AM
I agree with you. It's just that in the Charlotte area, people are routinely assasinated for practicing law enforcement.

What? Charlotte does not have an abnormal L.E. fatality percentage.

Reynolds357
Jun 28th 2011, 02:41 AM
I've never worked in a prison nor have I ever been an inmate in a prison. I don't have to have worked in a prison to know what goes on in one.

I have had both family and friends who have been either guards or inmates. When you couple that with the readily available information out there you see that the fact is that there are still drug problems in prisons.

Wives, girlfriends, fellow gang members, family members, friends, mules, guards etc smuggle the stuff in on a daily basis.

There are even inmates who have been forced by other inmates to get people to bring the stuff into them because they have been threatened with death.

They have a pretty good system, in most places, set up to try and catch it before it enters into population and a pretty good system, in most places, to police the population after it has entered.

Drugs still get into prisons despite of this. I honestly wish it were otherwise but the sad reality is it there are drugs in prisons. Can any one in prison just buy (In what ever way they can "Pay" for it) and use drugs when ever they feel like it? Of course not.

But where there is a will, and people on the outside stupid enough to take a major risk, there is a way. That's reality man. Wish it away if you wish but it will still be there.

Reality is that very little drugs get inside prisons.

keck553
Jun 28th 2011, 05:42 PM
What? Charlotte does not have an abnormal L.E. fatality percentage.

Does that mean 'normal' is acceptable?

howszat
Jun 28th 2011, 06:18 PM
The law is not unconstitutional as there is already a Federal law that requires similar testing for those who wish to work in what are deemed sensitive or governmental security jobs. The courts have ruled that government interest in security overrides privacy rights in this regard. It just makes sense.

Cornflake
Jun 28th 2011, 06:26 PM
The law is not unconstitutional as there is already a Federal law that requires similar testing for those who wish to work in what are deemed sensitive or governmental security jobs. The courts have ruled that government interest in security overrides privacy rights in this regard. It just makes sense.

How do you figure? Government security and safety in specific job classes has nothing to do with food stamps.

howszat
Jun 28th 2011, 06:50 PM
How do you figure? Government security and safety in specific job classes has nothing to do with food stamps.

Yours is a valid question - bear in mind that government has a valid interest in protecting how its dollars are spent and in maintaining the well being of its citizenry. As such, the courts have ruled that it may use these procedures to insure that people are helped where need be.

At one time I worked in a place that was financed by government contracts. As such people were selected at random for drugs tests to insure that no one was working there who could pose a security risk. Several people's names would be put into a box and if your name was pulled you would get tested. Unfortunately, that meant that some people would be omitted. Well, it turns out that I have a lifelong heart condition and must take prescription medicine - if I took illegal drugs I would have died years ago. When the testers continually found my samples negative they took my name out of the box. Then almost immediately they found two other persons who had violated the drug laws! This may seem intrusive but it saved their lives! That should be the role of government - to protect its citizenry where possible and where advisable.

Cornflake
Jun 29th 2011, 12:45 AM
Yours is a valid question - bear in mind that government has a valid interest in protecting how its dollars are spent and in maintaining the well being of its citizenry. As such, the courts have ruled that it may use these procedures to insure that people are helped where need be.

At one time I worked in a place that was financed by government contracts. As such people were selected at random for drugs tests to insure that no one was working there who could pose a security risk. Several people's names would be put into a box and if your name was pulled you would get tested. Unfortunately, that meant that some people would be omitted. Well, it turns out that I have a lifelong heart condition and must take prescription medicine - if I took illegal drugs I would have died years ago. When the testers continually found my samples negative they took my name out of the box. Then almost immediately they found two other persons who had violated the drug laws! This may seem intrusive but it saved their lives! That should be the role of government - to protect its citizenry where possible and where advisable.

That doesn't really answer my question though. There's a vast difference between someone involved in national security or with other people's safety at risk and someone collecting food stamps. Just because one has been judged to be an acceptable level to violate privacy on doesn't mean the other is.

Reynolds357
Jun 29th 2011, 02:33 AM
Does that mean 'normal' is acceptable?

Nope. Just means normal is normal.

howszat
Jun 29th 2011, 02:55 PM
That doesn't really answer my question though. There's a vast difference between someone involved in national security or with other people's safety at risk and someone collecting food stamps. Just because one has been judged to be an acceptable level to violate privacy on doesn't mean the other is.

Perhaps it does not answer the question to your satisfaction. But it does as far as the courts and the government is concerned. The full scope and limits of privacy rights are not defined in the Constitution. They are developed and defined over the course of time as governing institutions see fit. With regard to drugs and drug testing, the government has created laws which allow intrusions of this kind and the courts have upheld those rights.

Cornflake
Jun 29th 2011, 04:38 PM
Perhaps it does not answer the question to your satisfaction. But it does as far as the courts and the government is concerned. The full scope and limits of privacy rights are not defined in the Constitution. They are developed and defined over the course of time as governing institutions see fit. With regard to drugs and drug testing, the government has created laws which allow intrusions of this kind and the courts have upheld those rights.
Again, because there's been a general acceptance of it in a particular instance doesn't at all mean it'd be acceptable in any other instance. This has been struck once, it can be struck again. One thing - violation that stems from weighing privacy against safety and/or security - has no impact on another thing, violation that stems from wanting food stamp monies not to go to people who smoke pot.

Reynolds357
Jun 29th 2011, 06:54 PM
That doesn't really answer my question though. There's a vast difference between someone involved in national security or with other people's safety at risk and someone collecting food stamps. Just because one has been judged to be an acceptable level to violate privacy on doesn't mean the other is.

If you are involved in national security, you have no Constitutional rights?

In my mind, sending tax payer dollars to Columbia, Mexico, etc. to fund dope dealers and terrorists is breech of national security.

howszat
Jun 30th 2011, 12:44 AM
Again, because there's been a general acceptance of it in a particular instance doesn't at all mean it'd be acceptable in any other instance. This has been struck once, it can be struck again. One thing - violation that stems from weighing privacy against safety and/or security - has no impact on another thing, violation that stems from wanting food stamp monies not to go to people who smoke pot.

This law has not been tested as yet in a court of law. If we make a bet as to whether the courts will rule in its favor, my money is on the side of the government.

Cornflake
Jun 30th 2011, 04:21 AM
This law has not been tested as yet in a court of law. If we make a bet as to whether the courts will rule in its favor, my money is on the side of the government.
This particular one is too new to have gotten anyplace but this has been struck. (http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/settlement-reached-aclu-michigan-lawsuit-over-mandatory-drug-testing-welfare-recipie)


The ACLU filed the class-action lawsuit in September 1999 on behalf of all Michigan welfare recipients who would be denied income support and other benefits for other children if they refused to submit to random drug testing or failed to comply with a mandatory "substance abuse treatment plan." ...

In April 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law. She wrote that drug testing an entire class of citizens simply because they are poor ""would be dangerously at odds with the tenets of our democracy."" In April 2003, the appeals court affirmed that decision.

And again, as that also showed, this idea is a giant waste of taxpayer money. To wit -


In the five weeks that the program was in effect, the drug tests were positive in only eight percent of the cases, a percentage that is consistent with drug use in the general population. Of 268 people tested, only 21 tested positive for drugs and all but three were for marijuana.

howszat
Jun 30th 2011, 04:36 AM
Michigan is a very liberal state. There is certainly nothing with that. But Florida is far more conservative and its court more likely to rule differently.

Cornflake
Jun 30th 2011, 04:44 AM
Michigan is a very liberal state. There is certainly nothing with that. But Florida is far more conservative and its court more likely to rule differently.
What? It's not a state issue, it's a federal issue, hence we're discussing the constitutionality of the legislation. It was killed by an appeals court.

BrianW
Jun 30th 2011, 01:47 PM
Reality is that very little drugs get inside prisons.

I have no idea why you would state that but the facts say otherwise. I can only assume that we have a very different definition of what "very little" means.

howszat
Jul 2nd 2011, 02:55 AM
What? It's not a state issue, it's a federal issue, hence we're discussing the constitutionality of the legislation. It was killed by an appeals court.

The topic is:

''A new law, which goes into effect July 1, will require the Florida Department of Children and Family Services to perform drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.''

I assume this entails state authority with legal issues such as due process and equal protection.

Cornflake
Jul 2nd 2011, 03:09 AM
The topic is:

''A new law, which goes into effect July 1, will require the Florida Department of Children and Family Services to perform drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.''

I assume this entails state authority with legal issues such as due process and equal protection.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean, could you restate it maybe please? The discussion is whether the law passes constitutional muster - I mentioned that basically the same law in Michigan was struck - by an appeals court - so I don't see how this is a state issue. I mean it's Florida state that's now trying it (among others I think) but... confused as to what you mean, and possibly what I mean because I'm not sure I understand what you mean, do you know what I mean? :lol:

Reynolds357
Jul 2nd 2011, 03:15 AM
What? It's not a state issue, it's a federal issue, hence we're discussing the constitutionality of the legislation. It was killed by an appeals court.

Federal courts are in districts.

Cornflake
Jul 2nd 2011, 03:16 AM
Federal courts are in districts.

And?.... I don't know what you're referring to.

Reynolds357
Jul 2nd 2011, 03:18 AM
And?.... I don't know what you're referring to.
The 11th Circuit is very conservative.

Cornflake
Jul 2nd 2011, 03:21 AM
Sixth isn't exactly the ninth. Though I think there are enough states trying this that it'll end up going all the way regardless.

RevLogos
Jul 2nd 2011, 04:11 PM
I'm going to guess this is what people think makes it unconstitutional -

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I'd like to get back to this because it has broader implications than food stamps.

If the State were to randomly drug test people without probable cause, that would be unconstitutional. But when I engage in a voluntary agreement with the State to let the State give me something, the State can, just like an employer, stipulate any conditions it wants.

The broader implication is with topics like healthcare or any other State benefit. If the State is going to pay for my healthcare, they can stipulate any conditions they want to control costs. The State could deny coverage if I engage in any risky behavior for example, like smoking, drinking sodas, eating fast food, not exercising, being overweight, going skiing and other sports, or merely being old.

The flow of money and services has always been a soft way to get around the constitution.

howszat
Jul 2nd 2011, 11:46 PM
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean, could you restate it maybe please?

Don't see what difficulty you are having as the law was signed by the state's governor, not by a federal authority.

Cornflake
Jul 2nd 2011, 11:59 PM
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean, could you restate it maybe please?

Don't see what difficulty you are having as the law was signed by the state's governor, not by a federal authority.

What does that have to do with anything we're discussing? The question is a constitutional one, not a state one.



If the State were to randomly drug test people without probable cause, that would be unconstitutional. But when I engage in a voluntary agreement with the State to let the State give me something, the State can, just like an employer, stipulate any conditions it wants.

As you point out, though, classifying it in that manner can lead one down a slippery slope rather quickly. There are arguably differences between an employment situation and a benefits situation, especially when we're talking about benefits people have paid into. As well, it's not generally all employment, it's specifcially classed employment where safety is an issue. Which pulls it even further away.

howszat
Jul 3rd 2011, 01:19 AM
The question is a constitutional one, not a state one.

The state of Florida has a Constitution as well which must be in accord with the USA Constitution. This will be tested in court.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes&CFID=218596131&CFTOKEN=23961987

Cornflake
Jul 3rd 2011, 03:15 AM
The question is a constitutional one, not a state one.

The state of Florida has a Constitution as well which must be in accord with the USA Constitution. This will be tested in court.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes&CFID=218596131&CFTOKEN=23961987

All states have constitutions, sure, but I'd be shocked to heck if they were going to spend time in state courts arguing that this law violates Florida's Constitution. Why bother wasting time and money? It's a constitutional question, they're going to argue it federally, same as before - they want it stopped across the board.

howszat
Jul 4th 2011, 08:55 PM
If the State is going to pay for my healthcare, they can stipulate any conditions they want to control costs. The State could deny coverage if I engage in any risky behavior for example, like smoking, drinking sodas, eating fast food, not exercising, being overweight, going skiing and other sports, or merely being old.

True. That's what is called a state's police power and there is a general presumption in favor of of the law's constitutionality when it is under judicial review:

http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/The-Constitutional-Law-Of-The-United-States/10-Presumption-In-Favor-Of-The-Constitutionality-Of-A-State.html