Is Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Unconstitutional?

[Blake]

Under a new Florida law, people applying for welfare have to take a drug test at their own expense. If they pass, they are eligible for benefits and the state reimburses them for the test. If they fail, they are denied welfare for a year, until they take another test.

Mandatory drug testing for welfare applicants is becoming a popular idea across the U.S. Many states - including Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Louisiana - are considering adopting laws like Florida's. At the federal level, Senator David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, has introduced the Drug Free Families Act of 2011, which would require all 50 states to drug-test welfare applicants.

......

In 1997, in Chandler v. Miller, the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to strike down a Georgia law requiring candidates for state offices to pass a drug test.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said that the drug testing was an unreasonable search. The state can impose drug tests in exceptional cases, when there is a public-safety need for them (as with bus and train operators, for instance). But the Fourth Amendment does not allow the state to diminish "personal privacy for a symbol's sake," the court said.

....

Drug testing welfare applicants does not seem to meet the Chandler test since there is no particular safety reason to be concerned about drug use by welfare recipients. In 2003, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Michigan's drug testing of welfare applicants as a Fourth Amendment violation.

[more]

http://news.yahoo.com/why-drug-testing-poor-could-unconstitutional-081205581.html

[Wild Cobra]

It's not a right to receive welfare, therefore, I see no reason why the testing can be fought.

There was a past thread that covered this, but I forget the title.

[mingus]

Even if you do drugs, it is pretty damn easy to pass a drug test. There are quite a few people who've made careers by exploiting the system and they will continue to do so rather easily with this policy.

[boutons_deux]

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results


Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

========

Repugs War on The Poor will be waged no matter how insane, no matter how much it costs. My guess is the drug tests are performed by a no-bid Repug business that donated heavily to Scott/Repugs.

[MannyIsGod]

Hmm, its amazing that no one predicted that drug use among welfare recipients wasn't going to be an issue. Oh wait....

[MannyIsGod]

dup

[vy65]

If the supremacy clause isn't an issue, it's hard to see how drug testing would be unconstitutional.

[boutons_deux]

exactly, Human-Americans no longer have any expectation of privacy, while Corporate-Americans and govt operate in complete secrecy

[Agloco]

Even if you do drugs, it is pretty damn easy to pass a drug test. There are quite a few people who've made careers by exploiting the system and they will continue to do so rather easily with this policy.

If this is an argument against drug testing, it's a bad one.

[Agloco]

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results


Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

========

Repugs War on The Poor will be waged no matter how insane, no matter how much it costs. My guess is the drug tests are performed by a no-bid Repug business that donated heavily to Scott/Repugs.

And that's at a 2% reject clip.

EDIT: Interesting though is this random testing, or just a once a year thing?

[vy65]

And that's at a 2% reject clip.

Why are people not on board with this again?

Exactly. At worst it doesn't seem to cost the state anything. At best, it might convince some people to stop doing drugs.

[Agloco]

Exactly. At worst it doesn't seem to cost the state anything. At best, it might convince some people to stop doing drugs.

Yeah, I gathered that.....see my edit above. Do you know?

[vy65]

Yeah, I gathered that.....see my edit above. Do you know?

I'd imagine that it would be up to the states to decide the frequency of the testing. Some would probably do once a year. Others would probably do more.

[MannyIsGod]

For one, imagine all the money we could save if we prevented all those found using drugs from using any state services. For instance, roads, emergency services, public utilities, disaster relief.

I hope we can drug test for everything! Lets include Alcohol in the testing too, IMO.

[MannyIsGod]

Exactly. At worst it doesn't seem to cost the state anything. At best, it might convince some people to stop doing drugs.

Thats really the at worst?

[vy65]

For one, imagine all the money we could save if we prevented all those found using drugs from using any state services. For instance, roads, emergency services, public utilities, disaster relief.

I hope we can drug test for everything! Lets include Alcohol in the testing too, IMO.

So people who get checks cut by the government have a right to go out and use that money on crack? If you can't test them, how do you prevent that scenario?

It's a good thing to know that if I ever fall on hard times, my right to an 8 ball of coke is protected.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, breaking even is not nearly enough. For one, that simplistic calculation isn't considering man hours nor does it consider the cost that a person not recieving benefits will cost the state. Its definitely not free so simply saying "oh we saved x dollars by not giving them money" is completely and utterly false.

[MannyIsGod]

So people who get checks cut by the government have a right to go out and use that money on crack? If you can't test them, how do you prevent that scenario?

It's a good thing to know that if I ever fall on hard times, my right to an 8 ball of coke is protected.

Why is it ok to for anyone to go out and by crack while the government subsidizes something they use? If I'm having to foot the bill for you to have police protection what entitles you to smoke a joint or use the roads my tax dollars pay for?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lol Manny seems really concerned druggies won't get their welfare

[boutons_deux]

"right to go out and use that money on crack"

The welfare queen lie. What proof do you have that the 2% of welfare recipients that test positive for drugs are postive for crack?

In any population, there will always be cheaters. eg, the 50K Americans who evade taxes with Swiss bank accounts. Why aren't you all over their asses the way you harass/criminalize 98% of welfare recipients who don't use drugs?

[coyotes_geek]

Every state, local and federal government I've come across has not only required drug testing of their employees, but required anyone wanting to do business with them to have a testing program of their own. Not really seeing what the big deal is here.

[vy65]

Why is it ok to for anyone to go out and by crack while the government subsidizes something they use? If I'm having to foot the bill for you to have police protection what entitles you to smoke a joint or use the roads my tax dollars pay for?

It's not ok to buy crack at all. It definitely is not ok for them to buy crack with money furnished by the government.

When someone gets free money from the government, they don't get to have it on their terms. No one who wants to be taken seriously would think that someone who is at a high risk of drug abuse should a) be given a handout and b) not be tested to determine whether they're using said free money for drug abuse.

If you think welfare = the same as police protection or use of the roads, you probably should be drug tested too.

[vy65]

Every state, local and federal government I've come across has not only required drug testing of their employees, but required anyone wanting to do business with them to have a testing program of their own. Not really seeing what the big deal is here.

The infringement on one's right to snort coke on the government's dime tbh.

[MannyIsGod]

Every state, local and federal government I've come across has not only required drug testing of their employees, but required anyone wanting to do business with them to have a testing program of their own. Not really seeing what the big deal is here.

The big deal is that this was some stupid pet legislation for an asshole state rep who's wasting time on non issues. The goalpost moving from this is a huge problem to Oh well we're breaking even is phenomenal.

People on welfare make really easy targets. They're at the bottom and who defends those on the bottom? No one.

[vy65]

I bet Manny thinks Chester the Molester has a constitutional right to use public library computers to skeeze on little boys in internet chatrooms.

[MannyIsGod]

It's not ok to buy crack at all. It definitely is not ok for them to buy crack with money furnished by the government.

When someone gets free money from the government, they don't get to have it on their terms. No one who wants to be taken seriously would think that someone who is at a high risk of drug abuse should a) be given a handout and b) not be tested to determine whether they're using said free money for drug abuse.

If you think welfare = the same as police protection or use of the roads, you probably should be drug tested too.

In the bottom line it is the same. Its a government expense. Does it not cost money to provide drug addicts with police protection? Does it not cost money to provide drug addicts access to roads and public education? If the argument here is that rejecting drug users can save money then why is that argument not used across the board?

Why are people who are on welfare somehow considered to be high risk for drug abuse? That is certainly not a conclusion you can draw from the numbers of those tested. I'm fairly possible the levels of drug use among the general population is far higher than 2%.

And what happens to people who are rejected under programs like this? Are they somehow not a burden on society in a financial manner any longer? People don't just disappear once they get rejected by the welfare office and one way or another you're going to foot the bill whether you like it or not.

[MannyIsGod]

I bet Manny thinks Chester the Molester has a constitutional right to use public library computers to skeeze on little boys in internet chatrooms.

Nothing says your argument has legs like putting up complete and utter red herrings like this.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Meth heads are people too!!!

[vy65]

Nothing says your argument has legs like putting up complete and utter red herrings like this.

I actually think the Chester the Molester hypothetical is more analogous than roads and the police tbh.

[vy65]

In the bottom line it is the same. Its a government expense. Does it not cost money to provide drug addicts with police protection? Does it not cost money to provide drug addicts access to roads and public education? If the argument here is that rejecting drug users can save money then why is that argument not used across the board?

The difference is that roads and the police are a provision that apply to everyone. They are not government entitlements that are provided to a group selected by the government. Sure they are both government expenses, but that's not really the important difference. Welfare is a program focuses on a select minority of (impoverished) Americans.

And your still neglecting the government's right to determine how and when it spends money. Surely you don't think that a welfare recipient has a right to some crack rock, right? How's the government supposed to stop people from using government funds on drugs?


Why are people who are on welfare somehow considered to be high risk for drug abuse? That is certainly not a conclusion you can draw from the numbers of those tested. I'm fairly possible the levels of drug use among the general population is far higher than 2%.

Because one of the pitfalls of poverty is drug abuse. It sucks but its true.

I also find it hard to believe that the number is 2%. I'm sure someone here can find studies with higher %s


And what happens to people who are rejected under programs like this? Are they somehow not a burden on society in a financial manner any longer? People don't just disappear once they get rejected by the welfare office and one way or another you're going to foot the bill whether you like it or not.

Simple. They learn to not do drugs. Or they suffer. You're ignoring the fact that they're going to be a drain on society either way. Hopefully, with counseling and the threat of losing money, they'd make a responsible choice.

[coyotes_geek]

The big deal is that this was some stupid pet legislation for an asshole state rep who's wasting time on non issues. The goalpost moving from this is a huge problem to Oh well we're breaking even is phenomenal.

People on welfare make really easy targets. They're at the bottom and who defends those on the bottom? No one.

People on welfare aren't being asked to carry any more of a burden than anyone who wants to work for or with the government are.

[MannyIsGod]

Why? Molestation is a crime that involves direct harm against another person? Drug use? Not so much. One is a crime no one believes should be legal while the other is something that can be argued for legalization.

In any event, the point stands that if the argument is cost cutting due to drug use there are plenty of ways to do it if the government is actually serious about going after anyone other than the easy targets. You've made it abundantly clear by comparing welfare recipients to child molesters how you view them.
If you want to make the argument in differentiation of government services and why that should be the case then feel free. I'm pretty sure whatever you decide to pull out can be applied to safety net's as well so lets see what you have.

[vy65]

Are state governments required to provide welfare? If not required, but provided by the states anyway, why can't they craft welfare policy in the way they want (i.e., to require drug testing)?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Why? Molestation is a crime that involves direct harm against another person? Drug use? Not so much. One is a crime no one believes should be legal while the other is something that can be argued for legalization.

In any event, the point stands that if the argument is cost cutting due to drug use there are plenty of ways to do it if the government is actually serious about going after anyone other than the easy targets. You've made it abundantly clear by comparing welfare recipients to child molesters how you view them.
If you want to make the argument in differentiation of government services and why that should be the case then feel free. I'm pretty sure whatever you decide to pull out can be applied to safety net's as well so lets see what you have.

I view meth heads the same way I view child molesters tbh. Both are liabilities to society and should be gassed to death in a manner similar to the holocaust.

[MannyIsGod]

Is the federal government required to provide welfare? If it isn't required, but decides to do so anyway, why is it unable to craft welfare policy in the way it wants (i.e., to require drug testing)?

For one, this isn't a federal issue as neither are police and fire protection so I'm not sure why you're using that as a yard stick.

I'll reply to the rest later - I've actually got work to do now (god damn it).

[vy65]

Why? Molestation is a crime that involves direct harm against another person? Drug use? Not so much. One is a crime no one believes should be legal while the other is something that can be argued for legalization.

You seriously don't think crack-cocaine is a crime no one things should be illegal? That doesn't hurt anyone?


In any event, the point stands that if the argument is cost cutting due to drug use there are plenty of ways to do it if the government is actually serious about going after anyone other than the easy targets. You've made it abundantly clear by comparing welfare recipients to child molesters how you view them.
If you want to make the argument in differentiation of government services and why that should be the case then feel free. I'm pretty sure whatever you decide to pull out can be applied to safety net's as well so lets see what you have.

I never compared welfare recipients to child abusers. What I compared was how your argument also supports a child molesters "right" to use public property for criminal purposes.

As for the rest, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. My point was just that the government has a (constitutional) right to drug test. I'd imagine the savings are higher, but I need to see more statistics.

[vy65]

For one, this isn't a federal issue as neither are police and fire protection so I'm not sure why you're using that as a yard stick.

I'll reply to the rest later - I've actually got work to do now (god damn it).

You're right - I'll edit. But the point still is the same.

[ElNono]

So people who get checks cut by the government have a right to go out and use that money on crack?

Once they money exchange hands, they certainly have that right.


If you can't test them, how do you prevent that scenario?

By catching the drug dealers and offering counseling to addicts?


It's a good thing to know that if I ever fall on hard times, my right to an 8 ball of coke is protected.

You don't have a right to consume. However, you do have a right to be secure in your person.

[ElNono]

And BTW, my concern isn't with the druggies. It's with the non-stop erosion of privacy rights under the guise of catching druggies.

[vy65]

Once they money exchange hands, they certainly have that right.

They have a right to commit a crime? The government can't condition how money it provides is spent?


By catching the drug dealers and offering counseling to addicts?

Because that works so well.


You don't have a right to consume. However, you do have a right to be secure in your person.

Of course you do. No one forces you to sign up for welfare.

[mingus]

If this is an argument against drug testing, it's a bad one.

Not drug trasting in general, drug testing for people on welfare. The people who are abusing the welfare system are some of the laziest people youll ever meet and if they happen to be doing drugs, they're not going to let an easilly passable drug test stop them from doung what theyve been doing for years, which is making a career from screwing the government. They're not going to find jobs. They're too fucking lazy.

[ElNono]

They have a right to commit a crime? The government can't condition how money it provides is spent?

They have a right to spend it as they see fit. Let's not be disingenuous here, it's pretty simple to turn even foodstamps into cash. Once it's cash, government has no say on it.


Because that works so well.

Irrelevant, really. That is one the functions of government, combat illegal activity through law enforcement. That's lacking is not the druggie's fault though.


Of course you do. No one forces you to sign up for welfare.

You're not forced to run for public office either, and the SCOTUS decided that arbitrary drug testing is a violation of the 4th amendment all the same.

[FromWayDowntown]

The obvious solution is that those who wish to use drugs and receive welfare should just declare themselves candidates for elected office. Then they're constitutionally protected from drug testing. Since, you know, we have no colorable reason to test political candidates.

[vy65]

They have a right to spend it as they see fit. Let's not be disingenuous here, it's pretty simple to turn even foodstamps into cash. Once it's cash, government has no say on it.

No they don't. When the government provides money that it otherwise is not required to give, said money doesn't come NSA.

You're right that it's easy to turn foodstamps to cash and use it for whatever. That doesn't mean you have a right to do so.


Irrelevant, really. That is one the functions of government, combat illegal activity through law enforcement. That's lacking is not the druggie's fault though.

The whole point was irrelevant. The government is free to choose the best way it sees fit to fight drug use. If that means testing welfare recipients, so be it.


You're not forced to run for public office either, and the SCOTUS decided that arbitrary drug testing is a violation of the 4th amendment all the same.

The right to participate in government is not the same as the right to receive a handout.

And who said anything about testing welfare recipients is arbitrary?

[vy65]

You're not forced to run for public office either, and the SCOTUS decided that arbitrary drug testing is a violation of the 4th amendment all the same.

The better argument is: you have no constitutional right to welfare, but you have a constitutional right to run for office. Because of that, the government can restrict welfare access in ways that it cannot when it comes to running for public office.

[ElNono]

No they don't. When the government provides money that it otherwise is not required to give, said money doesn't come NSA.

You're right that it's easy to turn foodstamps to cash and use it for whatever. That doesn't mean you have a right to do so.

They certainly have the right to purchase whatever legitimate items that can purchase, and turn around and sell such items. The burden is on you to prove they cannot do that.


The whole point was irrelevant. The government is free to choose the best way it sees fit to fight drug use. If that means testing welfare recipients, so be it.

But drug use isn't what we're arguing here. Otherwise why limit it to welfare recipients? Do you think mandatory drug testing of the entire population would fly? I don't think it will on the same grounds as public officials.


The right to participate in government is not the same as the right to receive a handout.

It is the same from the perspective of your 'forced' argument. Neither is forced to do anything.


And who said anything about testing welfare recipients is arbitrary?

It is arbitrary because there's other welfare recipients in the form of tax cuts or government stimulus checks and they're not required to subject themselves to the same testing.

[ElNono]

The better argument is: you have no constitutional right to welfare, but you have a constitutional right to run for office. Because of that, the government can restrict welfare access in ways that it cannot when it comes to running for public office.

I don't argue that Congress has a right to limit it as it see fits. The argument is wether drug testing is a violation of the 4th amendment, and wether requiring such testing is unconstitutional.

[ElNono]

The obvious solution is that those who wish to use drugs and receive welfare should just declare themselves candidates for elected office. Then they're constitutionally protected from drug testing. Since, you know, we have no colorable reason to test political candidates.

Basically.

[vy65]

They certainly have the right to purchase whatever legitimate items that can purchase, and turn around and sell such items. The burden is on you to prove they cannot do that.

Huh? I don't see what this has to do with anything. Of course, they have a right to buy whatever legal items they want. You initially said they had a right to spend it on *whatever* they saw fit. I said no, you can't use welfare to buy your crack rock. I think you've missed my point.


But drug use isn't what we're arguing here. Otherwise why limit it to welfare recipients? Do you think mandatory drug testing of the entire population would fly? I don't think it will on the same grounds as public officials.

We're talking about the ability of welfare recipients to spend their money on drugs. That's why its limited to welfare recipients. I don't think that general drug testing would fly - that hypothetical is irrelevant to the question of welfare recipients.


It is the same from the perspective of your 'forced' argument. Neither is forced to do anything.

See my edit above.


It is arbitrary because there's other welfare recipients in the form of tax cuts or government stimulus checks and they're not required to subject themselves to the same testing.

It's definitely not arbitrary given the strong correlation between poverty and drug abuse. You don't think poverty predisposes one to drugs/drug abuse?

Tax Cuts/Stimulus Checks are not what we're talking about.

[Trainwreck2100]

its stupid and not cost effective cause its not random.

[vy65]

I don't argue that Congress has a right to limit it as it see fits. The argument is wether drug testing is a violation of the 4th amendment, and wether requiring such testing is unconstitutional.

What that means is not just that government can limit welfare in ways it sees fit - it also means that one's expectation of privacy is diminished.

I get your concern about privacy. But this isn't an issue of the government snooping around in your shit where you have otherwise done nothing to instigate an investigation. These are people soliciting government funds/participation in governmental programs - and - who are predisposed to drug abuse. The expectation of privacy isn't the same as you sitting in your home, minding your business.

[coyotes_geek]

I don't argue that Congress has a right to limit it as it see fits. The argument is wether drug testing is a violation of the 4th amendment, and wether requiring such testing is unconstitutional.

If requiring drug testing were unconstitutional wouldn't we have found that out a couple decades ago, considering how widespread the practice of making drug testing a requirement for employment is?



Just some reference info I found related to this point.


A 2006 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 84 percent of employers required new hires to pass drug screenings, and 39 percent randomly tested employees after they were hired. In addition, 73 percent tested workers when drug use was suspected and 58 percent required testing after accidents on the job.

[Trainwreck2100]

I don't argue that Congress has a right to limit it as it see fits. The argument is wether drug testing is a violation of the 4th amendment, and wether requiring such testing is unconstitutional.

The gov. isn't requiring testing for everyone, just people that want their free money. If they don't want the money they don't have to be tested

[boutons_deux]

govt drug testing is different from Corporate-America drug testing, just like govt can't violate free speech, while non-govt institutions can.

[ElNono]

Huh? I don't see what this has to do with anything. Of course, they have a right to buy whatever legal items they want. You initially said they had a right to spend it on *whatever* they saw fit. I said no, you can't use welfare to buy your crack rock. I think you've missed my point.

I said 'once the money exchange hands'. Welfare recipients are also prohibited from spending that money into slot machines. Yet, it happens. Do we also need to put them through lie detectors to detect gamblers in the group? Where does it end?


We're talking about the ability of welfare recipients to spend their money on drugs. That's why its limited to welfare recipients. I don't think that general drug testing would fly - that hypothetical is irrelevant to the question of welfare recipients.

I just think there's other ways to attack this without requiring invasive, potentially unconstitutional tests.


It's definitely not arbitrary given the strong correlation between poverty and drug abuse. You don't think poverty predisposes one to drugs/drug abuse? Sure, there is probably a minority of welfare recipients who are conservative. They'd probably support the drug test.

I think there's everything out there. But by circumscribing this merely to poor/welfare people it's being arbitrary.

[coyotes_geek]

Finally, some States have laws and rules that limit or deny unemployment benefits to individuals who are fired because of a positive drug test. For example, New York’s Unemployment Compensation State Law stipulates that an employee may be “disqualified” from receiving benefits for “testing positive on a drug test or for using drugs and alcohol in violation of workplace policy.”[11] Currently, almost 30 States have regulations similar to New York’s. Additional information about your State’s rules can be obtained from your State office of unemployment.

http://workplace.samhsa.gov/WPWorkit/legal.html#r1


Not exactly sure how many, if any, of those 30 states do any testing themselves. But it sure looks like the concept of denying people benefits based on positive drug tests has been around for a while if 30 states already have it. I would assume what this means is that if you get fired from your job over a failed drug test that you're not entitled to unemployment benefits.

[vy65]

I said 'once the money exchange hands'. Welfare recipients are also prohibited from spending that money into slot machines. Yet, it happens. Do we also need to put them through lie detectors to detect gamblers in the group? Where does it end?

This is what you said:


Once they money exchange hands, they certainly have that right.

Which is incorrect. They certainly don't have the right to use government money to buy drugs.

I'm not aware of any law prohibiting welfare recipients from using that money to gamble (I'm not saying that there aren't). There's also a difference in that playing slots isn't illegal. Smoking crack is.


I just think there's other ways to attack this without requiring invasive, potentially unconstitutional tests.

How else can the government make sure that the money it gives to welfare recipients isn't spent on drugs?


I think there's everything out there. But by circumscribing this merely to poor/welfare people it's being arbitrary.

So you don't think that there is a strong correlation between poverty and drug abuse? You think someone who is homeless is just as predisposed to smoking crack as a teenage white girl in the suburbs?

[ElNono]

What that means is not just that government can limit welfare in ways it sees fit - it also means that one's expectation of privacy is diminished.

I get your concern about privacy. But this isn't an issue of the government snooping around in your shit where you have otherwise done nothing to instigate an investigation. These are people soliciting government funds/participation in governmental programs - and - who are predisposed to drug abuse. The expectation of privacy isn't the same as you sitting in your home, minding your business.

But we use government services every day, without such burden on proof.

My concern isn't with the 2% that test positive. My concern is with the other 98% that have to be put through this shit, wasting time and money. To me, it's akin as labeling every person that applies for welfare as a druggie unless proven otherwise. I don't think that's right at all.

[vy65]

But we use government services every day, without such burden on proof.

My concern isn't with the 2% that test positive. My concern is with the other 98% that have to be put through this shit, wasting time and money. To me, it's akin as labeling every person that applies for welfare as a druggie unless proven otherwise. I don't think that's right at all.

Services like what? Programs where the government gives money directly to people predisposed to drug abuse?

I don't think people who apply for and are denied New York's unemployment compensation benefits are druggies. Yet they're regularly tested for drug abuse.

If anything, this might suggest that those who apply for welfare benefits are highly susceptible to drug abuse. That's no different than saying people in poverty are more likely to use drugs than people not in poverty. I don't think that's all that controversial. Plus, if they pass the test, wouldn't that mean that they're not in fact druggies? If we got to a point where being clean was a pre-requisite for welfare, wouldn't that mean everyone on welfare wasn't a junkie?

[ElNono]

This is what you said:

Which is incorrect. They certainly don't have the right to use government money to buy drugs.

It isn't government money once it exchange hands. Much like it isn't your money once you sent you tax check. At that point, it's government money.


I'm not aware of any law prohibiting welfare recipients from using that money to gamble (I'm not saying that there aren't). There's also a difference in that playing slots isn't illegal. Smoking crack is.

There was a big hoopla about that in California last year, I'll find a link if you're interested, although you'll probably find it quicker if you google for it.


How else can the government make sure that the money it gives to welfare recipients isn't spent on drugs?

Already addressed (better drug enforcement and/or addiction counseling).


So you don't think that there is a strong correlation between poverty and drug abuse? You think someone who is homeless is just as predisposed to smoking crack as a teenage white girl in the suburbs?

I never said that. I said that recreational drug use isn't simply circumscribed to poor/welfare people. The rampant use of cocaine in the 80's wasn't just by people on welfare. If you think this is a useful tool to attack the drug problem, then it only make sense to apply it across the board, right?

[coyotes_geek]

To me, it's akin as labeling every person that applies for welfare as a druggie unless proven otherwise. I don't think that's right at all.

Is it okay for 4 out of 5 employers to label every job applicant a druggie until proven otherwise? Because that's already happening, a good portion of it by government mandate.

[ElNono]

Services like what? Programs where the government gives money directly to people predisposed to drug abuse?

Government subsidized clinics? Do we need drug tests too before the poor can get access to care? Stimulus checks?

Where does it end?


I don't think people who apply for and are denied New York's unemployment compensation benefits are druggies. Yet they're regularly tested for drug abuse.

Are they required to be tested for drug abuse in order to obtain unemployment compensation? If so, then I'm against that too.


If anything, this might suggest that those who apply for welfare benefits are highly susceptible to drug abuse. That's no different than saying people in poverty are more likely to use drugs than people not in poverty. I don't think that's all that controversial. Plus, if they pass the test, wouldn't that mean that they're not in fact druggies? If we got to a point where being clean was a pre-requisite for welfare, wouldn't that mean everyone on welfare wasn't a junkie?

But that's a silly argument. Under that argument we should submit to every arbitrary search because "you don't have anything to hide, right?". The burden shouldn't be on the person to prove their innocence.

[ElNono]

Is it okay for 4 out of 5 employers to label every job applicant a druggie until proven otherwise? Because that's already happening, a good portion of it by government mandate.

To me, it's completely different when a prospective employer requests it and when government does.

[vy65]

It isn't government money once it exchange hands. Much like it isn't your money once you sent you tax check. At that point, it's government money.

It's a government subsidy for the purchase of an illicit substance. Are you seriously saying that once I get a welfare check, I have a *right* to buy crack because it's my money? And that the government shouldn't be concerned about subsidizing this behavior with money it otherwise is not required to give?

This is difference with distinction and a meaningless technicality. While *mine* the money the government has given me is a direct subsidy. To think that the government has not been involved because its *mine* puts form over substance in the worst possible way.


There was a big hoopla about that in California last year, I'll find a link if you're interested, although you'll probably find it quicker if you google for it.

I didn't find anything saying that it's illegal. I also found this:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/California-Welfare-Las-Vegas-Gambling-ATM/2010/10/04/id/372515


Already addressed (better drug enforcement and/or addiction counseling).

How does either address the issue of government money being given to welfare recipients being used for drugs. It might combat the use of drugs in general, but how does it deal with the problem we've been talking about for this whole thread?


I never said that. I said that recreational drug use isn't simply circumscribed to poor/welfare people. The rampant use of cocaine in the 80's wasn't just by people on welfare. If you think this is a useful tool to attack the drug problem, then it only make sense to apply it across the board, right?

So you do think there is a strong correlation between poverty and drug abuse then. Cool.

Do middle-class and rich people also use drugs? Absolutely. Difference is they don't rely on government funds for basic substinance the way someone on welfare does.

Plus, I don't see why drug testing "across the board" (whatever that means) deals with the problem of welfare funds being used to purchase drugs?

[Wild Cobra]

So many posts so fast...

I just skimmed this, but anyone bring up the idea that maybe people who know they would be positive, didn't apply? How much money is that saving? I'll bet this is saving more than anyone knows, but it would be really hard to quantify.

[vy65]

There was a big hoopla about that in California last year, I'll find a link if you're interested, although you'll probably find it quicker if you google for it.

Interestingly enough, I also found this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/california-bans-welfare-c_n_777436.html

Is that a violation of privacy too? How wouldn't it be given that once I have a welfare card, it's mine? Why hasn't this been struck down by a court yet?

[vy65]

Government subsidized clinics? Do we need drug tests too before the poor can get access to care? Stimulus checks?

How does receiving care at a clinic subsidize drug use? Were stimulus checks given to people predisposed to drug abuse? I'd say it starts and ends with welfare.


Are they required to be tested for drug abuse in order to obtain unemployment compensation? If so, then I'm against that too.

They are. It's great that you're against that. But given that 30 states do it, I'd say that doesn't bode well for your privacy argument.



But that's a silly argument. Under that argument we should submit to every arbitrary search because "you don't have anything to hide, right?". The burden shouldn't be on the person to prove their innocence.

That's incorrect and I already answered this point above with the whole expectation of privacy business that you still haven't responded to.

[vy65]

To me, it's completely different when a prospective employer requests it and when government does.

But then the government uses that test to deny government benefits. That's the key.

[Oh, Gee!!]

if the government wants bodily fluids they usually need a search warrant

[ElNono]

It's a government subsidy for the purchase of an illicit substance. Are you seriously saying that once I get a welfare check, I have a *right* to buy crack because it's my money? And that the government shouldn't be concerned about subsidizing this behavior with money it otherwise is not required to give?

I'm saying that once the money is yours, you have a right to spend it as you see fit. If you're breaking the law with your purchase, then that should fall within that crime, and should be enforced then.


This is difference with distinction and a meaningless technicality. While *mine* the money the government has given me is a direct subsidy. To think that the government has not been involved because its *mine* puts form over substance in the worst possible way.

I don't care if it's a subsidy or not. The government already did it's homework on why you should receive that money and once it did, the money is yours.
What the government can do is prohibit certain vendors from accepting payment in that form, but otherwise, I don't think they can force you to spend it in any particular way. If I'm not correct, please show me why, and provide examples.


I didn't find anything saying that it's illegal. I also found this:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/California-Welfare-Las-Vegas-Gambling-ATM/2010/10/04/id/372515

Which prompted this:
http://www.gamblingnerd.com/news/casino/california-limits-welfare-spending-in-casinos/951


How does either address the issue of government money being given to welfare recipients being used for drugs. It might combat the use of drugs in general, but how does it deal with the problem we've been talking about for this whole thread?

One of my contentions is that such burden shouldn't be limited to welfare recipients. So it's only logical I rather apply solutions that work across the spectrum.


So you do think there is a strong correlation between poverty and drug abuse then. Cool.

I think there is. I don't think it warrants labeling every poor person a druggie.


Do middle-class and rich people also use drugs? Absolutely. Difference is they don't rely on government funds for basic substinance the way someone on welfare does.

Plus, I don't see why drug testing "across the board" (whatever that means) deals with the problem of welfare funds being used to purchase drugs?

Because people receiving welfare in one way or another are part of society as a whole. Attacking the problem "across the board" implicitly includes welfare recipients. Pretty simple actually.

[ElNono]

How does receiving care at a clinic subsidize drug use? Were stimulus checks given to people predisposed to drug abuse? I'd say it starts and ends with welfare.

Money that could've been spent for care is used for drugs.


They are. It's great that you're against that. But given that 30 states do it, I'd say that doesn't bode well for your privacy argument.

The bill of rights isn't there to protect majorities, actually, it's the other way around. I couldn't care less if 30 states want to do it, it's still wrong, IMO.
And it's not just "my privacy" that's at stake here either.


That's incorrect and I already answered this point above with the whole expectation of privacy business that you still haven't responded to.

California didn't request the welfare recipients to undergo any invasive testing to ban such practices.

[coyotes_geek]

To me, it's completely different when a prospective employer requests it and when government does.

The government is already requiring drug tests. Anyone they hire has to have one. Any company who wants a government contract has to have a testing program. Any person or organization who receives government grants has to be tested or have a testing program. Certain industries are required to have testing programs whether they do business with the government or not.

Government mandated drug testing is already widespread. What's the big deal about making people who want to get money from the government via welfare take drug tests just like people who want to get money from the government via employment, contracting or grants have to?

[ElNono]

But then the government uses that test to deny government benefits. That's the key.

I understand the rationale under which it wants to test. I don't necessarily agree with it.

[vy65]

I'm saying that once the money is yours, you have a right to spend it as you see fit. If you're breaking the law with your purchase, then that should fall within that crime, and should be enforced then.

But you don't have a right to spend it as you see fit. You can't use it to buy drugs.

I see your point. Problem is - what if you don't get caught/prosecuted? Are you then justified in using your welfare check on drugs instead of its intended purpose?


I don't care if it's a subsidy or not. The government already did it's homework on why you should receive that money and once it did, the money is yours.

What the government can do is prohibit certain vendors from accepting payment in that form, but otherwise, I don't think they can force you to spend it in any particular way. If I'm not correct, please show me why, and provide examples.

Well, the whole issue is whether welfare funds are being used on drugs, so you're not caring is pretty much beside the point. What the government did its homework on was whether it should give people money to feed and clothe themselves. You can't seriously believe that people on welfare have a right to use their checks on drugs, do you?

You don't think the government can (or should be able to) prevent you from spending money on drugs? You need examples of that?

And lol checking vendors. How does the government stop a drug dealer from using welfare money to buy crack?




I didn't find anything saying that it's illegal. I also found this:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/California-Welfare-Las-Vegas-Gambling-ATM/2010/10/04/id/372515

Which prompted this:
http://www.gamblingnerd.com/news/casino/california-limits-welfare-spending-in-casinos/951

EDIT: your right - it says they can't be used in casinos. I'd be ok with Cali coming up with additional ways to make sure welfare funds aren't being used for gambling too.

EDIT #2: I'd be curious to find out whether being delisted as an acceptable business is the same as making use of the EBT card there illegal.


One of my contentions is that such burden shouldn't be limited to welfare recipients. So it's only logical I rather apply solutions that work across the spectrum.

You didn't answer my question - so you have no solution to the *specific* problem of welfare money being used for drugs.

And why doesn't the burden of solving the problem of using welfare funds for drugs fall on welfare recipients again?


I think there is. I don't think it warrants labeling every poor person a druggie.

I never did that and chose my words carefully. Read again.


Because people receiving welfare in one way or another are part of society as a whole. Attacking the problem "across the board" implicitly includes welfare recipients. Pretty simple actually.

Of course they're part of society. But to think that strategies to combat drug abuse for rich white people work the same for a black person in the ghetto is myopic to say the least. Why is counseling/more prosecution of dealers more effective than drug testing welfare recipients?

Your point initially was that this is an invasion of privacy. If that's still your point, then please answer why those who participate in a discretionary government program which gives them money for substinance are entitled to the same expectation of privacy as someone who suffers from a warrantless search of their home? Be sure to explain how this expectation of privacy interacts with the fact that there is no right to welfare in the way that there is a right to be secure in one's home.

If that isn't your point - then what is?

[ElNono]

The government is already requiring drug tests. Anyone they hire has to have one. Any company who wants a government contract has to have a testing program. Any person or organization who receives government grants has to be tested or have a testing program. Certain industries are required to have testing programs whether they do business with the government or not.

Government mandated drug testing is already widespread. What's the big deal about making people who want to get money from the government via welfare take drug tests just like people who want to get money from the government via employment, contracting or grants have to?

The question is wether such drug testing has anything to do with the job. It only makes sense to require drug testing for somebody that's going to fly planes, etc.

[vy65]

Money that could've been spent for care is used for drugs.

You're seriously not making any sense. Money spent by the government to provide free health care to impoverished areas could have been used for drugs?




The bill of rights isn't there to protect majorities, actually, it's the other way around. I couldn't care less if 30 states want to do it, it's still wrong, IMO.
And it's not just "my privacy" that's at stake here either.

What does the bill of rights have to do with the fact that 30 legislatures debated and decided that drug testing wasn't an intrusion on the rights of minorities?

I don't know what you mean by "your privacy" in this context - but my point is that this isn't an invasion of privacy.




California didn't request the welfare recipients to undergo any invasive testing to ban such practices.

Huh? That's great and all, but irrelevant to my point - your expectation of privacy is not greater than the state's interest in effectively administering a discretionary program whose funding has a good chance of being used for illicit substances rather than its intended purpose.

[Wild Cobra]

if the government wants bodily fluids they usually need a search warrant
If the person wants benefits not constitutionally required for them to receive, then they must give up bodily fluids.

It's their choice. They are not shackled down and it's not taken without their permission.

[coyotes_geek]

The question is wether such drug testing has anything to do with the job. It only makes sense to require drug testing for somebody that's going to fly planes, etc.

That's not how it works. You want to be a janitor for a services company that cleans government buildings, that company is required by the federal government to have a drug testing program.

[ElNono]

But you don't have a right to spend it as you see fit. You can't use it to buy drugs.

I see your point. Problem is - what if you don't get caught/prosecuted? Are you then justified in using your welfare check on drugs instead of its intended purpose?

If you don't get caught/prosecuted, then you don't get caught/prosecuted. It doesn't 'justify' anything. But at that point the problem is with law enforcement, not the source of funds.


Well, the whole issue is whether welfare funds are being used on drugs, so you're not caring is pretty much beside the point. What the government did its homework on was whether it should give people money to feed and clothe themselves. You can't seriously believe that people on welfare have a right to use their checks on drugs, do you?

I don't think they have the 'right' to do illegal things. But if they do, I don't think the source of the funding is the problem.


You don't think the government can (or should be able to) prevent you from spending money on drugs? You need examples of that?

I need examples of government telling you what you can or cannot spend your money in once it provided it on your welfare card. Stop beating around the bush and provide examples, or simply admit that the government can't (or is unwilling) to do that.


And lol checking vendors. How does the government stop a drug dealer from using welfare money to buy crack?

Do crack dealers accept welfare ATM cards? That would be news to me.


Says gambling on boats - nothing about its use on the numerous casinos in Cali.

My understanding is that it applies to Casinos in Cali too, but I would have to find an article that goes on more details. Obviously, gamblers work around it by heading to Nevada, where Cali laws don't apply. I'm certainly in favor of a federal statute that would outlaw that federally.


You didn't answer my question - so you have no solution to the *specific* problem of welfare money being used for drugs.

I don't think there's a viable solution to that problem right now.


And why doesn't the burden of solving the problem of using welfare funds for drugs fall on welfare recipients again?

Because the illegal use of drugs is a law enforcement problem.


I never did that and chose my words carefully. Read again.

Requiring to pass a drug test does that. It labels everyone as a druggie unless proven otherwise. The effect of not taking the test is effectively the same as failing the test if taken.


Of course they're part of society. But to think that strategies to combat drug abuse for rich white people work the same for a black person in the ghetto is myopic to say the least. Why is counseling/more prosecution of dealers more effective than drug testing welfare recipients?

I don't think it's more effective. I think it's the proper way to do it instead of presuming that every poor person is a druggie and having them prove otherwise.


Your point initially was that this is an invasion of privacy. If that's still your point, then please answer why those who participate in a discretionary government program which gives them money for substinance are entitled to the same expectation of privacy as someone who suffers from a warrantless search of their home? Be sure to explain how this expectation of privacy interacts with the fact that there is no right to welfare in the way that there is a right to be secure in one's home.

Congress certainly passed law entitling certain persons under a set of circumstances to receive welfare. So welfare is a right granted by Congress to a certain pool of people. The question is wether requiring an invasive test to those people that already fall within the set circumstances is an affront to "being secure in their persons", and thus a violation of the 4th amendment.
I'm in the opinion that it is.

I can't personally answer that with complete certainty. I'm sure the SCOTUS eventually will.

[ElNono]

That's not how it works. You want to be a janitor for a services company that cleans government buildings, that company is required by the federal government to have a drug testing program.

Okay. But that's the company requiring it, not the government directly.
And I think there's probably a reason for that.

[ElNono]

You're seriously not making any sense. Money spent by the government to provide free health care to impoverished areas could have been used for drugs?

No, I'm making total sense. Money that the person could've used to pay for care is instead used for drugs. Now the government has to provide welfare to that person for care. Indirectly, the government is subsidizing the druggie.


What does the bill of rights have to do with the fact that 30 legislatures debated and decided that drug testing wasn't an intrusion on the rights of minorities?

Legislatures are not the judicial. It wouldn't be the first time that a law or part of it is stricken down as unconstitutional. The bill of rights have to do with the 4th amendment, privacy, which is what we're discussing.


I don't know what you mean by "your privacy" in this context - but my point is that this isn't an invasion of privacy.

I disagree.


Huh? That's great and all, but irrelevant to my point - your expectation of privacy is not greater than the state's interest in effectively administering a discretionary program whose funding has a good chance of being used for illicit substances rather than its intended purpose.

Huh? Sure it is. My constitutional rights trump any state law or regulation.

[Wild Cobra]

That's not how it works. You want to be a janitor for a services company that cleans government buildings, that company is required by the federal government to have a drug testing program.
Every private job I've applied for in the last several years that paid a decent wage required drug testing.

[coyotes_geek]

Okay. But that's the company requiring it, not the government directly.
And I think there's probably a reason for that.

The government is requiring the company to drug test, otherwise the company can't bid on a government contract. It's no different than the welfare recipient who wants a government welfare check. You want to participate, you have to follow these drug testing requirements.

[z0sa]

OP: Not in my opinion. The way I see it, one willingly gives up personal privacy in order to accept government help.

[ElNono]

The government is requiring the company to drug test, otherwise the company can't bid on a government contract. It's no different than the welfare recipient who wants a government welfare check. You want to participate, you have to follow these drug testing requirements.

I don't agree it's the same. If anything, the requirement is on the qualifications of the bidding process. Also, the enforcer of the testing is the company, not the government.

[Th'Pusher]

OP: Not in my opinion. The way I see it, one willingly gives up personal privacy in order to accept government help.

I tend to agree with this, but that does not change the fact that a 2% failure rate makes this a failed policy initiative. Saving $40,800-$98,400 for a program that will cost $178 million? As Manny pointed out, that 'savings' does not include the cost of enforcing the program or the overall costs to society for dealing with the user's who fail who are no longer eligible.

[coyotes_geek]

I don't agree it's the same. If anything, the requirement is on the qualifications of the bidding process.

No different than the government determining qualifications for who can and can't get a welfare check.


Also, the enforcer of the testing is the company, not the government.

The government is the enforcer of making sure the company is following their policy. If they don't, the government enforces their right to terminate the contract.

[Wild Cobra]

I tend to agree with this, but that does not change the fact that a 2% failure rate makes this a failed policy initiative. Saving $40,800-$98,400 for a program that will cost $178 million? As Manny pointed out, that 'savings' does not include the cost of enforcing the program or the overall costs to society for dealing with the user's who fail who are no longer eligible.
Yet nobody even addressed the point I made of the unknown numbers who do not apply, saving tax payer dollars, because they know they will fail.

[Blake]

No different than the government determining qualifications for who can and can't get a welfare check.

The government is the enforcer of making sure the company is following their policy. If they don't, the government enforces their right to terminate the contract.

I think there is a difference.

If someone gets paid to provide a service on tax payer dime, I have no problem holding them to a high standard. That may include driving records, criminal records among any other number of things.

My question here is if they are going to start with testing welfare recipients for drugs, then why stop there?
Force them to blow into a home breathalyzer every night to show that they aren't spending the welfare money on booze.

Most definitely a slippery slope, imo.

[Blake]

Yet nobody even addressed the point I made of the unknown numbers who do not apply, saving tax payer dollars, because they know they will fail.

If a person fails the test, the state will not reimburse them for the cost of the test.

Minimal savings, if any.

[Wild Cobra]

I tend to agree with this, but that does not change the fact that a 2% failure rate makes this a failed policy initiative. Saving $40,800-$98,400 for a program that will cost $178 million? As Manny pointed out, that 'savings' does not include the cost of enforcing the program or the overall costs to society for dealing with the user's who fail who are no longer eligible.
Maybe if you scored the program like the CBO does, you can find a $500,000,000 savings!

[ElNono]

No different than the government determining qualifications for who can and can't get a welfare check.

Still don't agree. I think a similar condition to this case would be that the government requires companies not to criticize the government in order to bid.


The government is the enforcer of making sure the company is following their policy. If they don't, the government enforces their right to terminate the contract.

I'm not sure that's true at all. The requirement is part to qualify for the bidding process (or hiring process). I believe the government requires that a testing process is in place, it doesn't have a direct say on what happens when such testing fails.

[Th'Pusher]

Yet nobody even addressed the point I made of the unknown numbers who do not apply, saving tax payer dollars, because they know they will fail.

Well do you have any facts on the state seeing a decrease in the number of welfare applicants after the policy was instituted?

[Blake]

OP: Not in my opinion. The way I see it, one willingly gives up personal privacy in order to accept government help.

so you'd be ok with drug tests for anyone getting something like a federal pell grant?

[vy65]

If you don't get caught/prosecuted, then you don't get caught/prosecuted. It doesn't 'justify' anything. But at that point the problem is with law enforcement, not the source of funds.

lol nice glossing-over. If you don't get caught, then the government has subsidized someone's purchase and use of drugs. The problem is both on law enforcement (for not catching the criminal) and the source of funds (for subsidizing the behavior).


I don't think they have the 'right' to do illegal things. But if they do, I don't think the source of the funding is the problem.

You don't think that welfare funds help subsidize drug use and thus contribute to the problem. Got it.



I need examples of government telling you what you can or cannot spend your money in once it provided it on your welfare card. Stop beating around the bush and provide examples, or simply admit that the government can't (or is unwilling) to do that.

Read your own link about California's EBT cards. I can't believe you needed an example of the government prohibiting the use of welfare funds on certain activities.


Do crack dealers accept welfare ATM cards? That would be news to me.

Of course they don't. That's why I was scoffing your point earlier when you said "What the government can do is prohibit certain vendors from accepting payment in that form." Vendor restrictions do nothing when it comes to illegal drugs


My understanding is that it applies to Casinos in Cali too, but I would have to find an article that goes on more details. Obviously, gamblers work around it by heading to Nevada, where Cali laws don't apply. I'm certainly in favor of a federal statute that would outlaw that federally.

I updated my post.



I don't think there's a viable solution to that problem right now..

Sure there is - drug testing.



Because the illegal use of drugs is a law enforcement problem.

And a welfare problem. Especially when welfare funds are being used to purchase drugs.




Requiring to pass a drug test does that. It labels everyone as a druggie unless proven otherwise. The effect of not taking the test is effectively the same as failing the test if taken.

No it doesn't. So requiring anyone in private employment to take a drug test labels them a druggie?

My point has always been poverty predisposes someone to greater drug use. Anything beyond that is your bias and your words, not mine.


I don't think it's more effective. I think it's the proper way to do it instead of presuming that every poor person is a druggie and having them prove otherwise.

No one presumed that welfare recipients are druggies. If anything, your presuming that everyone who takes a drug test is a druggie.


Congress certainly passed law entitling certain persons under a set of circumstances to receive welfare. So welfare is a right granted by Congress to a certain pool of people. The question is wether requiring an invasive test to those people that already fall within the set circumstances is an affront to "being secure in their persons", and thus a violation of the 4th amendment.
I'm in the opinion that it is.

I can't personally answer that with complete certainty. I'm sure the SCOTUS eventually will.

So shrimp subsidies are a "right" because congress passed a law giving funds to shrimp farmers? A right is a protection extended by the constitution. An entitlement or privilege is a benefit extended by government where it is otherwise not constitutionally required to do so.

Welfare is an entitlement that can be taken away by government without being struck down as unconstitutional. Else, please point me to where in the constitution or which Supreme Court case held that there is a right to welfare?

Welfare isn't a right - but an entitlement - one's expectation of privacy when participating in the program is not nearly as high as when the government invades their home or searches their person. This expectation isn't as high because the government isn't conditioning one's *right* (welfare) on the sacrifice of another right (privacy). When the government chooses to fund something, it is allowed to condition those funds on satisfying certain requirements.

You still haven't given me a reason why the government can't attach strings to the way it chooses to expend funds other than a vague and general "it violates privacy." That's not true.

[vy65]

No, I'm making total sense. Money that the person could've used to pay for care is instead used for drugs. Now the government has to provide welfare to that person for care. Indirectly, the government is subsidizing the druggie.

lol totally changing what you initially said:


Government subsidized clinics? Do we need drug tests too before the poor can get access to care?

Government subsidized clinics that provide free care to the poor =!= government funds given directly to the poor for medical use. Which one is it?


Legislatures are not the judicial. It wouldn't be the first time that a law or part of it is stricken down as unconstitutional. The bill of rights have to do with the 4th amendment, privacy, which is what we're discussing.

Every legislature is an interpreter of the constitution. You don't think they debate and decide upon the constitutional ramifications of certain bills they pass? Especially considering most congressmen are lawyers?

Courts might differ and strike down a law, sure. But the fact that 30 states passed laws conditioning welfare on drug testing suggests to me that there's a strong support for the argument that there's no constitutional violation.




I disagree.

Huh? Sure it is. My constitutional rights trump any state law or regulation.

Please explain to me why a welfare recipient has an expectation of privacy in this case again?

[vy65]

I think there is a difference.

If someone gets paid to provide a service on tax payer dime, I have no problem holding them to a high standard. That may include driving records, criminal records among any other number of things.

My question here is if they are going to start with testing welfare recipients for drugs, then why stop there?
Force them to blow into a home breathalyzer every night to show that they aren't spending the welfare money on booze.

Most definitely a slippery slope, imo.

Because booze isn't illegal. The slope ends there.

[mingus]

Sure there is - drug testing.

:lmao

i can tell some of you have never known any drug addicts. drug testing works if it's random (which i don't think it is in this case), otherwise it's an absolute joke. your average junkie or pothead is going to try and pass the drug test before he even thinks about gives up dope. like i said before, passing a drug test is easy. i know quite a few potheads who passed drug tests when applying for a job.

[z0sa]

I tend to agree with this, but that does not change the fact that a 2% failure rate makes this a failed policy initiative. Saving $40,800-$98,400 for a program that will cost $178 million? As Manny pointed out, that 'savings' does not include the cost of enforcing the program or the overall costs to society for dealing with the user's who fail who are no longer eligible.

I agree the reality of the situation is that drug testing welfare recipients would be a huge waste of money.

[Blake]

lol nice glossing-over. If you don't get caught, then the government has subsidized someone's purchase and use of drugs. The problem is both on law enforcement (for not catching the criminal) and the source of funds (for subsidizing the behavior).

that's silly.

the government will never directly subsidize illegal drug purchases.


You still haven't given me a reason why the government can't attach strings to the way it chooses to expend funds other than a vague and general "it violates privacy." That's not true.

why is the government choosing to invade privacy in this one particular instance?

[vy65]

that's silly.

the government will never directly subsidize illegal drug purchases.

Re-read what I wrote and try again.


why is the government choosing to invade privacy in this one particular instance?

Because it's not an invasion of privacy.

Lol cuck

[Blake]

Because booze isn't illegal. The slope ends there.

I can think of plenty of illegal activities that people can use welfare money on.

Are you going to want the government to spend money to investigate every way that a recipient spends his/her money?

[z0sa]

so you'd be ok with drug tests for anyone getting something like a federal pell grant?

convergent questioning is lame.

welfare and pell grants fall into separate categories separated by a huge gap, and thus cannot be compared in this context. Their recipients might be a different story, but generally speaking, welfare is needed by its recipient to survive (in theory); pell grants on the other hand, are not.

[Wild Cobra]

Well do you have any facts on the state seeing a decrease in the number of welfare applicants after the policy was instituted?
No I don't. I am simply pointing out that this is something not being considered. I already said the numbers would be hard to quantify.

It may be large, or it may be small... Point is, there will be people in this category that should be quantified for any meaningful discussion.

[Blake]

Re-read what I wrote and try again.

I did. It's another terrible assumption on your part.


Because it's not an invasion of privacy.

Lol cuck

Absolutely it is, sock puppet.

[vy65]

I did. It's another terrible assumption on your part.

Absolutely it is, sock puppet.

Awesome work by Spurstalk's resident cuck. You should reward yourself by watching your wife get plowed some more.

[boutons_deux]

How many bankers got drug-tested before getting $Ts from Bernanke and Geithner?

[coyotes_geek]

I think there is a difference.

If someone gets paid to provide a service on tax payer dime, I have no problem holding them to a high standard. That may include driving records, criminal records among any other number of things.

So what's so horrible about trying to have standards when it comes to handing out welfare checks? Those welfare checks are just as much on the taxpayer dime as the services being paid for.


My question here is if they are going to start with testing welfare recipients for drugs, then why stop there?
Force them to blow into a home breathalyzer every night to show that they aren't spending the welfare money on booze.

Most definitely a slippery slope, imo.

Alcohol is legal so I don't see how slippery a slope it is.

[z0sa]

How many bankers got drug-tested before getting $Ts from Bernanke and Geithner?

Which bankers were given checks with their name on it from the US government?

[Blake]

convergent questioning is lame.

no it's not but nobody is forcing you to answer, tbh.


welfare and pell grants fall into separate categories separated by a huge gap, and thus cannot be compared in this context. Their recipients might be a different story, but generally speaking, welfare is needed by its recipient to survive (in theory); pell grants on the other hand, are not.

lol

if a pell grant is something that isn't needed, I would think the standard for receiving that kind of handout should be even higher.

[Blake]

Awesome work by Spurstalk's resident cuck. You should reward yourself by watching your wife get plowed some more.

you fantasizing about me is apparently your personal reward.

awesome. :tu

[ElNono]

lol nice glossing-over. If you don't get caught, then the government has subsidized someone's purchase and use of drugs. The problem is both on law enforcement (for not catching the criminal) and the source of funds (for subsidizing the behavior).

I'm not glossing-over anything. The reasons that the government decided to provide funding have nothing to do with how they're spent by the person that received them. The government has zero control over that money at that point.


You don't think that welfare funds help subsidize drug use and thus contribute to the problem. Got it.

I said the source of funds have nothing to do with enforcing the law.


Read your own link about California's EBT cards. I can't believe you needed an example of the government prohibiting the use of welfare funds on certain activities.

I said "What the government can do is prohibit certain vendors from accepting payment in that form, but otherwise, I don't think they can force you to spend it in any particular way."

Still waiting for the examples...


Of course they don't. That's why I was scoffing your point earlier when you said "What the government can do is prohibit certain vendors from accepting payment in that form." Vendor restrictions do nothing when it comes to illegal drugs

So you admit there's nothing the government can do to discourage or discontinue the spending of welfare money (once granted) on drugs.
Took you long enough.


Sure there is - drug testing.

Mandatory drug testing imposes a burden that I believe to be too high.


And a welfare problem. Especially when welfare funds are being used to purchase drugs.

Disagree. The crime is drug trafficking. The source of the money to commit the crime is irrelevant.


No it doesn't. So requiring anyone in private employment to take a drug test labels them a druggie?

Depends on the job description. I think when the job doesn't warrant a drug test, then it should not be required.


My point has always been poverty predisposes someone to greater drug use. Anything beyond that is your bias and your words, not mine.

No one presumed that welfare recipients are druggies. If anything, your presuming that everyone who takes a drug test is a druggie.

I'm saying that the result of requiring a test is that everyone is presumed a druggie unless proven otherwise (by the test). Considering that there are no alternatives to taking the test, that's effectively the end result.


So shrimp subsidies are a "right" because congress passed a law giving funds to shrimp farmers?

Yes. They have a right to collect them under the law.


A right is a protection extended by the constitution. An entitlement or privilege is a benefit extended by government where it is otherwise not constitutionally required to do so.

I disagree. There's 'constitutionally protected' rights, and there's rights granted by legislature through law. The difference being that in order to revoke such rights, the 'constitutionally protected' rights require a change to the constitution, whereas the rights afforded by law simply require a change to the law.


Welfare is an entitlement that can be taken away by government without being struck down as unconstitutional. Else, please point me to where in the constitution or which Supreme Court case held that there is a right to welfare?

Nobody is arguing that. I said welfare is a right provided by Congress through law.


Welfare isn't a right - but an entitlement - one's expectation of privacy when participating in the program is not nearly as high as when the government invades their home or searches their person. This expectation isn't as high because the government isn't conditioning one's *right* (welfare) on the sacrifice of another right (privacy). When the government chooses to fund something, it is allowed to condition those funds on satisfying certain requirements.

I disagree. I think when the person falls within the criteria enumerated to receive welfare, it has a right to claim it and receive it. I also think the constitutional right to privacy trumps any interest the state might have in discouraging the use of such funds for any reason.


You still haven't given me a reason why the government can't attach strings to the way it chooses to expend funds other than a vague and general "it violates privacy." That's not true.

I stated that I think Congress can attach the strings it wants. The question is wether one of those strings is unconstitutional, and thus has to be effectively removed.

[Blake]

So what's so horrible about trying to have standards when it comes to handing out welfare checks? Those welfare checks are just as much on the taxpayer dime as the services being paid for.

So why stop at drug testing?


Alcohol is legal so I don't see how slippery a slope it is.

Me, I have a moral issue with someone using welfare to buy alcohol, but that's apparently not the issue for you.

Even after being drug tested, will it still be possible to spend welfare money on illegal purchases/activities? I think it will.

[ElNono]

lol totally changing what you initially said:

Government subsidized clinics that provide free care to the poor =!= government funds given directly to the poor for medical use. Which one is it?

I never said that "government funds given directly to the poor for medical use". I said the government has to provide welfare for care.

When the person can't pay for it, the government is picking up the tab. That's welfare too.


Every legislature is an interpreter of the constitution. You don't think they debate and decide upon the constitutional ramifications of certain bills they pass? Especially considering most congressmen are lawyers?

Courts might differ and strike down a law, sure. But the fact that 30 states passed laws conditioning welfare on drug testing suggests to me that there's a strong support for the argument that there's no constitutional violation.

I'm not sure. I think we'll find out when and if this reaches the SCOTUS. My opinion is that it won't stand, and it shouldn't stand.


Please explain to me why a welfare recipient has an expectation of privacy in this case again?

I think they're no different than those of your average citizen. I expect to be required to do a drug test *only* if there's probable cause and ordered to do so by a court of law.

[boutons_deux]

Which bankers were given checks with their name on it from the US government?

t'encule la mouche.

Corporate-Americans are not the same a Human-Americans?

ie, C-As are excluded from the laws, regs, rules that apply to H-As?

[vy65]

I'm not glossing-over anything. The reasons that the government decided to provide funding have nothing to do with how they're spent by the person that received them. The government has zero control over that money at that point.

I said the source of funds have nothing to do with enforcing the law.

Yes, you're glossing over the fact that the government provides money - money that a person might not otherwise have - that welfare recipients use for drugs. The reasons for these funds is completely irrelevant. It's how their used.

And for like the 15th time - the government can control how that money is spent by not giving it to drug users in the first place. One way of doing that is by drug testing.

This shit is done all the time when fighting organized crime or terrorism. It's called freezing assets. Why is this strategy not-effective?


I said "What the government can do is prohibit certain vendors from accepting payment in that form, but otherwise, I don't think they can force you to spend it in any particular way."

Still waiting for the examples...


So you admit there's nothing the government can do to discourage or discontinue the spending of welfare money (once granted) on drugs.
Took you long enough.

This is comical. You brought up the California/Gambling issue. That's an example of how the government directs welfare recipients to spend their welfare funds. By blocking the use of EBT cards at massage parlors and weed shops, California has effectively said that welfare recipients are not allowed to shop at these locations.

However, this doesn't deal with the problem of people withdrawing cash and going to those places anyway. At least when it comes to drugs, you can solve that problem by de-authorizing EBT use AND drug testing.

I never admitted that there was nothing the government could do. I've pretty consistently said drug testing stops people from using welfare money on drugs. I honestly don't know how else to say this.




Mandatory drug testing imposes a burden that I believe to be too high.

lol. You conveniently forgot to mention this when you wrote the above. We still haven't seen a lot of statistics in this thread, but I'd imagine there are at least some cost savings and no rights violations. No burden.


Disagree. The crime is drug trafficking. The source of the money to commit the crime is irrelevant.

Drug trafficking made possible by welfare funds.

Its telling that not once have you denied or argued that welfare funds don't facilitate and subsidize drug use.


Depends on the job description. I think when the job doesn't warrant a drug test, then it should not be required.

My question wasn't whether all jobs should require drug tests. I asked whether taking a drug test at work labels the employee as a druggie. Try again.


I'm saying that the result of requiring a test is that everyone is presumed a druggie unless proven otherwise (by the test). Considering that there are no alternatives to taking the test, that's effectively the end result.

Read the above and try again.




Yes. They have a right to collect them under the law.

I was a little unclear. Is it a constitutionally protected right? Which case or amendment is the shrimp subsidies one again?



I disagree. There's 'constitutionally protected' rights, and there's rights granted by legislature through law. The difference being that in order to revoke such rights, the 'constitutionally protected' rights require a change to the constitution, whereas the rights afforded by law simply require a change to the law.

I agree with this. But what you're leaving out is the importance of constitutionally protected rights vs. entitlements. Given the procedure you've described, you'd surely agree that there's much greater scrutiny attached to limiting constitutional rights vs. entitlements, right?


Nobody is arguing that. I said welfare is a right provided by Congress through law.

I disagree. I think when the person falls within the criteria enumerated to receive welfare, it has a right to claim it and receive it. I also think the constitutional right to privacy trumps any interest the state might have in discouraging the use of such funds for any reason.

I stated that I think Congress can attach the strings it wants. The question is wether one of those strings is unconstitutional, and thus has to be effectively removed.

Well, if you agree that welfare isn't a constitutionally protected right and that Congress can attach the strings it wants - how do we get to a privacy violation?

Maybe I've been unclear - but in order to have your right to privacy violated - you have to be in an arena where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e., your home). You still haven't explained to me how participating in a non-constitutionally required, discretionary program where the government gives you money for free carries with it a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[coyotes_geek]

So why stop at drug testing?

If there's some other specific illegal activity you're worried about potential recipients being denied welfare checks over then feel free to mention it.


Me, I have a moral issue with someone using welfare to buy alcohol, but that's apparently not the issue for you.

You're right. That's not the issue for me. My issue is that I don't see what the fuss is over potential welfare having to pass a drug test when 4/5ths of us had to pass one to get or keep our jobs. Especially if that program can be administered at no net cost to the taxpayer, as per the article posted somewhere way back in this thread suggested.


Even after being drug tested, will it still be possible to spend welfare money on illegal purchases/activities? I think it will.

Sure it will. Just like it's possible for someone who goes to work for the government to do something illegal after passing a drug test that was a requirement for their employment. But no one is trying to use that as a reason to quit testings job applicants.

[z0sa]

no it's not

:lol yes it is, undoubtedly. It's the bastion of a person without an argument and/or evidence. Posing a leading question is definitely one of the ultimate weak-sauce failures one can make when debating an issue.



if a pell grant is something that isn't needed

It's not, technically.

[vy65]

I never said that "government funds given directly to the poor for medical use". I said the government has to provide welfare for care.


Government subsidized clinics? Do we need drug tests too before the poor can get access to care?

Your words. What's a government subsidized clinic?


When the person can't pay for it, the government is picking up the tab. That's welfare too.

Is that a government subsidized clinic?


I think they're no different than those of your average citizen. I expect to be required to do a drug test *only* if there's probable cause and ordered to do so by a court of law.

The average person doesn't participate in a program where the government gives them money for free. The average person doesn't live in a condition predisposing them to drug abuse.

Given their participation in a discretionary program - where no constitutional rights are implicated - a court would review any constitutional violation under a rational-basis test. You wouldn't get to strict scrutiny - and the probable cause standard definitely wouldn't be used.

You think it's unreasonable to suspect people on welfare might use those funds for drugs?

[Blake]

If there's some other specific illegal activity you're worried about potential recipients being denied welfare checks over then feel free to mention it.

I think there are any number of ways that a person can spend money on illegal activities.

Too numerous to mention, too numerous to try to enforce.


You're right. That's not the issue for me. My issue is that I don't see what the fuss is over potential welfare having to pass a drug test when 4/5ths of us had to pass one to get or keep our jobs. Especially if that program can be administered at no net cost to the taxpayer, as per the article posted somewhere way back in this thread suggested.


Idaho recently commissioned a study of the likely financial impact of drug testing its welfare applicants. The study found that the costs were likely to exceed any money saved.

That happens to be Florida's experience so far. A Florida television station, WFTV, reported that of the first 40 applicants tested, only two came up positive, and one of those was appealing. The state stands to save less than $240 a month if it denies benefits to the two applicants, but it had to pay $1,140 to the applicants who tested negative. The state will also have to spend considerably more to defend the policy in court.


Sure it will. Just like it's possible for someone who goes to work for the government to do something illegal after passing a drug test that was a requirement for their employment. But no one is trying to use that as a reason to quit testings job applicants.

the reasons for drug testing in the work place are numerous......safety issues, quality of work, insurance costs to name a few. I doubt many care that a positive drug test means the employee has been engaging in illegal acts.

That's what criminal record checks are for.

Would you also deny a previously convicted felon of welfare aid because there might be a chance he/she commits another felony using tax dollars?

[Blake]

:lol yes it is, undoubtedly. It's the bastion of a person without an argument and/or evidence. Posing a leading question is definitely one of the ultimate weak-sauce failures one can make when debating an issue.

:lol who are you to say what value I should put on my questions?

If you think my hypothetical question is lame, no need to answer.....even though you did.


It's not, technically.

is there any good reason you can give why a student shouldn't be drug tested before given a pell grant?

[vy65]

40 people is hardly a representative sample.

Why isn't there a link to the Idaho study?

[Blake]

40 people is hardly a representative sample.

40 was enough to make the financial point.


Why isn't there a link to the Idaho study?

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2011/feb/11/study-welfare-drug-tests-not-cost-effective/

[coyotes_geek]

I think there are any number of ways that a person can spend money on illegal activities.

Too numerous to mention, too numerous to try to enforce.

Which is why we don't need to be worried about a slippery slope here.


the reasons for drug testing in the work place are numerous......safety issues, quality of work, insurance costs to name a few. I doubt many care that a positive drug test means the employee has been engaging in illegal acts.

That's what criminal record checks are for.

Would you also deny a previously convicted felon of welfare aid because there might be a chance he/she commits another felony?

No, just like no one is trying to deny welfare to someone who previously used drugs. If they pass the test, great.

[vy65]

40 was enough to make the financial point.



http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2011/feb/11/study-welfare-drug-tests-not-cost-effective/

If 40 is not a representative sample, then it's not enough to make the financial point.

The Idaho study "by the Department of Health and Welfare found testing is forbidden for big welfare programs like Medicaid and food stamps." Of course that shit won't be economic.

[Blake]

Which is why we don't need to be worried about a slippery slope here.

Cost wise, I think the slippery slope is large.

why would you stop at drug tests because you are concerned about illegal activity?

install breathalyzers in vehicles to make sure none of them spend welfare money at the bar.


No, just like no one is trying to deny welfare to someone who previously used drugs. If they pass the test, great.

:lol Nobody lights a crack pipe while taking a drug test.

this is all about denying welfare to someone who previously used drugs.

[Th'Pusher]

If 40 is not a representative sample, then it's not enough to make the financial point.

The Idaho study "by the Department of Health and Welfare found testing is forbidden for big welfare programs like Medicaid and food stamps." Of course that shit won't be economic.

Since you think this is such a great idea, why don't you provide some data on the cost benefit?. You seem to disregard the only data that has been provided that clearly indicates it's not cost effective policy.

[Blake]

If 40 is not a representative sample, then it's not enough to make the financial point.

40 was plenty. Sorry you can't grasp the math.

[vy65]

Since you think this is such a great idea, why don't you provide some data on the cost benefit?. You seem to disregard the only data that has been provided that clearly indicates it's not cost effective policy.

http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k2/GovAid/GovAid.htm

[vy65]

40 was plenty. Sorry you can't grasp the math.

You seriously cannot be this fucking retarded.

Over 230,000 people applied for welfare in Florida. You think 40 out of 230,000 is plenty?

[Blake]

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jun/09/rick-scott/rick-scott-says-welfare-recipients-are-more-likely/

Here's an article from a quick search showing that 35% of those tested in Florida failed the drug test. That's considerably higher than 2%, no?

And that's from an article attacking the use of drug tests

lol reading comprehension


only 335 (3.8 percent) showed evidence of having a controlled substance in their systems and failed the test

evidence you are retarded, imo

[vy65]

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jun/09/rick-scott/rick-scott-says-welfare-recipients-are-more-likely/

Pretty good article.

[Blake]

You seriously cannot be this fucking retarded.

Over 230,000 people applied for welfare in Florida. You think 40 out of 230,000 is plenty?

had 4 been the number with two passing, two failing, it would have also been plenty.

sorry your retardation is causing you to completely miss the point.

:depressed

[vy65]

is 40/230,000 plenty Blake?

I may have misread 35 for 3.5. But you're just retarded.

[ElNono]

Yes, you're glossing over the fact that the government provides money - money that a person might not otherwise have - that welfare recipients use for drugs. The reasons for these funds is completely irrelevant. It's how their used.

Again, I'm not glossing over anything. The government provides money in a lot of different ways, not just welfare. Under your presumption that it could be used for illicit acts, then the government should be testing under every one of those possible circumstances. You simply couldn't present your argument without including a presumption of guilt in it.


And for like the 15th time - the government can control how that money is spent by not giving it to drug users in the first place. One way of doing that is by drug testing.

It really cannot. If anything, it would control where the money does not go to before it gets there. Once the money has been handed, it has no control.
Plus the question posed is whether requiring drug testing in order to obtain those funds is a breach of privacy.


This shit is done all the time when fighting organized crime or terrorism. It's called freezing assets. Why is this strategy not-effective?

Not done enough? I don't know. Why isn't it effective?


This is comical. You brought up the California/Gambling issue. That's an example of how the government directs welfare recipients to spend their welfare funds. By blocking the use of EBT cards at massage parlors and weed shops, California has effectively said that welfare recipients are not allowed to shop at these locations.

Actually, California didn't say that at all. Those welfare recipients are allowed to shop at those locations, just not with their welfare cards.

What's comical is your inability to provide examples when asked for them...


However, this doesn't deal with the problem of people withdrawing cash and going to those places anyway. At least when it comes to drugs, you can solve that problem by de-authorizing EBT use AND drug testing.

Why? Drug testing isn't going to stop anybody from gambling.


I never admitted that there was nothing the government could do. I've pretty consistently said drug testing stops people from using welfare money on drugs. I honestly don't know how else to say this.

You admitted that once the government provided the funds, it can do absolutely nothing to prevent those funds to be used as the receiver pleases.
It's a start.


lol. You conveniently forgot to mention this when you wrote the above. We still haven't seen a lot of statistics in this thread, but I'd imagine there are at least some cost savings and no rights violations. No burden.

Again, I stated from my first post that you have a right to be secure in your person. Nobody from government should be requiring you to obtain an invasive test in order to obtain what's rightfully yours.


Drug trafficking made possible by welfare funds.

Its telling that not once have you denied or argued that welfare funds don't facilitate and subsidize drug use.

Because I suspect that certain welfare funds MIGHT end up being used to purchase drugs. But the crime isn't spending the welfare money, the crime is purchasing drugs. One is legal, the other isn't, and in the event that they happen to be connected, correlation does not imply causation.


My question wasn't whether all jobs should require drug tests. I asked whether taking a drug test at work labels the employee as a druggie. Try again.
Read the above and try again.

And I answered that I think where it's required and it's not warranted by the job description, then it is. Not to mention that entering a contract with a private entity is not the same as receiving entitlements from the government.

Again, I stand by my previous comment:
I'm saying that the result of requiring a test is that everyone is presumed a druggie unless proven otherwise (by the test). Considering that there are no alternatives to taking the test, that's effectively the end result.


I was a little unclear. Is it a constitutionally protected right? Which case or amendment is the shrimp subsidies one again?

It's not a constitutionally protected right. It's a right granted by law. Stated as much.


I agree with this. But what you're leaving out is the importance of constitutionally protected rights vs. entitlements. Given the procedure you've described, you'd surely agree that there's much greater scrutiny attached to limiting constitutional rights vs. entitlements, right?

I agree with that. Constitutional rights trump rights provided by law.


Well, if you agree that welfare isn't a constitutionally protected right and that Congress can attach the strings it wants - how do we get to a privacy violation?

Because Congress can attach all the strings it wants. That doesn't mean they're all constitutional. Once tested, the determination is made, and if found to be unconstitutional, then the string is dropped.

Congress can require that welfare recipients only be Christians. Doesn't mean that it's going to hold up in court.


Maybe I've been unclear - but in order to have your right to privacy violated - you have to be in an arena where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e., your home).
You still haven't explained to me how participating in a non-constitutionally required, discretionary program where the government gives you money for free carries with it a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Not true. You have to look no further than 'Chandler v. Miller' in the OP and the striking down of the drug test on 4th amendment grounds (not on running for office grounds). I have an expectation of privacy in my person. I shouldn't be required to provide fluids for testing in order to obtain what was provided rightfully to me by law.

It really is no different than Perry's requirement for a sonogram before you can carry out with an abortion. If I fit within the criteria for an abortion, there should not be any added steps to burden the process, especially those that interfere with my constitutional right to personal privacy.

[Blake]

is 40/230,000 plenty Blake?

I may have misread 35 for 3.5. But you're just retarded.

40 is plenty.

You are proven retarded here.

[coyotes_geek]

Cost wise, I think the slippery slope is large.

why would you stop at drug tests because you are concerned about illegal activity?

install breathalyzers in vehicles to make sure none of them spend welfare money at the bar.

I see that we're still struggling with the concept of alcohol being a legal substance.


:lol Nobody lights a crack pipe while taking a drug test.

this is all about denying welfare to someone who previously used drugs.

So how long does it take drugs to get out of your system? 6 weeks? I'm pretty sure if you got convicted of a felony within 6 weeks of applying for welfare that you're not going to start getting checks.

[vy65]

40 is plenty.

You are proven retarded here.

.00017%

We're also struggling with the concept of "plenty" too.

[Blake]

I see that we're still struggling with the concept of alcohol being a legal substance.

drunk driving is illegal.

why should a welfare recipient be allowed to drink and drive


So how long does it take drugs to get out of your system? 6 weeks? I'm pretty sure if you got convicted of a felony within 6 weeks of applying for welfare that you're not going to start getting checks.

why is time a relevant factor in this?

[Blake]

.00017%

irrelevant to the point.


We're also struggling with the concept of "plenty" too.

you're still struggling with "plenty" and what the "point" is

[ElNono]

Your words. What's a government subsidized clinic?

Is that a government subsidized clinic?

A clinic that gets reimbursed by the government when a patient is unable to pay. Also clinics that work solely with Medicaid.


The average person doesn't participate in a program where the government gives them money for free. The average person doesn't live in a condition predisposing them to drug abuse.

Given their participation in a discretionary program - where no constitutional rights are implicated - a court would review any constitutional violation under a rational-basis test. You wouldn't get to strict scrutiny - and the probable cause standard definitely wouldn't be used.

You think it's unreasonable to suspect people on welfare might use those funds for drugs?

I think it's unreasonable to deny those funds outright under the suspicion that they might be used for drugs. I also think it would be unconstitutional to compel those people to provide bodily fluids in order to do away with that suspicion.

[vy65]

irrelevant to the point.

you're still struggling with "plenty" and what the "point" is


40 people is hardly a representative sample.


40 was enough to make the financial point.


40 was plenty. Sorry you can't grasp the math.

40/230,000 = .00017%.

A .00017% sampling of a population is plenty?

lol cuck.

[coyotes_geek]

drunk driving is illegal.

why should a welfare recipient be allowed to drink and drive

I'm okay with denying welfare benefits to someone convicted of DWI. Are you?


why is time a relevant factor in this?

Depends on whether or not you think there's a difference between currently being engaged in illegal activity and once having engaged in illlegal activity but not anymore.

[vy65]

A clinic that gets reimbursed by the government when a patient is unable to pay. Also clinics that work solely with Medicaid.

If a patient is unable to pay his medical bills, how can he pay for his drugs?

I'd also support drug testing those on Medicaid - unless that's the one for seniors?


I think it's unreasonable to deny those funds outright under the suspicion that they might be used for drugs. I also think it would be unconstitutional to compel those people to provide bodily fluids in order to do away with that suspicion.

But they're not being denied funds outright. They are being given those funds on the condition that they pass a drug test.

Since you haven't answered the point, I take it that you agree that the government would review drug testing under the rational basis test? Given that concession - why would any court hold that there is no rational basis in administering a drug test to welfare recipients? Remember you even conceded that there might be a higher incidence of drug users among welfare recipients?

[Kori Ellis]

I didn't read the whole thread, but what do they do for the kids? If someone applies for welfare, and they fail the drug test and are denied benefits, do their kids just go without?

[ElNono]

If a patient is unable to pay his medical bills, how can he pay for his drugs?

Breaking a leg will land you a medical bill. It doesn't have to be a chronic issue.


I'd also support drug testing those on Medicaid - unless that's the one for seniors?

Medicaid can apply to more than seniors.


But they're not being denied funds outright. They are being given those funds on the condition that they pass a drug test.

Since you haven't answered the point, I take it that you agree that the government would review drug testing under the rational basis test? Given that concession - why would any court hold that there is no rational basis in administering a drug test to welfare recipients? Remember you even conceded that there might be a higher incidence of drug users among welfare recipients?

No. My point of disagreement in all this is that the government requiring a drug test in order to obtain an entitlement is of dubious constitutionality.

That's all.

I agree that some of the welfare money might end up in drug deals, that drug tests are an effective method to spot drug users, etc, etc, etc.

EDIT: Sorry, I should add, I think it also presents a case for presumption of guilt in the way it's framed. I think that could be overcome though (ie: by only providing half the benefits if you don't want to go through with the test).

[diego]

You don't think poverty predisposes one to drugs/drug abuse?



I havent read the whole thread, but as a person who both abused drugs as a upper class teen in diplomatic circles and worked as a volunteer offering guidance to drug users (mostly runaway kids) in a 3rd world country, I'd like to say that the only thing that poverty predisposes re: drugs is the quality of drugs you have access to. everybody does drugs, the only difference is that poor people do crappier drugs that do more damage to their bodies and dont have the money to do treatment programs or call them "prescriptions".

If it were true that poverty predisposes drug use/abuse, then 3rd world countries would consume more drugs than 1st world countries, when in fact the opposite is the case (I'm at work and dont have the time to look for the statistics, but i'm absolutely sure of this).

[vy65]

Again, I'm not glossing over anything. The government provides money in a lot of different ways, not just welfare. Under your presumption that it could be used for illicit acts, then the government should be testing under every one of those possible circumstances. You simply couldn't present your argument without including a presumption of guilt in it.

You're ignoring the initial point - that there is a higher incidence of drug use among welfare recipients than there is for non-welfare recipients. That's what makes the use of a drug test reasonable and not arbitrary. And that's why there is a much greater danger of subsidization in this circumstance as compared to others where the government provides funds.


It really cannot. If anything, it would control where the money does not go to before it gets there. Once the money has been handed, it has no control.
Plus the question posed is whether requiring drug testing in order to obtain those funds is a breach of privacy.

So if the money is not given at all because someone failed a drug test, those tax-payer dollars would not go to drug dealers, right?



Not done enough? I don't know. Why isn't it effective?

My point is that asset-freezing is effective and is basically what drug-testing would be.


Actually, California didn't say that at all. Those welfare recipients are allowed to shop at those locations, just not with their welfare cards.

What's comical is your inability to provide examples when asked for them...


I need examples of government telling you what you can or cannot spend your money in once it provided it on your welfare card. Stop beating around the bush and provide examples, or simply admit that the government can't (or is unwilling) to do that.

In 2010, the Governor of California banned EBT card use at certain kinds of businesses in the state. EBT cardholders can no longer use their EBT cards at: adult entertainment businesses, such as adult stores, adult video and book stores, and adult theaters; gambling establishments, such as casinos, bingo halls, poker and card rooms, and horse race tracks; spas and massage parlors; cannabis dispensaries; smoke shops (tobacco, cigar, cigarette, and pipe); tattoo and piercing shops; bail bond agencies; and cruise ships. For locations where you can get cash with your EBT card, visit https://www.ebt.ca.gov/caebtclient/usebenefit.jsp

http://www.ebtproject.ca.gov/faq.aspx

Seems like a pretty direct set of examples where the government tells wellfare recipients what they can do with the money they receive on their welfare card. Which was your exact question, right?


Why? Drug testing isn't going to stop anybody from gambling.

what the fuck does gambling have to do with anything?


You admitted that once the government provided the funds, it can do absolutely nothing to prevent those funds to be used as the receiver pleases.
It's a start.

No, I didn't admit that. The government can do something to stop people from buying drugs - use drug tests.



Again, I stated from my first post that you have a right to be secure in your person. Nobody from government should be requiring you to obtain an invasive test in order to obtain what's rightfully yours.

You don't understand the law properly.


Because I suspect that certain welfare funds MIGHT end up being used to purchase drugs. But the crime isn't spending the welfare money, the crime is purchasing drugs. One is legal, the other isn't, and in the event that they happen to be connected, correlation does not imply causation.

And to completely abstract the government's role in this crime and focus only on the purchase is short-sighted and wrong. This is why I mentioned asset freezing. When you fight complicated forms of crime, like drugs, one strategy is freezing the assets that help facilitate the crime. You admitted that there is some correlation between government funds and drugs. Why not shore up that source of money?


And I answered that I think where it's required and it's not warranted by the job description, then it is. Not to mention that entering a contract with a private entity is not the same as receiving entitlements from the government.

Again, I stand by my previous comment:
I'm saying that the result of requiring a test is that everyone is presumed a druggie unless proven otherwise (by the test). Considering that there are no alternatives to taking the test, that's effectively the end result.

No reasonable person would think that having to take a drug test as a part of their job makes them a druggie. A reasonable person would assume that's just part of their job. Why is welfare any different? Why are you introducing this supposition that wellfare recipients = druggies?




It's not a constitutionally protected right. It's a right granted by law. Stated as much.

I agree with that. Constitutional rights trump rights provided by law.



Because Congress can attach all the strings it wants. That doesn't mean they're all constitutional. Once tested, the determination is made, and if found to be unconstitutional, then the string is dropped.

Congress can require that welfare recipients only be Christians. Doesn't mean that it's going to hold up in court.



Not true. You have to look no further than 'Chandler v. Miller' in the OP and the striking down of the drug test on 4th amendment grounds (not on running for office grounds). I have an expectation of privacy in my person. I shouldn't be required to provide fluids for testing in order to obtain what was provided rightfully to me by law.

It really is no different than Perry's requirement for a sonogram before you can carry out with an abortion. If I fit within the criteria for an abortion, there should not be any added steps to burden the process, especially those that interfere with my constitutional right to personal privacy.

Chandler v. Miller involved a fundamental, constitutionally protected right - the right to participate in government by running for office. That is in no way shape or form on the same level as entitlement programs.

Try again.

Please find a case suggesting that you have the same expectation of privacy when participating in wellfare as you do when your fundamental constitutional rights have been threatened.

[vy65]

No. My point of disagreement in all this is that the government requiring a drug test in order to obtain an entitlement is of dubious constitutionality.

That's all.

I agree that some of the welfare money might end up in drug deals, that drug tests are an effective method to spot drug users, etc, etc, etc.

EDIT: Sorry, I should add, I think it also presents a case for presumption of guilt in the way it's framed. I think that could be overcome though (ie: by only providing half the benefits if you don't want to go through with the test).

But the way the government would resolve the constitutionality of drug testing is by using the rational basis test I've described. Given that you can't really explain why it wouldn't be rational for the government to administer the program (as opposed to using the more stringent strict-scrutiny test), I don't see a reason why it wouldn't be constitutional. Especially when you add your point that welfare money might end up in drug deals and that testing is effective.

And there's no presumption of guilt. This isn't a crime and no one is going to jail. It's receipt of an entitlement which is in no way on the same level of being accused of a crime. That's why the expectation of privacy/fourth amendment argument doesn't work in this context.

[Th'Pusher]

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jun/09/rick-scott/rick-scott-says-welfare-recipients-are-more-likely/

Pretty good article.

Really? I don't think that article make a very good case for why drug testing as a condition of welfare is effective policy if your goal is to save money. In fact i'd say it says the opposite:



Florida has tried to initiate drug testing before. The Legislature in 1998 approved a drug-testing pilot project for people receiving temporary cash assistance. But the results were underwhelming. Of the 8,797 applicants screened for drugs, only 335 (3.8 percent) showed evidence of having a controlled substance in their systems and failed the test, the Orlando Sentinel reported. The pilot project cost the state $2.7 million (or about $90 a test).

The Legislature ultimately abandoned the program.

I agree it's not unconstitutional, but who cares if it's a fucking stupid time/cost wasting program conjured up by conservatives to make them feel better by attaching strings to the money given to the poor.

[vy65]

Really? I don't think that article make a very good case for why drug testing as a condition of welfare is effective policy if your goal is to save money. In fact i'd say it says the opposite:

The studies all suggest that 10% of welfare recipients are on drugs - and could be higher once you expand out from TANF and focus on state-administered programs.

10% of the billions of dollars spent on welfare could be curbed by $35/person test? Seems like a pretty good deal

[ElNono]

I think this is a case where the rational basis with a bite would apply.
The government already stated that it has an interest in preventing misuse of government grants. There's also the fact that while there's a compelling state interest in curbing misuse of welfare money, the law is not narrow enough to just test those suspected in engaging in such activity. It's a broad law that applies to everyone requesting welfare the same, including children and seniors.

[Th'Pusher]

The studies all suggest that 10% of welfare recipients are on drugs - and could be higher once you expand out from TANF and focus on state-administered programs.

10% of the billions of dollars spent on welfare could be curbed by $35/person test? Seems like a pretty good deal

You're assuming that all 10% of illicit drug user fail the test, but all the data shows that % to be much lower. There was a pilot, they canceled it. Done. The moron Walker was pandering to Conservatives to win an election.

[ElNono]

Don't forget also that the SCOTUS has applied different standards over time for situations entailing state funding (see Plyler v. Doe for an example).

[vy65]

intermediate scrutiny ("rational basis with a bite") only applies in gender cases.

anything above rational-basis review requires a violation of an individual constitutional right. While creative, the examples you give suggest that the government is the injured party, and therefore should be the beneficiary of strict-scrutiny. But then, somehow, the government is not only not protected, but fails to satisfy a test that shouldn't even be applied in the first place? That's convoluted and not how it would work.

Testing would be rational. While perhaps over-inclusive, it's still sufficient to constitute a rational governmental policy to curb drug use. End result - it's constitutional.

[vy65]

I mispoke - Alienage (Plyler) and Gender are the two categories that get intermediate scrutiny.

[ElNono]

intermediate scrutiny ("rational basis with a bite") only applies in gender cases.

Not true.. see Plyler v. Doe.


anything above rational-basis review requires a violation of an individual constitutional right.

4th amendment.


While creative, the examples you give suggest that the government is the injured party, and therefore should be the beneficiary of strict-scrutiny. But then, somehow, the government is not only not protected, but fails to satisfy a test that shouldn't even be applied in the first place? That's convoluted and not how it would work.

Testing would be rational. While perhaps over-inclusive, it's still sufficient to constitute a rational governmental policy to curb drug use. End result - it's constitutional.

Disagree, both that it's constitutional and that strict-scrutiny should be applied. We'll see when and if it reaches the SCOTUS.

[vy65]

You're assuming that all 10% of illicit drug user fail the test, but all the data shows that % to be much lower. There was a pilot, they canceled it. Done. The moron Walker was pandering to Conservatives to win an election.

I think that, it being a pilot, it's hard to draw definitive conclusions one way or another.

I didn't see where the % of people failing the test was lower than 10%.

I'm not a statistics guy - I'm a law guy. So I'm admittedly behind the curve on this one.

[ElNono]

And while the rational test is used mostly on 1st amendment and 14th amendment cases, the 'modified' version that's normally used under 4th amendment cases is normally used because it applies mostly to law enforcement. This would not be the case here, so I'm certainly curious to see what standard the SCOTUS would apply.

[vy65]

The problem is that - if intermediate or strict scrutiny is not used - the chances are incredibly high that testing will be upheld.

Just think of the court's makeup - you honestly think Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy wouldn't think the government passes rational basis review?

[ElNono]

The problem is that - if intermediate or strict scrutiny is not used - the chances are incredibly high that testing will be upheld.

Just think of the court's makeup - you honestly think Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy wouldn't think the government passes rational basis review?

Agree with that. Also agree that the composition of the current court would make it more likely to pass unscathed. That's why I'm hoping this doesn't reach the court with the current makeup.

[Th'Pusher]

I think that, it being a pilot, it's hard to draw definitive conclusions one way or another.

I didn't see where the % of people failing the test was lower than 10%.

I'm not a statistics guy - I'm a law guy. So I'm admittedly behind the curve on this one.

You don't have to be a statistics guy. It's right in the article you posted as well as in my previous post.


Of the 8,797 applicants screened for drugs, only 335 (3.8 percent) showed evidence of having a controlled substance in their systems and failed the test

You guys can debate all day whether it's constitutional, which is fine because it's kind of fun to read, but it failed policy. It was nothing more than Rick Scott pandering to a bunch of tea bags to win an election. He won and now he's following through on his campaign promises even though it's a waste of time and money.

[ElNono]

BTW, in Chandler vs Miller...

'Ginsburg said no concrete danger or special need had been established to require an exception to the general rule that government cannot search someone without individual suspicion'

Which begs the question of whether Ginsburg would sustain that argument in this case.

[ElNono]

Then there's "Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton" and "Board of Education v. Earls" where everything gets muddier.

[vy65]

I can come at this another way.

If random searches of students' lockers are not violations of privacy, why would random drug tests be any different?

[ElNono]

I can come at this another way.

If random searches of students' lockers are not violations of privacy, why would random drug tests be any different?

The reason would be that the SCOTUS has been fairly consistent in outlawing blanket search powers (searches without 'individual suspicion'), and has established that drug testing is a search under the 4th amendment. The sole exceptions to that rule lately seem to have been circumscribed to children in a school setting. At least, that's what I can gather from the available case law.

EDIT: Obviously, the other exception being the well-known airport searches.

[vy65]

Then there's "Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton" and "Board of Education v. Earls" where everything gets muddier.

Lol you shouldn't have brought that up.

[ElNono]

(And yes, the SCOTUS did say that there was a distinction between adults and children when it came to prioritizing drug testing)

[ElNono]

Lol you shouldn't have brought that up.

Why not?

[ElNono]

I thought more information on case law, the better?

[vy65]

The reason would be that the SCOTUS has been fairly consistent in outlawing blanket search powers (searches without 'individual suspicion'), and has established that drug testing is a search under the 4th amendment. The sole exceptions to that rule lately seem to have been circumscribed to children in a school setting. At least, that's what I can gather from the available case law.

EDIT: Obviously, the other exception being the well-known airport searches.

The "preventing crime" rationale that applies in schools seems to equally apply here - but I was just showing the analogy between schools (as a public/state institution), welfare (as a public program), and the diminished expectation of privacy.

But even aside from that, if random testing of HS athletes is allowed, its hard to see why similar tests of welfare recipients wouldn't be.

[ElNono]

The "preventing crime" rationale that applies in schools seems to equally apply here - but I was just showing the analogy between schools (as a public/state institution), welfare (as a public program), and the diminished expectation of privacy.

But even aside from that, if random testing of HS athletes is allowed, its hard to see why similar tests of welfare recipients wouldn't be.

Actually, it would be difficult, because among other things the SCOTUS argued that the school acts as in loco parentis to the kids. There's no such criteria that applies to welfare recipients.

The dissent on that case by Justice O'Connor also highlights the exception to the customary 'individualized suspicion' requirement when dealing with searches.

IMO, it's a much more clear cut case if you're dealing with schools and children. It's a lot more difficult if you're dealing with the general population.

[ElNono]

I think Earls is probably a better case, yet also based on a school settings and grabbing some of the precedent from Vernonia. Notice that Earls ended up being a 5-4 decision with Ginsburg actually being in dissent in that case.

[ElNono]

I would also argue that "United States v. Kincade" can be eventually used to argue to overturn such a requirement, although that one has yet to reach the SCOTUS. But what the 9th circuit used as an excuse for compelling the testing couldn't be applied to the general population.

[CuckingFunt]

When the government provides money that it otherwise is not required to give, said money doesn't come NSA.

No. It doesn't.

That are, and always have been, a number of strings attached. Even without any form of drug testing, there are plenty of hoops that need to be jumped through in order to both obtain and maintain welfare benefits. In fact, the number of requirements that need to be met in order to continue receiving benefits are extensive enough that I would imagine it to be pretty difficult for a habitual drug user to continue to fulfill them. Or, perhaps more accurately, for multiple habitual drug users to continue to fulfill them.

[Blake]

I'm okay with denying welfare benefits to someone convicted of DWI. Are you?

No, I think criminal backgrounds should have nothing to do with welfare benefits.

[Blake]

40/230,000 = .00017%.

A .00017% sampling of a population is plenty?

If you don't understand the point either read the piece or just ask.

Throwing out irrelevant numbers over and again does nothing for you.


lol cuck.

Your continued fantasy of me is duly noted. I have no doubt you'll tell us more
of what you picture me doing.

lol ":cry I'm not a stat guy"

You've been proven to be not much of a reading comprehension guy.

[vy65]

If you don't understand the point either read the piece or just ask.

Throwing out irrelevant numbers over and again does nothing for you.

I seriously don't understand how anyone can be this fucking retarded.

You think that testing .00017% of all those who receive welfare benefits constitutes a representative sample - and - supports the decision to not continue drug testing. That's fucking ridiculous because .00017% is so miniscule that it can't support a policy decision one way or another. I may not be a stats guy - but even I understand that you can't make sound policy decisions when they're based on one-thousandth of a percentage point.

Your point that I quoted ad naseum was 40 people is good enough to support a financial decision to quit drug testing. What you don't seem to get is the obvious fact that .00017% - the 40 people tested divided by the 230,000 welfare recipients - is in no way shape or form representative of the population. Also note that .00017, 40, and 230,000 are not random numbers - but are pulled directly from the article who's cock you are gargling.

I understand simple life skills are beyond you. Hopefully this breakdown is clear enough for your mongoloid brain to comprehend.

[Blake]

I didn't read the whole thread, but what do they do for the kids? If someone applies for welfare, and they fail the drug test and are denied benefits, do their kids just go without?

no specifics mentioned.

my guess is child protective services would step in and put the kids into foster care.

as an aside, there may even be a question whether child abuse charges could be brought up on the parent that fails the test.

[Blake]

I seriously don't understand how anyone can be this fucking retarded.

You think that testing .00017% of all those who receive welfare benefits constitutes a representative sample - and - supports the decision to not continue drug testing. That's fucking ridiculous because .00017% is so miniscule that it can't support a policy decision one way or another. I may not be a stats guy - but even I understand that you can't make sound policy decisions when they're based on one-thousandth of a percentage point.

Your point that I quoted ad naseum was 40 people is good enough to support a financial decision to quit drug testing. What you don't seem to get is the obvious fact that .00017% - the 40 people tested divided by the 230,000 welfare recipients - is in no way shape or form representative of the population. Also note that .00017, 40, and 230,000 are not random numbers - but are pulled directly from the article who's cock you are gargling.

I understand simple life skills are beyond you. Hopefully this breakdown is clear enough for your mongoloid brain to comprehend.

This meltdown makes it clear that you still didn't get the simple point of the costs of test reimbursement versus withholding funds.

To be sure, the math wasn't clearly laid out, but the numbers are there for anyone that can do 6th grade word problems to verify that yes, the costs of testing outweigh the savings of withholding.

But we know you aren't a stat guy.

We also know you aren't a reading comprehension guy.

We know you are more of a cuck fantasy guy.

[mouse]

Don't forget to drug test the Hurricane victims before they take advantage of FEMA.

[Agloco]

Don't forget to drug test the Hurricane victims before they take advantage of FEMA.

.......and spend the 2 grand they get on thier disaster relief credit card at Champs. Right mouse?

[Kori Ellis]

no specifics mentioned.

my guess is child protective services would step in and put the kids into foster care.

as an aside, there may even be a question whether child abuse charges could be brought up on the parent that fails the test.

It would be interesting to me how they'd handle that. I don't think CPS would remove kids just because their parents failed a drug test. Yet, kids of drug addicts don't deserve to be denied welfare. Originally I had read the parents would need to find a representative that was drug free to manage the child's benefits. But that doesn't seem practical to me either. So, I'm not sure what the solution would be.

[Blake]

It would be interesting to me how they'd handle that. I don't think CPS would remove kids just because their parents failed a drug test. Yet, kids of drug addicts don't deserve to be denied welfare. Originally I had read the parents would need to find a representative that was drug free to manage the child's benefits. But that doesn't seem practical to me either. So, I'm not sure what the solution would be.

I've read different things depending on the state, but it looks like that's the case for Florida:


However, the new law does allow DCF [dept of children and families] to designate a person to receive funds on behalf of children whose parent fails a drug test. This could include an immediate family member.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-05-31/news/fl-florida-drug-test-for-welfare-20110531_1_welfare-recipients-tanf-recipients-new-law

Agreed that it doesn't seem practical.

Neither does forcing a potential welfare recipient to come up with the funds to take a drug test before getting reimbursed later.

[SA210]

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results


Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

========

Repugs War on The Poor will be waged no matter how insane, no matter how much it costs. My guess is the drug tests are performed by a no-bid Repug business that donated heavily to Scott/Repugs.

This

[SA210]

No. It doesn't.

That are, and always have been, a number of strings attached. Even without any form of drug testing, there are plenty of hoops that need to be jumped through in order to both obtain and maintain welfare benefits. In fact, the number of requirements that need to be met in order to continue receiving benefits are extensive enough that I would imagine it to be pretty difficult for a habitual drug user to continue to fulfill them. Or, perhaps more accurately, for multiple habitual drug users to continue to fulfill them.


Exactly. Especially here in Texas you would be required to get to work (despite the many stereotypes that they don't work lol), and those jobs also send you on a drug test, much of the time anyway.

[SA210]

How many bankers got drug-tested before getting $Ts from Bernanke and Geithner?

[mouse]

.......and spend the 2 grand they get on thier disaster relief credit card at Champs. Right mouse?


Your not for keeping the business community going?

Next they will drug test you before you can renew your drivers license.

[mouse]

I've got a headache.


which head?

[Borat Sagyidev]

I'm more concerned about false positives. Anyone who has had one knows how screwed up it is.

[Agloco]

Your not for keeping the business community going?

Next they will drug test you before you can renew your drivers license.

lol the money was meant for groceries,etc. Not meant for a new pair of Air Force Ones.

Yes yes......it's always a stepwise process. First this, then that......

[mouse]

lol the money was meant for groceries,etc. Not meant for a new pair of Air Force Ones. fice?



So when you give your teen 20 dollars to go see Cars you really expect that money to end up at the box office? :lmao




Yes yes......it's always a stepwise process. First this, then that......

Next they will drug test people before they can get on a plane.

[Agloco]

So when you give your teen 20 dollars to go see Cars you really expect that money to end up at the box office?

I was talking about the Katrina victims and their FEMA credit cards. I'm not sure how their level of responsibility compares to that of my teenager.

[Wild Cobra]

I was talking about the Katrina victims and their FEMA credit cards. I'm not sure how their level of responsibility compares to that of my teenager.
I'll lay odds they your teenager is more responsible than what I heard going on with those credit cards.

[Agloco]

I'll lay odds they your teenager is more responsible than what I heard going on with those credit cards.

A good wager. I do feel the government was complicit though. It's not prudent to hand an arsonist a gas can with matches and then hope for the best afterwards.

[Winehole23]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-judge-blocks-drug-testing-of-welfare-applicants/1198389

[boutons_deux]

"what I heard going on with those credit cards."

the old St Ronnie's Welfare Queen slander. You're much more worried about fraudulent abuse of welfare than you are about the bank's fraudulent foreclosures and MERS' rape of property laws.

[Winehole23]

Paul Walker intends to add Wisconsin to the list of states who trample the 4th Amendment and waste the public's money on a social problem of marginal dimensions:



A 2003 case out of Michigan established that “suspicionless” drug testing for prospective social welfare beneficiaries represented a violation of their personal liberties. The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in that case that drug testing can be imposed on an applicant only if there is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.



That's how it should be. There's no reason to treat food stamp recipients or collectors of unemployment benefits (for which they paid unemployment insurance) as moral defectives. You'd expect Walker, who in 2012 hailed the rise of a new class of "libertarian" governors (http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/31/scott-walker-resurgence-of-libertarianis) to Reason, to grok that.


There's also a question of cost, too. Walker is supposed to be tight with a penny, right? That's part of his, er, charm.


Yet his sort of drug-testing is not only repellent on ethical grounds, it's a clear waste of money. If a recent program in Missouri is any indication, Wisconsin will be collecting urine by the bucketful to catch very few bad actors (and that assumes smoking dope, say, should be a reason to pull somebody's benefits). Last year (http://www.kansas.com/news/article1130429.html), Missouri started testing suspected drug users (note: suspected, meaning there was at least some hypothetical reason to think a person was using drugs). The state ended up spending $500,000 to test 636 people, of which 20 were found to be using. So around 3 percent of suspects tested positive and each test cost around $786. Before courts ruled Florida's drug-testing regime illegal, the Sunshine State spent $115,000 on piss tests and ended up coughing up $600,000 in reimbursements to applicants who had been denied benefits.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/12/scott-walkers-repellent-unconstitutional?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+ Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29

[Winehole23]

or so say the liberal elitists at Reason

[Winehole23]

Texas follows suit, long after it proved to be a waste of money in FL and UT:

http://abc13.com/archive/9060392/

[Winehole23]

passed by TX Senate, moves to House for consideration...

[RandomGuy]

Texas follows suit, long after it proved to be a waste of money in FL and UT:

http://abc13.com/archive/9060392/

Ugh. Saw that.

For a bunch of conservatives, they seem dead set to try and waste money.

[boutons_deux]

Ugh. Saw that.

For a bunch of conservatives, they seem dead set to try and waste money.

Repugs have no budget limits, no tax expenditure too big, when pushing their social agenda/VRWC/1%, etc.

[boutons_deux]

What 7 States Discovered After Spending More Than $1 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/)

As state legislatures convene across the country, proposals keep cropping up to drug test applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, or welfare.

Bills have been introduced so far in Montana (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MT_XGR_WELFARE_DRUG_TESTING_MTOL-?SITE=MTKAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=ap_template.html), Texas (https://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/05/drug-testing-welfare-benefits-back-table/), and West Virginia (http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/briefs/x1290090899/West-Virginia-GOP-starts-push-for-drug-testing-welfare-recipients), with a handful of others (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/welfare-drug-testing_n_6655712.html) also considering such a move.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has gone further (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/11/10/3590908/walker-drug-test-welfare/), proposing to drug test applicants for food stamps and unemployment benefits. They follow recent bills put into action in Maine (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/01/14/3611476/maine-drug-test-welfare/),Michigan (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/12/28/3607089/michigan-drug-testing-welfare-recipients/), and Mississippi (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/17/3411581/mississippi-drug-test-welfare/).

Proponents of these bills claim (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/01/2011-06-01_florida_gov_rick_scott_signs_law_requiring_welf are_recipients_to_take_drug_test_.html) they will save money by getting drug users off the dole and thus reduce spending on benefits. But states that are looking at bills of their own may want to consider the fact that the drug testing programs that are already up and running haven’t seen such results.

According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population.

The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent (http://www.drugabuse.gov/national-survey-drug-use-health). In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.

The other impact is increasing stigma around both welfare and drug use. It can increase the shame people feel around applying for welfare benefits in the first place, which could drive them away from getting assistance they may need to get by. At the same time, it may make drug users less willing to disclose and therefore keep them from connecting with treatment, according to Lower-Basch. “If people are afraid they’ll lose their benefits if they admit to using drugs, it makes it hard for them to say, ‘Hey, actually I have this issue,'” she explained.

A study of Florida’s program (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14620735), which has since been struck down by the courts, found that it didn’t produce any reliable estimates of drug use among welfare recipients.


http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/welfare-drug-test-wide-02.png

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/

you rigthwingnuts and your Repug politicians are totally nasty, mean, vindictive assholes, protecting/enrichingh the 1%, screwing the 99%, esp Bishop Gecko's "47%".