Is Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Unconstitutional?

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-testi...081205581.html

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.

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.

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/20...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.

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

dup

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/20...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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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?

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

"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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Meth heads are people too!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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.

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.

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)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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

---

By catching the drug dealers and offering counseling to addicts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

By catching the drug dealers and offering counseling to addicts?

---

Because that works so well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Basically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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

---

See my edit above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

its stupid and not cost effective cause its not random.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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...0/04/id/372515

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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/2010/1..._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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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

http://www.newsmax.com/US/California...0/04/id/372515

---

Which prompted this:
http://www.gamblingnerd.com/news/cas...in-casinos/951

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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

http://www.newsmax.com/US/California...0/04/id/372515

Which prompted this:
http://www.gamblingnerd.com/news/cas...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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

---

Sure there is - drug testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

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.