Is Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Uncons utional?

[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 uncons utional.

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 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 uncons utional.

If requiring drug testing were uncons utional 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 uncons utional.

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 ins utions 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 uncons utional 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 cir scribing 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 en led 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 uncons utional 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 cir scribing 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 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 , 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 , 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 cir scribed 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...0/04/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 cir scribed 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/2010/1..._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?

[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...0/04/id/372515

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

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 en led 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.