Is Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Uncons utional?

[vy65]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wild Cobra]

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

If the person wants benefits not cons utionally required for them to receive, then they must give up bodily fluids.

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

[coyotes_geek]

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

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

[ElNono]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your point initially was that this is an invasion of privacy. If that's still your point, then please answer why those who participate in a discretionary government program which gives them money for substinance are 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.

Congress certainly passed law en ling certain persons under a set of cir stances 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 cir stances is an affront to "being secure in their persons", and thus a violation of the 4th amendment.
I'm in the opinion that it is.

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

[ElNono]

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

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

[ElNono]

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree.

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

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

[Wild Cobra]

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

Every private job I've applied for in the last several years that paid a decent wage required drug testing.

[coyotes_geek]

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

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

[z0sa]

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

[ElNono]

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

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

[Th'Pusher]

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

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

[coyotes_geek]

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

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

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

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

[Wild Cobra]

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

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

[Blake]

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

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

I think there is a difference.

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

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

Most definitely a slippery slope, imo.

[Blake]

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

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

Minimal savings, if any.

[Wild Cobra]

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

Maybe if you scored the program like the CBO does, you can find a $500,000,000 savings!

[ElNono]

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

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

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

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

[Th'Pusher]

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

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

[Blake]

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

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

[vy65]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I updated my post.

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

Sure there is - drug testing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress certainly passed law en ling certain persons under a set of cir stances 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 cir stances 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 cons ution. An en lement or privilege is a benefit extended by government where it is otherwise not cons utionally required to do so.

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

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

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

[vy65]

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

lol totally changing what you initially said:

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

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

Legislatures are not the judicial. It wouldn't be the first time that a law or part of it is stricken down as uncons utional. 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 cons ution. You don't think they debate and decide upon the cons utional 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 cons utional violation.

I disagree.

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

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

[vy65]

I think there is a difference.

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

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

Most definitely a slippery slope, imo.

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

[mingus]

Sure there is - drug testing.

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

[z0sa]

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

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

[Blake]

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

that's silly.

the government will never directly subsidize illegal drug purchases.

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

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