Is Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Uncons utional?

[vy65]

that's silly.

the government will never directly subsidize illegal drug purchases.

Re-read what I wrote and try again.

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

Because it's not an invasion of privacy.

Lol cuck

[Blake]

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

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

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

[z0sa]

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

convergent questioning is lame.

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

[Wild Cobra]

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

No I don't. I am simply pointing out that this is something not being considered. I already said the numbers would be hard to quantify.

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

[Blake]

Re-read what I wrote and try again.

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

Because it's not an invasion of privacy.

Lol cuck

Absolutely it is, sock puppet.

[vy65]

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

Absolutely it is, sock puppet.

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

[boutons_deux]

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

[coyotes_geek]

I think there is a difference.

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

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

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

Most definitely a slippery slope, imo.

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

[z0sa]

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

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

[Blake]

convergent questioning is lame.

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

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

lol

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

[Blake]

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

you fantasizing about me is apparently your personal reward.

awesome.

[ElNono]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still waiting for the examples...

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

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

Sure there is - drug testing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A right is a protection extended by the cons ution. An en lement or privilege is a benefit extended by government where it is otherwise not cons utionally required to do so.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

[Blake]

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

So why stop at drug testing?

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

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

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

[ElNono]

lol totally changing what you initially said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[boutons_deux]

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

t'encule la mouche.

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

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

[vy65]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still waiting for the examples...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drug trafficking made possible by welfare funds.

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

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

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

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

Read the above and try again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[coyotes_geek]

So why stop at drug testing?

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

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

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

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

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

[z0sa]

no it's not

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

if a pell grant is something that isn't needed

It's not, technically.

[vy65]

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

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

Your words. What's a government subsidized clinic?

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

Is that a government subsidized clinic?

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

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

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

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

[Blake]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's what criminal record checks are for.

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

[Blake]

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

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

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

It's not, technically.

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

[vy65]

40 people is hardly a representative sample.

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

[Blake]

40 people is hardly a representative sample.

40 was enough to make the financial point.

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

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise...ost-effective/

[coyotes_geek]

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

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

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

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

That's what criminal record checks are for.

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

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

[vy65]

40 was enough to make the financial point.



http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise...ost-effective/

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

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