Is Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Uncons utional?

[Blake]

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

Cost wise, I think the slippery slope is large.

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

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

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

Nobody lights a crack pipe while taking a drug test.

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

[Th'Pusher]

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

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

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

[Blake]

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

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

[vy65]

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

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

[vy65]

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

You seriously cannot be this ing re ed.

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

[Blake]

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...e-more-likely/

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

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

lol reading comprehension

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

evidence you are re ed, imo

[vy65]

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...e-more-likely/

Pretty good article.

[Blake]

You seriously cannot be this ing re ed.

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

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

sorry your re ation is causing you to completely miss the point.

[vy65]

is 40/230,000 plenty Blake?

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

[ElNono]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drug trafficking made possible by welfare funds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this. But what you're leaving out is the importance of 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?

I agree with that. Cons utional rights trump rights provided by law.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

[Blake]

is 40/230,000 plenty Blake?

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

40 is plenty.

You are proven re ed here.

[coyotes_geek]

Cost wise, I think the slippery slope is large.

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

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

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

Nobody lights a crack pipe while taking a drug test.

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

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

[vy65]

40 is plenty.

You are proven re ed here.

.00017%

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

[Blake]

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

drunk driving is illegal.

why should a welfare recipient be allowed to drink and drive

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

why is time a relevant factor in this?

[Blake]

.00017%

irrelevant to the point.

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

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

[ElNono]

Your words. What's a government subsidized clinic?

Is that a government subsidized clinic?

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

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

Given their participation in a discretionary program - where no 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?

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

[vy65]

irrelevant to the point.

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

40 people is hardly a representative sample.

40 was enough to make the financial point.

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

40/230,000 = .00017%.

A .00017% sampling of a population is plenty?

lol cuck.

[coyotes_geek]

drunk driving is illegal.

why should a welfare recipient be allowed to drink and drive

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

why is time a relevant factor in this?

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

[vy65]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kori Ellis]

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

[ElNono]

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

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

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

Medicaid can apply to more than seniors.

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

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

No. My point of disagreement in all this is that the government requiring a drug test in order to obtain an en lement is of dubious cons utionality.

That's all.

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

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

[diego]

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

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

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

[vy65]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what the does gambling have to do with anything?

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

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

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

You don't understand the law properly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with that. Cons utional rights trump rights provided by law.



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

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



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

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

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

Try again.

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

[vy65]

No. My point of disagreement in all this is that the government requiring a drug test in order to obtain an en lement is of dubious cons utionality.

That's all.

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

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

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

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

[Th'Pusher]

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...e-more-likely/

Pretty good article.

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

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

The Legislature ultimately abandoned the program.

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