I'm not sure you understand just how irrelevant what you posted is to your own discussion.
See my driving example, maybe that will spark something for you.
Drug testing for benefits in Tennessee yields only 65 positives
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
I'm not sure you understand just how irrelevant what you posted is to your own discussion.
See my driving example, maybe that will spark something for you.
Which? Your pointlessly loaded, "how can we continue to ruin the world" Bullschtick?
I fundamentally disagree with your fraudulent characterization of the entire issue.
The question I asked you was a simple statistical one.
People get pulled over all the time and checked for being under the influence. There are also random checkpoints. You are reaching with comparing driving to being drug tested to recieve government money because you dont want to work
That's a nice start. Although local, government contracted drug treatments are notoriously ineffective.
Especially if your solution to drug use is to cut off their food, housing, etc. and then you just tell them to get treatment. It ignores the carrot and will statistically lead right to the stick, which we pay even more for.
Oh goodness, you are missing basic layers of understanding, which I W might normally enlighten you, but your last statement proves that unnecessary and wasteful.
Good luck.
you were the one that brought up drug testing for having a drivers licenses. . The government doesnt hand over licenses and have no strings attached with that license as they do with welfare. Its fine, you think people should be able to continue living as they are, not even try for opportunities to recieve welfare, i beleive that people should be helped out when they are trying to better themselves.
You dont think most of these people are capable of going out in the world and at least make an effort so you are fine letting them just hang out and collect all the bennies that uncle sam is willing to give them. Perhaps if people held them accountable at any point in their life, their wouldnt be as much pride that some take in being the leeches they are
I seem to be having trouble locating it. I'd be much obliged if you could repost it for me.
Since you're either unable or unwilling to repost, I'll just have to speculate on what you meant.
Since most of my points have pertained to 4th and 5th Amendment issues and you specifically mentioned the 5th in one of your replies, I assume you are saying the tests violate the 4th and/or 5th Amendments.
Allow me to explain why you're wrong.
One of the conditions of receiving these benefits is that the recipient cannot be currently using illegal drugs. If you believe that being drug-free should not be a prerequisite for receiving benefits then that certainly is a viewpoint that is worth arguing. However, the method by which the state of Tennessee is weeding out (wink, wink) drug users is not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights, so long as the process is being administered as described.
If the state required all applicants to submit to a urine test then that would be a constitutional violation. If the state required random applicants to submit to a urine test that would be a violation of constitutional rights.
Asking applicants to swear they are not using drugs is not a constitutional violation. When I renew the license plates on my car, the state requires me to sign a paper swearing that I have liability insurance coverage on the vehicle. When I submit my income tax return, the government requires me to sign the return and swear that the information is accurate to the best of my knowledge.
I don't have a constitutional right to lie about having auto insurance. I don't have a constitutional right to cheat on my taxes. And welfare recipients don't have a constitutional right to lie about meeting the drug-free requirement for receiving benefits.
If being drug-free is a requirement for receiving welfare benefits and a potential applicant is a drug user then he has three options. He can simply not apply for the benefits for which he is not eligible. Or he can be honest and acknowledge he has used drugs and hope he passes the urine test anyway. Or he can commit welfare fraud and lie about being drug-free and hope he doesn't get caught.
Asking a welfare applicant to swear they are drug-free is no different from asking me to swear I have auto insurance and that my tax return is honest and accurate. Asking a welfare applicant to swear they are eligible to receive benefits is not a 5th Amendment violation.
And so long as the only applicants who are urine tested are the ones for whom there is probable cause to believe they are using drugs then no one's 4th Amendment rights are being violated either.
Similar threads
