# Florida requires drug testing for welfare starting July 1st.



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 7, 2011)

And so it has begun.
I am sure lawsuits will be filed, and I am sure there will be screams from both ends of the spectrum in regards to this issue. Where do you stand?

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/0...-requiring-drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/



> Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 7, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> And so it has begun.
> I am sure lawsuits will be filed, and I am sure there will be screams from both ends of the spectrum in regards to this issue. Where do you stand?
> 
> http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/0...-requiring-drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/


 Good.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 7, 2011)

about friggin time, should be law in all states


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 7, 2011)

No thoughts on it as such as I don't know the system or the law.
I'd be curious to know however if parents were found to be drug users what would be done? children taken away, welfare given despite failing test? Can't say I'm bothered about the adults but I would be concerned that the children wouldn't receive any help.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 7, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> No thoughts on it as such as I don't know the system or the law.
> I'd be curious to know however if parents were found to be drug users what would be done? children taken away, welfare given despite failing test? Can't say I'm bothered about the adults but I would be concerned that the children wouldn't receive any help.


 
I don't know what would happen.
I would hope that the person would be denied welfare first.
Then depending on the drug would depend on the next step.
certain drugs like heroin I would have the kids removed immediately, drugs like Marijuana I would probably have the kids removed to a family members care until the person can retest drug free.... thats the problem though... what do you do in that case? I am not convinced that foster care is any better then a mild drug using parent, or an alcoholic parent, way to many horror stories there.


----------



## Steve (Jun 7, 2011)

I agree with the intent of this completely.  Making welfare recipients pay for their tests themselves, though, just doesn't seem right to me.   

I'd maybe make anyone who fails their test pay for the cost of the test, but for most people, that won't be an issue.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 7, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I agree with the intent of this completely. Making welfare recipients pay for their tests themselves, though, just doesn't seem right to me.
> 
> I'd maybe make anyone who fails their test pay for the cost of the test, but for most people, that won't be an issue.


 
i think its much better having them prepay for the test and then reimbursing them if they pass. If its the other way around they will never collect the money on failed tests.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 7, 2011)

Test anyone receiving government aid. Welfare, foodstamps, etc.

Don't want to test?

Don't use government aid.


----------



## Kemposhot (Jun 7, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Test anyone receiving government aid. Welfare, foodstamps, etc.
> 
> Don't want to test?
> 
> Don't use government aid.



My thoughts exactly.  Its about time something like this started.  I work in one of the poorer areas of New York City so my perception may be a bit biased, but there is a lot of drug use by the people living in these housing developments.  Not everyone, but a noticeable amount.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 7, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Test anyone receiving government aid. Welfare, foodstamps, etc.
> 
> Don't want to test?
> 
> Don't use government aid.



Social Security?  Medicare?  Fire and Police services?  Using government paid roads? Veteran's benefits?  Student loans?

Or is it only one or two _particular _forms of government aid that we feel like crapping on?  I wonder why that could be?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2011)

Sounds good to me. I would suggest giving newbies a year before they are tested, but this generational PA has got to stop.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Social Security?  Medicare?  Fire and Police services?  Using government paid roads? Veteran's benefits?  Student loans?
> 
> Or is it only one or two _particular _forms of government aid that we feel like crapping on?  I wonder why that could be?


Cuz all the dope heads are spending their welfare checks on meth.
Sean


----------



## Big Don (Jun 7, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Social Security?  Medicare?  Fire and Police services?  Using government paid roads? Veteran's benefits?  Student loans?


Obviously fire and police services along with roads would be a ***** to enforce, VA benefits, Student loans, and the rest? Yeah, no illegal drug use should be allowed or condoned.





> Or is it only one or two _particular _forms of government aid that we feel like crapping on?  I wonder why that could be?


It could be because the criminal element tends to use the most illegal drugs.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 7, 2011)

We all use government services somewhere, most of us probably daily, as they are looking for illegal drugs, we should just test everyone, if found with something in their blood, charge them with possession.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 7, 2011)

Hell, lets go a step further. In addition to drug testing before one can receive welfare benefits, recipients should also be made to preform community service and attend a training program to help them obtain some type of job skill. Lots of trash to pick up on the side of our roads. Being poor doesn't give someone the right to sit on their lazy asses all day watching Maury and smoking Newports.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> We all use government services somewhere, most of us probably daily, as they are looking for illegal drugs, we should just test everyone, if found with something in their blood, charge them with possession.


Never happen.


----------



## Steve (Jun 7, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> i think its much better having them prepay for the test and then reimbursing them if they pass. If its the other way around they will never collect the money on failed tests.


I haven't seen anywhere that they are reimbursed for the cost of tests that they pass.  If that's true, I'm okay with it.  I believe that unilaterally making them pay for the test is contrary to the intent of a welfare program.  



Empty Hands said:


> Social Security?  Medicare?  Fire and Police services?  Using government paid roads? Veteran's benefits?  Student loans?
> 
> Or is it only one or two _particular _forms of government aid that we feel like crapping on?  I wonder why that could be?


Social Security and Medicare aren't welfare programs.  Nor are Fire and Police services, driving on roads or collecting VA Disability.  Student loans are based on need as are Veterans Pensions, so I'd be okay requiring drug testing for those.

The distinction is simple and easily applied.



hongkongfooey said:


> Hell, lets go a step further. In addition to drug testing before one can receive welfare benefits, recipients should also be made to preform community service and attend a training program to help them obtain some type of job skill. Lots of trash to pick up on the side of our roads. Being poor doesn't give someone the right to sit on their lazy asses all day watching Maury and smoking Newports.


These kinds of programs are implemented all the time, with mixed results.  Some are very successful and some are not.  But all require funding and in this budget climate your chances of putting together and funding a job skills course that's worth a damn are exactly nil.

Or are you suggesting that we round up people on welfare and putting them to work on something resembling a chain gang?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2011)

hongkongfooey said:


> Hell, lets go a step further. In addition to drug testing before one can receive welfare benefits, recipients should also be made to preform community service and attend a training program to help them obtain some type of job skill. Lots of trash to pick up on the side of our roads. Being poor doesn't give someone the right to sit on their lazy asses all day watching Maury and smoking Newports.


So a man divorces his wife, leaves her with a gang of kids, and you want her out on the street picking up trash before she gets any assistance? And you want to start her on regular drug testing. Its almost like its a crime to be left by your husband.
Sean


----------



## Carol (Jun 7, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I haven't seen anywhere that they are reimbursed for the cost of tests that they pass.  If that's true, I'm okay with it.  I believe that unilaterally making them pay for the test is contrary to the intent of a welfare program.



It was in the article Lucky posted



> The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening,  which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 7, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Never happen.


 
I know just adding fuel to the fire, but as long as we are on this track I just wanted to see how far can we throw our rights away before people start complaining.


----------



## Darksoul (Jun 7, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Test anyone receiving government aid. Welfare, foodstamps, etc.
> 
> Don't want to test?
> 
> Don't use government aid.


 

-Gov't aid? Like tax subsidies? We could test CEOs and shareholders! lol


Andrew


----------



## Steve (Jun 7, 2011)

Carol said:


> It was in the article Lucky posted


I skimmed the article.  I've been hearing bits and pieces about this for a few weeks now.  I had heard that they were being required to fund the test, but I missed the other part.  Thanks.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 7, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> So a man divorces his wife, leaves her with a gang of kids, and you want her out on the street picking up trash before she gets any assistance? And you want to start her on regular drug testing. Its almost like its a crime to be left by your husband.
> Sean



 Most likely, if the woman divorced her husband and has custody of his gang of kids she is taking him to the cleaners just in child support payments. Does the divorced mother currently have a job? Is she receiving alimony payments and does she have possession of the home? What is the income level of the family? Criminal history? 

If the divorced mother does not have employment and is relying on the state to support herself and her kids, then yes, drug test her and put her to work preforming community service until she can support herself and her children. If the husband is not responsible enough to pay support payments then there are ways to force him to do so. I am not against helping people that have had a bit of bad luck and need a hand getting back on their feet, though it may seem so. However, I am totally against people taking advantage of the system and making a career of welfare. There is absolutely no reason why multiple generations of the same family should be on the dole.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 7, 2011)

Government aid. Food stamps. Welfare. HEAP. WIC. Belmont.   Those things.

I'm also perfectly fine with mandating community service in order to -earn- your benis. Grass needs cutting, trash picked up, streets swept up, and so forth.  

As to social security, that ponzi scheme's a different discussion.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 7, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Or are you suggesting that we round up people on welfare and putting them to work on something resembling a chain gang?




No, not a chain gang. I was thinking of something like the Civilian Conservation Corps that was around during the great depression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2011)

hongkongfooey said:


> Most likely, if the woman divorced her husband and has custody of his gang of kids she is taking him to the cleaners just in child support payments. Does the divorced mother currently have a job? Is she receiving alimony payments and does she have possession of the home? What is the income level of the family? Criminal history?
> 
> If the divorced mother does not have employment and is relying on the state to support herself and her kids, then yes, drug test her and put her to work preforming community service until she can support herself and her children. If the husband is not responsible enough to pay support payments then there are ways to force him to do so. I am not against helping people that have had a bit of bad luck and need a hand getting back on their feet, though it may seem so. However, I am totally against people taking advantage of the system and making a career of welfare. There is absolutely no reason why multiple generations of the same family should be on the dole.


Give her a year for God's sake. And its nice to know that its the women who are leaving. Husbands are pillars of the community... even the ones in prison.
Sean


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 7, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Give her a year for God's sake. And its nice to know that its the women who are leaving. Husbands are pillars of the community... even the ones in prison.
> Sean




She can have a year, let's be nice and give her two. She just won't be idle during that time.
Some husbands need to be pilloried. Then again so do some wives.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 7, 2011)

On the surface of this, I can support the intent.  However, I am not sure the enforcement is up to the intent.  What is one parent tests positive?  What is there is a single parent and they test positive for marijuana?  In my nieghborhood alcohol abuse is more prevailant than drug abuse and causes many more problems.  How would this be addressed?  I don't like giving tax dollars to those that will spend it on alcohol and drugs.  However, I also don't want children suffering so politicians can score political points.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2011)

hongkongfooey said:


> She can have a year, let's be nice and give her two. She just won't be idle during that time.
> Some husbands need to be pilloried. Then again so do some wives.


So taking care of a gang of kids is being idle?
Sean


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 7, 2011)

Foster care is a wonderful thing. 
Here's a hint "Don't Break The Law".

simple.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Foster care is a wonderful thing.
> Here's a hint "Don't Break The Law".
> 
> simple.


Yeah, lets take everyone's kids and throw 'em in Foster care. Its wonderful growing up without your parents.
Sean


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 7, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> So taking care of a gang of kids is being idle?
> Sean



 Of course not. But, if the kids are in school, mom should be doing something that resembles work or learning a skill to support herself. She shouldn't be watching Jenny Jones and eating bon-bons a' la Peg Bundy.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 7, 2011)

Out of curiosity....what part of "don't break the law" is so hard? I mean, is it that common in low-income households that people are forced to take illegal narcotics? Do roving gangs break into houses, point a 9mm at peoples heads and say "you dos a line or else Isa gunna smokes youse."

Just curious. Because, and I know this is going to be hard to believe, but, I've never ever ever had anyone point a gun at me, pull a knife on me or even shake a fist at me and threaten to kick my *** if I don't go down the block and buy some 'cronic', or snort a line of rock.  Might be the sheltered living in Buffalo and all.
(And I went to an inner-city high school with gangs, drugs and guns)


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Out of curiosity....what part of "don't break the law" is so hard? I mean, is it that common in low-income households that people are forced to take illegal narcotics? Do roving gangs break into houses, point a 9mm at peoples heads and say "you dos a line or else Isa gunna smokes youse."
> 
> Just curious. Because, and I know this is going to be hard to believe, but, I've never ever ever had anyone point a gun at me, pull a knife on me or even shake a fist at me and threaten to kick my *** if I don't go down the block and buy some 'cronic', or snort a line of rock.  Might be the sheltered living in Buffalo and all.
> (And I went to an inner-city high school with gangs, drugs and guns)


Its not that Bob, by the way its Chronic and you don't snort rock cocaine, its the fact that we need to start drug testing and paying these foster families, and in the end we aren't saving any money. 
Sean


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 7, 2011)

Look, I'm all in favor of mandatory extermination of the entire family, just to save costs, but some might think that excessive. So I try to meet in the middle....sigh. No pleasing everyone.

(Yes, that's meant in jest.)

Anyway, you see how much I know about drugs. I can't even get the usage down right and I've seen all the Kevin Smith films.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 8, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> I know just adding fuel to the fire, but as long as we are on this track I just wanted to see how far can we throw our rights away before people start complaining.


 
welfare is not a right.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 8, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> welfare is not a right.


What are you, some kind of racist?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 8, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Yeah, lets take everyone's kids and throw 'em in Foster care. Its wonderful growing up without your parents.
> Sean


 
Better than not growing up cuz your rockhead daddy beat you to death for asking for some cereal.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 8, 2011)

If I have to take a drug test in order to work at my job...then the people on welfare or unemployment should have to submit to the same thing to get a paycheck.

Otherwise it just wouldn't be fair.

I personally don't think the Government should be able to tell you what you can or what you can not put into your OWN body, but thats a different argument.

But since they are going to restrict me, with my full time 5 day a week job...then they should do the same to those who are using Government funds...my tax dollars.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 8, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> I know just adding fuel to the fire, but as long as we are on this track I just wanted to see how far can we throw our rights away before people start complaining.


 

Hmmm, never knew in any of my law classes that welfare was "a right".

As Benjamin Franklin said (paraphrasing) "You have the RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness, nothing that says you will catch it."


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 8, 2011)

I _can't wait _until the next thread about some government incursion that doesn't only affect poor people when many of you will be furious at the intolerable loss of freedom our government has perpetrated.

4th Amendment.  Look into it.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 8, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I _can't wait _until the next thread about some government incursion that doesn't only affect poor people when many of you will be furious at the intolerable loss of freedom our government has perpetrated.
> 
> 4th Amendment. Look into it.


 

The Patriot Act has suspended the constitution!

Naked Body Scanners
Warrentless Searchs and Wire tapping
----->TSA, Boarder Patrol, etc


Its all an enfringement on our Rights as Americans. My Senator Rand Paul, was fight tooth and nail to at least get provisions added to the Patriot Act to get a timeline put on it, and limit its powers...but to no avail. Even the so called Tea Partiers Voted it back in!

Here is a list of all the folks up there on the hill of who voted for what on the Patriot act

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/patriot-act-extension-passes-senate_n_867736.html


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 8, 2011)

While I agree with this in theory, I'm sure it will work about as well as every other drug-related law.  Those who are intent on getting over can be very creative and industrious in their methods.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 8, 2011)

At first blush, I'd agree with the law as a matter of principle.  Government support shouldn't be used to fund illegal activities, and drug testing isn't itself a violation of privacy or due process. 

Looking between the lines, though, I think this is just an attempt to get rid of welfare recipients as a political goal, and drug-testing was the vehicle of choice because it'd make opponents look like drug-use advocates.  

We shall see how it turns out.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 8, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I _can't wait _until the next thread about some government incursion that doesn't only affect poor people when many of you will be furious at the intolerable loss of freedom our government has perpetrated.
> 
> 4th Amendment. Look into it.


 
Welfare was set up to help someone TEMPORARILY while they got back up on their feet.  It was not set up to be a lifestyle.  I have to be drug tested for my job and paycheck, why shouldn't other people as well when they want free money?

This is not about a "poor people" thing.  This is about people taking advantage of a system that was designed to help people.  One of my good friends worked in the welfare field here in Michigan.  At the time there were no cut offs on welfare, I asked her if they capped it at 5 years what would happen.  Her response was that her caseload and her fellow caseworkers would go from around 125 cases per case worker to around 10-15 cases!  

4th Amendment look into it?  Do you even know what the 4th amendment refers to?  It is about illegal searches and seizures by police.  Please read through that and tell me where it states that the government can not control and regulate social welfare programs, in fact, please tell me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights it spells out welfare being one of the rights given to citizens.


> *Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure*
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 8, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I _can't wait _until the next thread about some government incursion that doesn't only affect poor people when many of you will be furious at the intolerable loss of freedom our government has perpetrated.
> 
> 4th Amendment. Look into it.


 
How the hell does government incursion even enter into this?  They're applying rules to getting government relief, not coming to your door (although, they do that too).

The only incursion involved here is the government rifling through our pockets to pay for these programs.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2011)

hongkongfooey said:


> Hell, lets go a step further. In addition to drug testing before one can receive welfare benefits, recipients should also be made to preform community service and attend a training program to help them obtain some type of job skill. Lots of trash to pick up on the side of our roads. Being poor doesn't give someone the right to sit on their lazy asses all day watching Maury and smoking Newports.



Why don't we make them wear signs on their clothing, like a big yellow patch or something, so everyone knows they are a Welfare recipient?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Why don't we make them wear signs on their clothing, like a big yellow patch or something, so everyone knows they are a Welfare recipient?


I'm sorry, are criminals an ethnicity now?


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Why don't we make them wear signs on their clothing, like a big yellow patch or something, so everyone knows they are a Welfare recipient?


 
Thread Godwined.  Last person out please turn the lights off.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> 4th Amendment look into it?  Do you even know what the 4th amendment refers to?  It is about illegal searches and seizures by police.  Please read through that and tell me where it states that the government can not control and regulate social welfare programs, in fact, please tell me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights it spells out welfare being one of the rights given to citizens.



The Welfare Reform Act allowed, but did not require, states to implement drug testing as a pre-condition to receiving Welfare.  The only state that attempted it previously was Michigan.  That law was struck down in 2000 as unconstitutional, based on 4th Amendment protections against 'unreasonable search' in that the Welfare recipient was being searched unreasonably.  The court's ruling was upheld in 2003, and that was the end of it in Michigan.

So...

The state governments were given explicit permission to implement drug testing for Welfare recipients.  The one court result to date held that it was a violation of 4th Amendment rights.

The answer to your questions are a) yes, I know what the 4th Amendment is; b) yes, the states have the right to regulate Welfare in this way; c) so far, the courts have indeed held that there is a 4th Amendment issue involved, and d) The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not 'give' rights to citizens.  They deny the federal government the right to infringe on specific rights, but they don't 'give' rights to citizens.  If you do not understand that, you do not understand the Constitution.

Welfare was indeed considered a 'right' until President Clinton's administration redefined it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#United_States

It is, however, considered an entitlement.  That means that if a person qualifies for it, they can't be denied it, which is very similar to a right.  If it were not such, then states could refuse Welfare to whomever they liked, such as black people, or Jews, or unmarried couples, or etc, etc, etc.

I am not saying I am a fan of Welfare.  But I think a lot of people who talk about it don't really understand what it is, how it works, or what rights citizens have.

As much as I understand the desire to make sure that people who receive Welfare are actually a) deserving and b) going to try to get off Welfare by finding work, I am unwilling to cast aside civil liberties in order to do so.  It saddens me that both conservatives and liberals are quite often more than willing to wipe their butts with the Constitution when the outcome is something they desire to see.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I'm sorry, are criminals an ethnicity now?



Just following this to its logical conclusion.  If the goal of Welfare is to identify and shame them by forcing them to pick up trash by the side of the road like prisoners, we should probably go the extra step of providing them signs to wear so passing motorists know the difference between them and convicts laboring in similar conditions.

I get the concept of wanting to encourage people to get off Welfare.  I doubt if forcing them to perform menial public tasks in public view so that they can be 'named and shamed' is going to accomplish that, but I'm sure it makes a lot of angry people very happy.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2011)

CoryKS said:


> How the hell does government incursion even enter into this?  They're applying rules to getting government relief, not coming to your door (although, they do that too).
> 
> The only incursion involved here is the government rifling through our pockets to pay for these programs.



http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13040978699174765839&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr



> *Tanya L. MARCHWINSKI, Terri J. Konieczny, and Westside Mothers, on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
> v.
> Douglas E. HOWARD, in his official capacity as Director of The Family  Independence Agency of Michigan, a Governmental Department of the State  of Michigan, Defendant.*
> 
> ...





> Plaintiffs Tanya Marchwinski, Terry Konieczny and Westside Mothers filed  their Complaint on September 30, 1999, alleging that the Family  Independence Program ("FIP") drug testing requirement violates the * Fourth Amendment* of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs bring  this action on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of all adult  residents of Michigan whose ability to receive FIP benefits is or will  be conditioned on their willingness to submit to drug testing.[1]



The plaintiffs won their case and the subsequent appeal, and the law was struck down in Michigan.  It was a Fourth Amendment case, as noted above.  _"Unreasonable search and seizure"_ is the affected clause.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Just following this to its logical conclusion.  If the goal of Welfare is to identify and shame them by forcing them to pick up trash by the side of the road like prisoners, we should probably go the extra step of providing them signs to wear so passing motorists know the difference between them and convicts laboring in similar conditions.
> 
> I get the concept of wanting to encourage people to get off Welfare.  I doubt if forcing them to perform menial public tasks in public view so that they can be 'named and shamed' is going to accomplish that, but I'm sure it makes a lot of angry people very happy.


Black and white stripes are out of style?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Black and white stripes are out of style?



Another option, it seems.  So long as the intent is clear - we want people on Welfare to be publicly shamed for being recipients of public assistance, right?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 8, 2011)

It's not "menial tasks to shame them". it's honest fricken work.  Or should I feel like a criminal when I sweep up the street in front of my house?

Every city and town has areas that need some attention. Switch to workfare instead of welfare, and require that those getting the government money, as long as they are fit and able, show up and put some hours in.  Sweep the streets, pick up the trash, go around to old folks houses with lawn mowers and weed wackers and help them keep their yards looking decent.  In the winter, sidewalks and driveways need snow shoveled and ice removed.  

How far we have fallen that honest work is seen as 'shameful'.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> It's not "menial tasks to shame them". it's honest fricken work.  Or should I feel like a criminal when I sweep up the street in front of my house?
> 
> Every city and town has areas that need some attention. Switch to workfare instead of welfare, and require that those getting the government money, as long as they are fit and able, show up and put some hours in.  Sweep the streets, pick up the trash, go around to old folks houses with lawn mowers and weed wackers and help them keep their yards looking decent.  In the winter, sidewalks and driveways need snow shoveled and ice removed.
> 
> How far we have fallen that honest work is seen as 'shameful'.



The recommendation was to pick up trash by the side of the road.  I was responding to this: _"Lots of trash to pick up on the side of our roads."_

As to workfare itself - it exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare-to-work

The state of Michigan requires it, as do many others:

http://www.michigan.gov/mdcd/0,1607,7-122-1679_1822---,00.html

People who rail against Welfare are commonly unfamiliar with what it is or how it works.  They just have the notion of people _"smoking Newports"_ (by the way, how is that not an ethnic commentary?) and _"watching Maury."_

Before being against something, perhaps it would be good to know what it is one is against.  Just sayin'...

And yes, I'm not a fan of Welfare.  I'm just a bigger fan of the Constitution, and not so much into shaming people who receive public assistance, and yes, I think that's a component of the anger people who are _'against lazy bums getting Welfare'_ think should happen.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill said all I would have said and more, thank you Bill.

To that I will add though that the concept of "voluntary" actions that involve the loss of rights is a troubling path to justify.  That precise concept has given us the TSA and the unlicensed ability for private workers to search and detain all and sundry without cause or justification all because we "choose" to enter an airport.

When you get right down to it, nearly everything we do is "voluntary".  Ride a bus, take a train, get a loan, enter a public building or accommodation...everything that happens after you leave your house, essentially.  This justification is simply a means for the government to abrogate all of our rights whenever they feel like it, with this flimsy excuse as justification.  It is obviously contrary to the intent of the 4th, no matter what the courts may say.  Sure, you may not like poor people abusing your money (which is why I pointed out all the other means that people get your precious tax money), but is it really worth sacrificing all of our liberty to fight it?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 8, 2011)

If I have to take and pass said test as a condition of employment, so should someone who is going to get free money.
If 1 is unconstitutional, then both are.


----------



## MJS (Jun 8, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> And so it has begun.
> I am sure lawsuits will be filed, and I am sure there will be screams from both ends of the spectrum in regards to this issue. Where do you stand?
> 
> http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/0...-requiring-drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/


 
Good!  Its about time they started cracking down on the people who are on welfare.  If we're lucky, more requirements will be put into place.  Slightly off topic, but just today, in the paper, I was reading about a family who was living in disgusting conditions, total filth!  The kids were taken away, Thank God, and the parents arrested.  The article said that the wife, only showed any sort of emotion, when she heard that the $654/month is state aid, was being taken away from her.  

So, to her and all the other people out there that dont use the money for what it should be used for, I say good, let this serve as a lesson to you!  

In case anyone noticed, the welfare topic is one that always gets under my skin. LOL.  Why?  Let me be clear...I'm not against the state helping anyone who needs it.  But, there needs to be a line drawn, limits put on, etc.  In other words, welfare, IMO, isn't a life long free ride.  Unless you have no arms or legs, then get your *** out there and get a damn job!  Get your *** out there and do community service!  Do something, and yes, theres things to do.  If you're gonna get aid, you should be under strict guidelines.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The Welfare Reform Act allowed, but did not require, states to implement drug testing as a pre-condition to receiving Welfare. The only state that attempted it previously was Michigan. That law was struck down in 2000 as unconstitutional, based on 4th Amendment protections against 'unreasonable search' in that the Welfare recipient was being searched unreasonably. The court's ruling was upheld in 2003, and that was the end of it in Michigan.
> 
> So...
> 
> ...


 
My point exactly, you have liberal courts that redefine things to make it fit.  I remember the case and thought it was a load of bullock then and still do.  I would have liked to have seen the issue pushed higher up with the federal statute, and at the very least redefine it to make it pass.

How many here had to take a drug test for employment?  Almost all of the businesses in our city require it, from government positions to factory workers.  How is it any different?


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 8, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If I have to take and pass said test as a condition of employment, so should someone who is going to get free money.
> If 1 is unconstitutional, then both are.


 
I said the exact same thing a few pages ago!

Totally Agree!


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The state of Michigan requires it, as do many others:
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/mdcd/0,1607,7-122-1679_1822---,00.html
> 
> People who rail against Welfare are commonly unfamiliar with what it is or how it works.


 
I am very familiar with the program and my experience with it is that it's a joke and just another paper hoop to jump through to get money.  Yes, I have known people that really do need/want it and are successful at finding a job and getting money, but again we are talking about the "lifers" that see welfare as a lifestyle.  They do just enough to say they are in compliance, but don't really do anything.

I have friends that work in welfare and most of them are VERY disgruntled because of the lifers and their biggest complaint?  The people who really need the programs or the help usually don't qualify and don't get what they need.  The system is broke, and definately needs to be fixed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If I have to take and pass said test as a condition of employment, so should someone who is going to get free money.
> If 1 is unconstitutional, then both are.



Do you work for the government?  I don't recall any federal laws that make drug testing of employees mandatory for private employers who are not government defense contractors.

And let's take it again to its logical conclusion.  45% of the US pays NO taxes at the end of the year.  None, zero, zippo.  They get government services, though; just like me, and I pay taxes.  So let's subject them to drug testing too.  I mean everyone who had a net zero tax bill last year.  How's about it, Bob?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> My point exactly, you have liberal courts that redefine things to make it fit.  I remember the case and thought it was a load of bullock then and still do.  I would have liked to have seen the issue pushed higher up with the federal statute, and at the very least redefine it to make it pass.



You can disagree all you like; it's the law now.



> How many here had to take a drug test for employment?  Almost all of the businesses in our city require it, from government positions to factory workers.  How is it any different?


Very simple.

Yes, I had to take a drug test for my current employment.  My current employer requires it.  Not the government.  I was not compelled to take the drug test, I did not have to take the job.

Ah, you say, the Welfare recipient doesn't have to take the Welfare either, so what's the difference?  The difference is that there is no law saying I must have a job.  There is a law stating that if I meet the conditions to receive Welfare, I cannot be denied it.  One is a legal entitlement and the other is not.

I did not define Welfare as a right (and later as an entitlement) and I'm not saying it is right.  It is, however, the law.  And that's what is different between Welfare and voluntary employment.

Consider it this way.  Voting is a right.  And if we require drug testing in order that a person exercise that right, is that legal?

Some might think it is a good idea, legal or not.  But chances are that it would fail the same Fourth Amendment test as the Welfare drug-test law did in Michigan.  You cannot deny someone a right (or entitlement) by putting up conditions that infringe on their civil liberties.

I'm not happy about the idea of Welfare as an entitlement; but it is one.  That said, we cannot trample the Constitution because we are unhappy that people abuse Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Compensation, Workman's Compensation, Social Security Disability benefits, VA services and payments, military and police and fire medical retirements, and so on.  Combat fraud?  I'm all for it.  Limit the amount of time people can draw certain kinds of benefits?  Sounds great to me.  Infringe on the rights of citizens because it makes me angry that lazy people abuse Welfare?  No, I won't do that.

*Constitution first.*  All other considerations second.  There can be no other answer for me.  Otherwise, I am a '_fair weather friend'_ of the Constitution, supporting it when I agree with the outcome and ignoring it otherwise.  A liberal court said that drug testing of Welfare recipients infringes on their Fourth Amendment rights?  That's the way our system works, whether we agree with the court's decision or not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> I am very familiar with the program and my experience with it is that it's a joke and just another paper hoop to jump through to get money.  Yes, I have known people that really do need/want it and are successful at finding a job and getting money, but again we are talking about the "lifers" that see welfare as a lifestyle.  They do just enough to say they are in compliance, but don't really do anything.
> 
> I have friends that work in welfare and most of them are VERY disgruntled because of the lifers and their biggest complaint?  The people who really need the programs or the help usually don't qualify and don't get what they need.  The system is broke, and definately needs to be fixed.



http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/michigan_house_approves_4-year.html



> The House passed legislation Thursday by a 72-36 mostly party line  vote that would cap assistance at four years for able-bodied adults with  limited exceptions. The bill next goes to the Senate.
> Republicans  say their bill exempts senior citizens, pregnant mothers, domestic  violence victims, adults who are physically or mentally incapacitated  and adults with a disabled child at home from an assistance time limit.
> *Michigan's  current law has a similar time limit* but it has multiple exceptions.  The current law is due to sunset in late September unless it's renewed  or changed by lawmakers.



Lifetime caps on Welfare are the rule and not the exception.  If you have a problem with people who exploit the loopholes, I can certainly understand that.  I do not see how subjecting all who are on Welfare to drug testing and making them pay for it, or putting them on road crews, fixes that problem.  And just FYI...even according to the critics of this proposal above say it would affect 12,600 people in Michigan.  Not a huge percentage of the state population or even the percentage of people receiving Welfare.  We're not talking about a lot of 'lifers' here.

But I sure do know a lot of cops who are retired due to disability nowadays.  One I know has a nice boat, a camper, jet skis, but he is 100% disabled after 20 years as a beat cop.  However, as he told me, his 40 year retirement would have been a lot less than his 20 year disability pension.  Yeah, let's go after those 12,600 Welfare cheats by infringing on everybody's rights.  That's the ticket.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 8, 2011)

This sucks. People should be made to use money for what it should be used for?  Listen, I use government money, I have a bachelor of arts, but as anyone knows by now, that is not a skill based degree so when you get one you usually have to do something else. I'm trying to decide what skill based program i want to gointo. I applied for jobs but didn't get one. I do live with my parents but i also get some money from the government to help me with expenses. Does that mean i should only have to use it for food and i can't use it to pay for my shotokan karate? Because I do. 

Also, what if someone's on drugs? You gonna deny them money so they can't pay for a place to live, what then? You gonna make em live on the street? Oh, thats really gonna help them there, they'll surely get there help there! Right on.

I think people should work towards improving and creating help, programs for addicts instead of this.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 8, 2011)

Look, legalize drugs and the problem goes away.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 8, 2011)

bill mattocks said:


> *constitution first.* all other considerations second. There can be no other answer for me. Otherwise, i am a '_fair weather friend'_ of the constitution, supporting it when i agree with the outcome and ignoring it otherwise. A liberal court said that drug testing of welfare recipients infringes on their fourth amendment rights? That's the way our system works, whether we agree with the court's decision or not.


 

well said!


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Just following this to its logical conclusion. If the goal of Welfare is to identify and shame them by forcing them to pick up trash by the side of the road like prisoners, we should probably go the extra step of providing them signs to wear so passing motorists know the difference between them and convicts laboring in similar conditions.
> 
> I get the concept of wanting to encourage people to get off Welfare. I doubt if forcing them to perform menial public tasks in public view so that they can be 'named and shamed' is going to accomplish that, but I'm sure it makes a lot of angry people very happy.


 
so what you consider shameful to pick up trash now?
I started taking my kids out once a week and cleaning up some trash in our local area... I guess we should be ashamed.

or is it just manual labor that is shameful to you?
I guess all those hard working immigrants waiting on the corner at home depot should be ashamed that they are willing to work limitless hours a day doing any form of manual labor.. I guess you just support the idea of immigrants and not what they do...

or is it something else you find shameful?
like reason, and logic...
reading your posts and circular logic I swear you would throw the baby out with the bathwater every chance you can get.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 8, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> My point exactly, you have liberal courts that redefine things to make it fit. I remember the case and thought it was a load of bullock then and still do. I would have liked to have seen the issue pushed higher up with the federal statute, and at the very least redefine it to make it pass.
> 
> How many here had to take a drug test for employment? Almost all of the businesses in our city require it, from government positions to factory workers. How is it any different?


 
thats my biggest problem with some of these court decisions. I feel to often that the decisions are made based on personal opinion rather then the law. One needs merely look at any week in the life of the ninth "circus" court and clearly see this to be the case... and their newest inductee into the screw America group... the sister of the head of La Raza...yippeeeeee...


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 8, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If I have to take and pass said test as a condition of employment, so should someone who is going to get free money.
> If 1 is unconstitutional, then both are.



I think they both should be unconstitutional, although the courts clearly disagree.  When faced with an unconstitutional employer action and constitutional governmental inaction towards those on welfare, the answer isn't to make the government act unconstitutionally.  The answer is to make the employers act constitutionally.

Although I know of course that they have been held to act constitutionally.  I disagree.  The guarantees of the Constitution are meaningless if tyranny can be "legally" put into place by private means.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/michigan_house_approves_4-year.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yep, Michigan FINALLY passed those limits.  The problem is the "12,000" number.  Do you really believe that number?  Michigan now needs to redefine "physically disabled".  Phantom backpain in a 20 year old?  Yep, lifetime welfare.  Asthma?  yep, lifetime welfare. 4 year old can't read?  Yep, learning disability more money!  

That's the bigger issue, there is no teeth in the law for defrauding the state when you are caught.  Last time I talked with my friend, she said that they are not cut off from service for fraud.  They were penalized a percentage of what they got to pay it back, and it came out to about $5 a month.

I don't agree either with your example.  Even in our department our supervisors are paying more for their retirement because one of the Sgt's "hurt his back" and got a medical retirement without paying into the program when they got it.  They ended up paying alot out of their checks to cover that.

How do you define physically disabled?  To what extent?  I think we can all find examples we would agree with, such as paralysis.  But, what about the phantom 'back pain' and then see them out and about running their own businesses and such.  What should happen to them if caught defrauding?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Do you work for the government? I don't recall any federal laws that make drug testing of employees mandatory for private employers who are not government defense contractors.
> 
> And let's take it again to _*its logical conclusion*_. 45% of the US pays NO taxes at the end of the year. None, zero, zippo. They get government services, though; just like me, and I pay taxes. So let's subject them to drug testing too. I mean everyone who had a net zero tax bill last year. How's about it, Bob?


 
replace this with "_*where I want it to go*_"
no true logic, only more of the whole..... do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain.. I am the great and powerful OBAMA!.....ummm no.

the logical conclusion is there is a growing minority of americans who are abusing and leeching money from the rest of us through nefarious means, and welfare programs are programs designed to help those that need help, and are not a right but a conditional gift that require them to meet certian requirements to get it. _*Drug testing is not an invasion of a persons privacy, they do not have to turn the results in to the government, they only have to submit a positive drug test and be reimbursed for that positive drug test to qualify.*_

let that soak in for a minute, then tell me how thats an invasion of their rights?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 8, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> This sucks. People should be made to use money for what it should be used for? Listen, I use government money, I have a bachelor of arts, but as anyone knows by now, that is not a skill based degree so when you get one you usually have to do something else. I'm trying to decide what skill based program i want to gointo. I applied for jobs but didn't get one. I do live with my parents but i also get some money from the government to help me with expenses. Does that mean i should only have to use it for food and i can't use it to pay for my shotokan karate? Because I do.
> 
> Also, what if someone's on drugs? You gonna deny them money so they can't pay for a place to live, what then? You gonna make em live on the street? Oh, thats really gonna help them there, they'll surely get there help there! Right on.
> 
> I think people should work towards improving and creating help, programs for addicts instead of this.


 
Blade you really do seem like a gentle soul, a genuinely sweet person. Even when people do not agree with you, or adamantly say something/post something you dont like you keep that sweet demeanor, and thats a rare thing in these times, hell probably anytime.
but yes I have to say I do not get it. You have proven you are able to stick to something and earn a degree, you are choosing to not work at this time. You stated yourself you are perfectly able to work, you are just not pursuing it because you dont know what you want to do. I do not feel that this is a valid reason for public assistance of any form. I mean you can literally get a job working a cash register at a gas station, or flipping burgers in a restaurant, or any number of thousands of different jobs while you are pursuing what you really want to do. I also believe that is people want to live outside the law, in this case with drug abuse then yes let them live on the streets if they can not otherwise support themselves. If any other criminal chooses a life of crime then they have three options... go to jail, live outside the law, or clean up and live a lawful life.
I have no pity for those that want to do the crime then whine about the lifestyle.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> so what you consider shameful to pick up trash now?



No....

I consider statements about Welfare recipients _"smoking Newports"_ and _"watching Maury"_ to be somewhat indicative of the mindset that thinks picking up trash by the roadside is a suitable use of Welfare recipient's labor.  I pictured them out there side-by-side with convicted criminals who currently pick up trash by the roadside in many states, as I am sure it was intended.



> I started taking my kids out once a week and cleaning up some trash in our local area... I guess we should be ashamed.



Nothing of the kind.



> or is it just manual labor that is shameful to you?



I'd have to be ashamed of myself, then.  I started paying taxes and filing income taxes when I was 13 years old, on the labor I did in the cornfields of Illinois, and I haven't missed a year since.



> I guess all those hard working immigrants waiting on the corner at home depot should be ashamed that they are willing to work limitless hours a day doing any form of manual labor.. I guess you just support the idea of immigrants and not what they do...



You would guess wrong.



> or is it something else you find shameful?



Yes.  The statements made in this thread that demonstrate that few complaining about Welfare have any idea how it works, who is entitled to it, how long the entitlement lasts, the fact that Welfare-to-work is the law currently and has been for over a decade, the fact that most states have lifetime caps on Welfare benefits, etc, etc, etc.  In other words, I find it shameful how many people have _'Welfare Queen'_ concepts about those on public assistance, even when I myself am not a huge fan of Welfare.

You want to know what I find shameful?  I find it shameful that people have a problem with Welfare, but don't have a problem with Social Security Disability pensions currently being abused by the middle class, or blue-collar middle-class 'disability' pensions for police, fire, and military becoming the norm instead of the exception.  Welfare fraud costs us a lot more than Welfare itself - which would include the doctors, lawyers, and judges involved in handing it out, to the tune of billions of dollars per year; those who would remain utterly untouched by any drug testing requirements.  

I find it shameful that so many people are willing to toss the Constitution under the bus any time they find it convenient, just so long as the people they dislike are the ones being harmed.  I find it shameful that people who profess to love the Constitution wipe their butts with it whenever civil liberties are mentioned in the same breath as illegal immigrants or people on public assistance.  I find that shameful.



> like reason, and logic...
> reading your posts and circular logic I swear you would throw the baby out with the bathwater every chance you can get.



My reason and logic are simple.  Don't infringe on the Constitution just because it gives you a result you desire.  Want to catch illegal aliens? Fine, great!  Just don't infringe on their civil liberties to do so - it infringes on MY liberties too.  Want to catch Welfare cheats?  Fine, great!  Do so!  But don't infringe on their civil liberties.  Those are MY liberties also.  Want to stop drug dealers and drug users?  Excellent!  Just do it legally.

If my logic is circular, then so is the logic of the courts that found the Welfare drug-testing law in Michigan to be an illegal infringement on the Fourth Amendment.  I get that people don't agree with the ruling, but it is the ruling, and it's the law now.  Same for the parts of the Arizona immigration law that got tossed.  Same with the parts of the Health Care Reform Act that are currently being dismembered - it's all the same.  Whether you like the law or don't like the law, support the Constitution.  If you're willing to toss it out for the sake of convenience, then your own rights are not worth spit - someday someone will toss out your rights because they don't like you, and to hell with your rights.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No....
> 
> I consider statements about Welfare recipients _"smoking Newports"_ and _"watching Maury"_ to be somewhat indicative of the mindset that thinks picking up trash by the roadside is a suitable use of Welfare recipient's labor. I pictured them out there side-by-side with convicted criminals who currently pick up trash by the roadside in many states, as I am sure it was intended.
> 
> ...


 
the problem is ther eis no infringement on the consitution.
people applying do not have to submit a failed drug test. The merely have to submit a positive test and the fees the spent and the cost is reimbursed to them.
how is that an infringement?
there is no unreasonable search and seizure.
there is no violation of their privacy.
they are simply providing proof that they are not on drugs.... drugies can away in privacy and inject another hit or heroin without feeling any the worse about themselves


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> replace this with "_*where I want it to go*_"
> no true logic, only more of the whole..... do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain.. I am the great and powerful OBAMA!.....ummm no.



I voted for John McCain.



> the logical conclusion is there is a growing minority of americans who are abusing and leeching money from the rest of us through nefarious means, and welfare programs are programs designed to help those that need help, and are not a right but a conditional gift that require them to meet certian requirements to get it. _*Drug testing is not an invasion of a persons privacy, they do not have to turn the results in to the government, they only have to submit a positive drug test and be reimbursed for that positive drug test to qualify.*_



The courts have found otherwise.



> let that soak in for a minute, then tell me how thats an invasion of their rights?



I don't have to tell you.  The courts told you.  Marchwinski v Howard, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Supreme Court refused to grant cert, so that's where it ended, which makes it binding precedent for the states covered by the 6th federal district.  Other courts may find differently, of course.  But I think I can say with some certainty that whether you agree or not, it is most definitely an infringement in my neck of the woods.

I found this quote by one of the judges interesting:



> In halting the implementation of Michigans drug testing law, U.S.    District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state's rationale  for   testing welfare recipients _could be used for testing the parents  of all   children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief,  educational grants or   loans, public education or any other benefit  from that State._



And as I said, 45% of our nation pays no net income tax.  I guess they get benefits they don't pay for if they drive on our roads or take a leak at a roadside rest stop paid for by the state.  I think they should all be given drug tests too, if the basis for testing is receiving 'free services' from the government.  Nearly half our nation receives 'free services' from the government; meaning on my tax dime.  It's my money - you go pee in a cup now, please.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> the problem is ther eis no infringement on the consitution.



Marchwinski v.   Howard say you are incorrect.



> people applying do not have to submit a failed drug test. The merely have to submit a positive test and the fees the spent and the cost is reimbursed to them.
> how is that an infringement?



Marchwinski v.   Howard says it is.



> there is no unreasonable search and seizure.
> there is no violation of their privacy.
> they are simply providing proof that they are not on drugs.... drugies can away in privacy and inject another hit or heroin without feeling any the worse about themselves



Marchwinski v.   Howard says it is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

I'm not sure what part of that you're unclear on.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 8, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Blade you really do seem like a gentle soul, a genuinely sweet person. Even when people do not agree with you, or adamantly say something/post something you dont like you keep that sweet demeanor, and thats a rare thing in these times, hell probably anytime.



Heh. thanks.  Like my quote in TF profile says, no one here harshed my mellow enough 



			
				luckyboxer said:
			
		

> but yes I have to say I do not get it. You have proven you are able to stick to something and earn a degree, you are choosing to not work at this time. You stated yourself you are perfectly able to work, you are just not pursuing it because you dont know what you want to do. I do not feel that this is a valid reason for public assistance of any form.



Actually, I have applied for jobs. I just didn't get them. Last time I applied for one, I asked my then bf, the evil ex i wrote about, to help with the resume, but i didnt realized til after he sabotaged it by making stupid spelling mistakes and lying on it that i was a orange belt when then i was a yellow belt. So of course i didnt get that job. And I have no support from my family, who never wanted me to have a job like other students have had, they say go do the skills something or other and then get a good job.  I was just never encouraged to have a job like other students have had. 

and no, i'm sorry, i don't believe in throwing drugs addicts or alcohol addicts out on the streets, thats not going to help them clean up, there are no help programs out there on cold park benches at night.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Marchwinski v. Howard say you are incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

no that court decision does not make this unconstitutional.
look at it again.

The difference is that the drug test is done by a third party and the results are never given to the government unless the person voluntarily hands the results over. Since they will know that the results are negative they would not have to hand it over and then not have anyone know they are drug users. This is a different approach to the same thing.
besides the court case you mentioned needs to be relooked at anyways since its a lower court decision that only was upheald because when reviewed had a 6-6 tie and therefor nothing was done.
I think that a court challenge on this will come across quite different this time.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> no that court decision does not make this unconstitutional.
> look at it again.



Oh, I see what you're getting at.  I thought you were insisting that mandatory drug tests in order to get Welfare benefits was constitutional, and that to me seemed beyond belief, since a federal circuit court ruled EXACTLY that.

You mean it's different this time around.  Well, we'll find out.  Different courts rule differently.



> The difference is that the drug test is done by a third party and the results are never given to the government unless the person voluntarily hands the results over. Since they will know that the results are negative they would not have to hand it over and then not have anyone know they are drug users. This is a different approach to the same thing.
> besides the court case you mentioned needs to be relooked at anyways since its a lower court decision that only was upheald because when reviewed had a 6-6 tie and therefor nothing was done.
> I think that a court challenge on this will come across quite different this time.



Could be.  The 11th Circuit is very different than the 6th Circuit.  However, if this comes down as anti-Fourth Amendment, it could well end up in front of SCOTUS.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 8, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Yeah, lets take everyone's kids and throw 'em in Foster care. Its wonderful growing up without your parents.
> Sean


 Well, if the biologics are teaching their healthy kids that collecting welfare is a good thing because the world owes them a living, foster care is most likely the better option.

Also better than living with drug-addled parents.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 8, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Well, if the biologics are teaching their healthy kids that collecting welfare is a good thing because the world owes them a living, foster care is most likely the better option.
> 
> Also better than living with drug-addled parents.


Foster care has its share of night mares.
Sean


----------



## Scott T (Jun 8, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Foster care has its share of night mares.
> Sean


Absolutely, if the foster parents aren't vetted properly.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Do you work for the government?  I don't recall any federal laws that make drug testing of employees mandatory for private employers who are not government defense contractors.
> 
> And let's take it again to its logical conclusion.  45% of the US pays NO taxes at the end of the year.  None, zero, zippo.  They get government services, though; just like me, and I pay taxes.  So let's subject them to drug testing too.  I mean everyone who had a net zero tax bill last year.  How's about it, Bob?


Don't know about Bob, but, fine with me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Do you work for the government?  I don't recall any federal laws that make drug testing of employees mandatory for private employers who are not government defense contractors.
> 
> And let's take it again to its logical conclusion.  45% of the US pays NO taxes at the end of the year.  None, zero, zippo.  They get government services, though; just like me, and I pay taxes.  So let's subject them to drug testing too.  I mean everyone who had a net zero tax bill last year.  How's about it, Bob?



My last several employers insisted on them. We had 'discussions'. 

As to the other part, sure.  Test everyone with a net zero tax bill.
Won't include me. I pay taxes. I don't get refunds. I'm a contributor. Tax-payer rather than 'funds loaner at no interest'.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Why don't we make them wear signs on their clothing, like a big yellow patch or something, so everyone knows they are a Welfare recipient?



 Do you have a problem with making someone actually earn the assistance they are given? It's pretty low of you to try and equate a person preforming community service in order to collect government assistance to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany.:disgust:


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Another option, it seems.  So long as the intent is clear - we want people on Welfare to be publicly shamed for being recipients of public assistance, right?



No! I want it so they have to give something back to their communities for the assistance they are provided, instead of sitting back waiting for payday.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The recommendation was to pick up trash by the side of the road.  I was responding to this: _"Lots of trash to pick up on the side of our roads."_
> 
> As to workfare itself - it exists.
> 
> ...



 Just remember idle hands are the Devil's tools. By the way, a whole lot of white people smoke Newports so stop trying to frame my comment as racist.


----------



## Flea (Jun 8, 2011)

The law is a bad idea.  Speaking from my own experience, at my agency we serve a lot of people on the brink of homelessness or already homeless.  Public assistance is a crucial and usually indispensable part of getting out of that cycle, regardless of whether drugs figure in one's situation.

In applying for SSI ("welfare") you can usually get an instant answer as to whether you qualify based on your assets.  But if you qualify it takes several weeks for that first deposit to come in.  That's a big enough burden for most of our clients, but adding another $50 charge (or whatever it is) puts SSI out of reach for most people.  Think about it:  are you going to sink a precious sum of money into something that _might_ pay off .. several weeks later .. if you need lots of critical things in your life _right now_?  Things like diapers, medication, a bus pass, or groceries if you're lucky enough to have a kitchen?  It's a no-brainer how that decision is going to go for most people.

A fee like that is one thing if you have some resources, but for many people it _will_ make the difference between a new life or staying on the streets.  Which in turn will put them at a much higher risk for drug use and other crimes.  Yet another example of pandering and myopic public policy.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 8, 2011)

But, all they have to do is, not do drugs and obey the law to pass.

That can't be that hard can it?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 8, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But, all they have to do is, not do drugs and obey the law to pass.
> 
> That can't be that hard can it?


Apparently it is just too arduous for some.


----------



## Flea (Jun 9, 2011)

No, coming up with the testing fee is too much for some.  Again, if it came down to baby formula today, or going hungry for something that _might_ pay off several weeks down the road, what's it gonna be?  People don't apply for SSI because they have spare cash to throw around.  They do it because they're desperate.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 9, 2011)

Simple solution.  Do the tests in real time, no waiting for results.
Pass, here's your money back.
Fail, here put these shiny bracelets on and go with the nice man with a badge.

Hell, I'm sure NY or California would even qualify for bulk rates on the kits.


----------



## Mark Jordan (Jun 9, 2011)

It's about time and I hope the rest will follow.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Simple solution.  Do the tests in real time, no waiting for results.
> Pass, here's your money back.
> Fail, here put these shiny bracelets on and go with the nice man with a badge.
> 
> Hell, I'm sure NY or California would even qualify for bulk rates on the kits.


I don't know if there is an instant test for marijuana, I do know there is one for opiates...


----------



## Flea (Jun 9, 2011)

Nothing with Social Security happens in real time.  Pass, here's your money several weeks later.  Your reimbursement may or may not come with your initial check.

Fail, I'm no attorney but don't police have to catch you _in the act_ of drug use in order to make an arrest?  have some grudging respect if there were some mention of help offered to those who fail the test, but that's not in the article.  No, it's just another brick wall for those who are struggling the hardest to climb over.

Now if FL or any other state mandates drug testing for CEOs whose corporations get welfare, then I'd be all about it.  They also would, of course, have to pay for their own tests as well.  Fair is fair.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 9, 2011)

Flea said:


> Nothing with Social Security happens in real time.  Pass, here's your money several weeks later.  Your reimbursement may or may not come with your initial check.
> 
> Fail, I'm no attorney but don't police have to catch you _in the act_ of drug use in order to make an arrest?  have some grudging respect if there were some mention of help offered to those who fail the test, but that's not in the article.  No, it's just another brick wall for those who are struggling the hardest to climb over.
> 
> Now if FL or any other state mandates drug testing for CEOs whose corporations get welfare, then I'd be all about it.  They also would, of course, have to pay for their own tests as well.  Fair is fair.


No, they don't. Convoluted logic coming.
By entering a government facility, you agree to be searched.
By agreeing to this search, it becomes legal.
By applying for aid, you agree to comply with the terms.
The terms say 'you take drug test'.
By -failing- the test, you justify the arrest for -use-, the proof of which is the test results.

Now, Bill will cite Amendment IV.


> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,  and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be  violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,  supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place  to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



The key word here is '_unreasonable_'.
I personally find it entirely reasonable that someone applying for tax payer assistance be a law abiding citizen.

But the IVth is irrelevant having been removed from consideration by the Patriot Act, which authorized secret courts who authorize secret warrants to allow any search for any reason without any notice and no you can't see it or tell anyone about it.

So, with the 4th removed, regardless if it is reasonable or not, you can do it.



Of course, my personal take is eliminate all drug laws period, and make it a non issue. Legalization would eliminate the black market, remove much of the reason for existence of drug gangs, drastically shrink their profits, and reduce prison populations and court burdens as minor offenders no longer are run through the system. LEO's would also be freed up to handle much more pressing matters than busting someone for a couple of joints.
But that is another long article to post when I don't have this nagging migraine.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 9, 2011)

what the **** is so hard to understand about "we dont want you to BREAK THE DAMNED LAW with the tax dollars we are giving you"????

which idiot moron judge doesnt like that simple idea?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I _can't wait _until the next thread about some government incursion that doesn't only affect poor people when many of you will be furious at the intolerable loss of freedom our government has perpetrated.
> 
> 4th Amendment.  Look into it.



How 'bout this... I'll give two ****s about some crackheads right to free money when my right to Carry a weapon to protect myself from said crackhead is respected.

The Second is just as valid as the Fourth.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 9, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I don't know if there is an instant test for marijuana, I do know there is one for opiates...


There is. Every new construction job I go on I'm pre-screened. I know the results before I leave the lab door.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> How 'bout this... I'll give two ****s about some crackheads right to free money when my right to Carry a weapon to protect myself from said crackhead is respected.
> 
> The Second is just as valid as the Fourth.


The Second amendment, is supposed to allow us to ensure the rest aren't taken from us.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Now, Bill will cite Amendment IV.



I'm all done with that in this thread.  You guys use it for TP when it makes you think you're getting those no-good [insert hated group here] bastiches.



> The key word here is '_unreasonable_'.
> I personally find it entirely reasonable that someone applying for tax payer assistance be a law abiding citizen.



So you should have no problem with TSA searches.  45% of all US citizens pay no taxes, so effectively almost half the country is on 'tax payer assistance'.  I repeat, if you're not paying taxes, you receive benefits for which you do not pay.



> But the IVth is irrelevant having been removed from consideration by the Patriot Act, which authorized secret courts who authorize secret warrants to allow any search for any reason without any notice and no you can't see it or tell anyone about it.



It hasn't gone quite that far yet.  It's more about wiretaps and searches of private databases without a warrant, not searches of people's bodies and the contents thereof.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> what the **** is so hard to understand about "we dont want you to BREAK THE DAMNED LAW with the tax dollars we are giving you"????



A lot, actually.

As I said before, if you're part of the 45% of this nation that does not pay net taxes, you are also getting government services for free.  That means that by your values, almost half the country has no right to object to mandatory drug testing anytime they drive on the public highways, visit a national park, or do anything else that is paid for with tax dollars, which they did not contribute to.

As well, Welfare and other social services are an entitlement.  I am not saying I'm happy about that, but they are in fact an entitlement.  That means that if they qualify for the assistance, you cannot deny it to them.  The fact that they break or don't break OTHER laws is completely irrelevant to them getting this assistance; the law says they are entitled to it.  If you have a problem with that (and I certainly do), then the solution is to change the law, not to ignore it when it is convenient to you.



> which idiot moron judge doesnt like that simple idea?



Any moron judge who loves the Constitution more than they love feel good laws that make it seem like we're doing something about Welfare abuse.

Personally, I'm *all for* those kinds of judges.  You are too, when they come down on the side of the Constitution instead of feel-good laws regarding oh, say, the 2nd Amendment.  The Constitution is not your pal when you feel all happy about what it says.  It's your friend when you dislike what it means; or you're no friend of the Constitution.

If you ever took a moment to look at the anti-gun websites and discussion forums, you'd find ranters going on about 'moron judges' who don't understand simple concepts like gun registration; if you don't violate the law, why do you have a problem with it?  The whole idea of the 2nd Amendment is lost on them.  You're just different sides of the same Constitution-hating coin, IMHO.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 9, 2011)

Big Don said:


> The Second amendment, is supposed to allow us to ensure the rest aren't taken from us.



Where does it say that?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 9, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> The Second is just as valid as the Fourth.



So your attitude is if one equally valid amendment is being crapped on, then you don't care if all of the amendments are being crapped on?

As I said before, the answer to injustice is to correct the injustice, not to perpetrate other injustices so that everything is equally unjust.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 9, 2011)

Something has been bugging me about this thread.  Something that I haven't seen mentioned.  Let us assume that a person does not use drugs and is in desperate need of assistance from the government for whatever valid reason.  They are told they must pay for a drug test to qualify for the assistance.  If they are already in desperate straights, how do they pay for the test?  The cheapest test I have ever seen was $60 and the one I took for my last job was a bit over $200.  For a person really struggling, either of those numbers might as well be in the thousands.  So for the people who need it the most, this puts assistance out of reach.

I can totally support tax dollars not being spent on drugs or other illegal activity.  I equally feel as if this law has some major problems with both enforcement and implementation.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 9, 2011)

Mr Mattocks, you are a very learned man

your views however, are typical "theory" that ignores reality. The reality is, this isnt something people have a "right" to. It is very reasonable to place limitations on it. And Drug use is a very reasonable exclusion

ONLY in theory land could someone say that drug tests are ok for people looking for work, but NOT for people getting tax dollars....

if you are ok with that, good on you.

I prefere reality myself.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> So your attitude is if one equally valid amendment is being crapped on, then you don't care if all of the amendments are being crapped on?
> 
> As I said before, the answer to injustice is to correct the injustice, not to perpetrate other injustices so that everything is equally unjust.


So, isn't your outrage over amendments being "crapped on" just as selective as his?


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Mr Mattocks, you are a very learned man
> 
> your views however, are typical "theory" that ignores reality. The reality is, this isnt something people have a "right" to. It is very reasonable to place limitations on it. And Drug use is a very reasonable exclusion
> 
> ...


 

Completely agree...whats good for the goose is good for the gander

if they wanted to make drugs legal then this argument would be moot. Even at that point at least the welfare money would be going back into the economy faster...since legal drugs would be taxed like alcohol and cigarettes.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 9, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Something has been bugging me about this thread.  Something that I haven't seen mentioned.  Let us assume that a person does not use drugs and is in desperate need of assistance from the government for whatever valid reason.  They are told they must pay for a drug test to qualify for the assistance.  If they are already in desperate straights, how do they pay for the test?  The cheapest test I have ever seen was $60 and the one I took for my last job was a bit over $200.  For a person really struggling, either of those numbers might as well be in the thousands.  So for the people who need it the most, this puts assistance out of reach.
> 
> I can totally support tax dollars not being spent on drugs or other illegal activity.  I equally feel as if this law has some major problems with both enforcement and implementation.



Let's just examine the entire issue for validity and for motive.  I think it is instructive.

Why do _'we'_ want to ensure that those who receive public assistance are not using illegal drugs?  The reason most often given is that we don't want them spending _'our'_ money on things that we don't approve of, things that do not contribute to their getting off of public assistance, or which personally anger us.

If that is indeed the motive, then we must ask if those receiving public assistance are more or less likely to be using illegal drugs than the general population.  Are they?  I could not find any data to support that.  The ACLU claims that the percentages are similar.  Even people who support the welfare drug-checking laws seem to be claiming that it doesn't matter - even one person using drugs who is also receiving public assistance is one too many, and justifies testing everyone.  I would again ask why we do not test the 45% of the nation that pays no taxes, but gets benefits paid for by taxpayers, of which they are not one.  What of those who are on Social Security or Medicare or military retirement or police or fireman medical disability pensions?  They get money from the public teat also.  Shall we not test all of them?

If not, then what it is about Welfare that generates such a strong desire, and not for those who receive other forms of federal or state money?  It seems there must be another reason.

But I notice that most of those in this thread who are in favor of drug testing for Welfare recipients also make other statements, and I believe that goes to motive.  They note that people on Welfare sit around and smoke Newports and watch Maury on TV.  This would tend to make me think that they are under the assumption that Welfare recipients are all lazy abusers of the system who have no interest in getting jobs.  They seem to be in favor of Welfare reforms such as Welfare-to-Work (Workfare) but not aware that this already exists.  They seem to be in favor of lifetime caps on Welfare use, but seem to be unaware that those caps already exist.  They seem to be in favor of putting Welfare recipients to work - one suggestion was that they clean up highways.  This makes an assumption that Welfare recipients are all able-bodied, healthy, and young enough to go stand on the side of the road and pick up trash, which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the sometimes debilitating physical illnesses that some on Welfare suffer from.  In other words, they have a firm picture in mind of the average Welfare recipient, and that mental image is a negative one.  It would appear to me that their motive, then, is one of punishment; regardless of what they say, their published opinions betray them.

What is the motive for testing people on Welfare for drug use?  We don't like them and we want them not to get Welfare if we can possibly find a reason to deny it to them.  That's the bottom line.  All other considerations are secondary.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 9, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Mr Mattocks, you are a very learned man



Not as learned as I'd like to be, but thank you.



> your views however, are typical "theory" that ignores reality. The reality is, this isnt something people have a "right" to. It is very reasonable to place limitations on it. And Drug use is a very reasonable exclusion



The fact is, Welfare was indeed a legal 'right' until the Welfare Reform Act (Clinton, 1996), and after that, it remained an 'entitlement'.  This is the fact we have to live with.  Yes, for all intents and purposes, including in courtrooms, it is a 'right'.  I'm not happy about that, but it is.



> ONLY in theory land could someone say that drug tests are ok for people looking for work, but NOT for people getting tax dollars....



The government does not require private employers to perform drug tests on employees.  That is up to the employers, and the employees are free to work elsewhere.  Employment, unlike Welfare, is not a right.



> if you are ok with that, good on you.



I never said I was OK with that.   I said I am OK with the Constitution.  It's not theoretical, it's the real framework for our system of governance. If one person can say it's OK to ignore it when it involves Welfare users, then it's just as valid to ignore it when it involves gun owners.  You can't just pick and choose what you like about it and ignore the rest.  That's why I end up supporting the right of the KKK to march in the streets of downtown Skokie, Illinois, even though I hate the KKK.  I support the right of the Phelps group to shout at military funerals even though I hate Phelps and all he stands for.  I support the right, not the people involved.  You could, I suppose, say that I'm _"OK with the KKK,"_ but that would be incorrect.  I support the Constitution, even when it says things I do not like.  That's not theory; that's the real world.



> I prefere reality myself.



I do too.  The courts rule and we live with it.  That's reality.  Not what we think ought to happen to suit our own prejudices.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 9, 2011)

Bill, if what you say is true, then the testing itself is just a smokescreen to put up a wall in front of perspective recepients of welfare.  That is pretty sad.

I'm on disability, so I know a little bit about the government assistance thing.  It is a pain in the *** and if I had any other choice I wouldn't be taking it.  There are programs I qualify for that I don't take.  So knowing this, there are a few of points I'd like to express.  

First, people who are on government assistance aren't neccessarily lazy or don't want to work.  In fact, most aren't that way, but I've seen many ignorant post that assume all people on assistance are lazy good-for-nothings.  In most cases this is not the case and it is insulting and disrespectful when such post are made.  Yeah, I'll get over it, but your still an idiot if you believe everyone on assistance are lazy and just don't want to work.

People who use assistance to buy drugs or pursue other illegal activities (or even booze) piss me off as much as they do you.  Maybe even more.  People notice these lawbreakers and then generalize that everyone on assistance is like this.  It also waste money, which I'm not a big fan of.  There are laws in place to stop stuff like this, but they aren't enforced very well.  When people in prison are recieving checks from the state, there is a glaring lack of enforcement.

Putting up road blocks for people who genuinly need assistance is not the answer. In fact, it is counter-productive and will cost more in the long run.  It is much smarter to give a person a helping hand when they first need it than later when that helping hand will cost much more and the person getting help has run out of hope.  I know what it is like to have a diet of ramen noodles and walk miles to a job because I cannot afford bus fare.  Paying for a drug test is a huge impedement for people in similiar straits.  I truly hope that the law isn't designed that way on purpose.

Seems there has been a ton of money spent on welfare for corporations.  It'll never happen, but I like the idea of the CEOs of those corporations getting tested or losing thier money as well.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 9, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Bill, if what you say is true, then the testing itself is just a smokescreen to put up a wall in front of perspective recepients of welfare.  That is pretty sad.



That is my belief, yes.  I am in favor of complete overhaul of our entitlements system, so I'm not a fan of Welfare; but it is an entitlement and I believe it generates both resentment and a set of incorrect assumptions about the people who receive it.

As I said, if the goal is to prevent people receiving taxpayer-funded benefits that they did not pay for unless they obey drug laws, then there should be no problem testing the 45% of the population that works but does not earn enough to pay taxes.  I do not see a massive push for that.  This tells me something.

I also note the comments that surround any discussion about Welfare benefits, including such things as 'sitting around smoking Newports' and 'watching Maury on TV'.  That would tend to make me think that other motivations are at work.

I realize that the Welfare system is rife with abuse and fraud.  I am sickened by it, and want to see it reformed, overhauled, and only those who truly need assistance getting it.  I do not want to waste my tax dollars on the undeserving or on criminals.  But I look at Welfare fraud and I see billions wasted on systemic fraud that includes doctors, hospitals, medical service and drug providers, and others administratively involved in the system; it's in the news every day, but it's the tip of the iceberg.  There is far more money being wasted here than on end-recipients who are not willing to work or who simply want to sit around all day and take drugs.  Focusing attention only on that small segment and ignoring the rest tells me that some other motivation is at work here.

I also have to place my belief in the Constitution above all.  Stop criminals, yes.  But not by any means necessary.  It has to be done within the framework of our Constitution, or what's that piece of paper for, anyway? If it can be disregarded to punish someone we don't like today, someday I may be the person others don't like.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 9, 2011)

Big Don said:


> So, isn't your outrage over amendments being "crapped on" just as selective as his?



You may not have noticed, but this thread isn't about guns or the 2nd amendment.  Shall I list everything that outrages me at the beginning of every thread so I don't get accused of "selectivity"?

I am in favor of the 2nd amendment.  I own multiple guns, and enjoy using them.  I haven't said anything about the 2nd amendment in this thread.  Go find your gotchas elsewhere.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 9, 2011)

If the biggest argument is "they can't afford it" then modify the time line.  Make it 'within 90 days you must take and pass a drug test. Upon passing you will be reimbursed the cost of the test".  You have now eliminated the "desperate straights" argument as they should have a few bucks to spare after getting free cash for -3- months.

As to reality.... My personal position is taxation is theft, the USC is in tatters, and the gov will work around law whenever it feels like it.  I have to work for a living, don't get free money because my back hurts or I get dizzy, don't get a special parking place because I'm old, and have to buy my own food and pay my own rent. Why should someone else get it better by doing less work?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 9, 2011)

Flea said:


> Nothing with Social Security happens in real time. Pass, here's your money several weeks later. Your reimbursement may or may not come with your initial check.
> 
> Fail, I'm no attorney but don't police have to catch you _in the act_ of drug use in order to make an arrest? have some grudging respect if there were some mention of help offered to those who fail the test, but that's not in the article. No, it's just another brick wall for those who are struggling the hardest to climb over.
> 
> Now if FL or any other state mandates drug testing for CEOs whose corporations get welfare, then I'd be all about it. They also would, of course, have to pay for their own tests as well. Fair is fair.


 
this is complete nonsense.
I am so tired of hearing this ridiculous notion that corporations are getting money from the government with no strings attached. Its naive, its simply not true in almost all cases, hell even the bailouts of Big Auto had stipulations and they were about as close to free money from the government as anything I have ever seen. BTW almost all corporate entitites conduct drug tests as a condition of employment, and I do not know of any that have any amount of driving required as part of the job that does not require drug tests, In the last 20+ years I have submitted to at least 40 drug tests between work and sports. I despise the fact that people are against this, it makes me think we have to many cowards in this country that are trying to rail against common sense, and the law. Welfare is not a right, nothing is free. If you want it then you will submit to the will of those giving it to you or find other options. Its not like they are demanding anything  that is incriminatory, or over the top like DNA, or fingerprints, or any number of other things that could be used against a person in any way. I know that people are going to be against it, but I still despise the reasoning.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A lot, actually.
> 
> As I said before, if you're part of the 45% of this nation that does not pay net taxes, you are also getting government services for free. That means that by your values, almost half the country has no right to object to mandatory drug testing anytime they drive on the public highways, visit a national park, or do anything else that is paid for with tax dollars, which they did not contribute to.
> 
> ...


 
you sure love throwing around that 45% number, and it really is a smoke job once again.. It does not really mean what you are implying it does. Lets remove out of that percentage the number of people who are being supported by someone else who does in fact pay taxes, lets take out of that number those that are earning a living and who pay sales tax, gax tax, or any other form of tax besides income tax, I might be missing something more here... like community service..but we will not include that, lets include the people who do not earn any money, and who do not pay any taxes of any kind, and who are given money by the government out of other peoples tax dollars, those are the only ones who are truely not paying any form of tax... so your 45% number... no good not by a long shot.

umm in regards to the entitlement argument and the law... hello they are changing the law. they are including stipulations to qualifying for it... so adding the passed drug test by passing a law is doing exactly what you are saying.... changing the law.. so that argument is done...

oh ya your gun argument, also invalid and using smoke screen logic to muddy the waters..
the big difference is entitlements are not included in the constitution, there is however a very specific part that says.... "shall not be infringed" thats pretty damn clear. So ya none of your arguments you are using really hold any weight when looked at with how do you like to put it... oh ya logically.... thanks


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> So your attitude is if one equally valid amendment is being crapped on, then you don't care if all of the amendments are being crapped on?
> 
> As I said before, the answer to injustice is to correct the injustice, not to perpetrate other injustices so that everything is equally unjust.


 

no his point was that you guys arguing vehemently against this and citing the 4th erroneously sure dont seem to want to protect the other amendments as dearly as the 4th. You got your comment completely backwards, he feels they are all entitled to the same protection and passionate defense as each other and would appreciate people out there that are hypocritical about it to feel the same..


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 9, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Something has been bugging me about this thread. Something that I haven't seen mentioned. Let us assume that a person does not use drugs and is in desperate need of assistance from the government for whatever valid reason. They are told they must pay for a drug test to qualify for the assistance. If they are already in desperate straights, how do they pay for the test? The cheapest test I have ever seen was $60 and the one I took for my last job was a bit over $200. For a person really struggling, either of those numbers might as well be in the thousands. So for the people who need it the most, this puts assistance out of reach.
> 
> I can totally support tax dollars not being spent on drugs or other illegal activity. I equally feel as if this law has some major problems with both enforcement and implementation.


 
there was mention they had worked out a deal that would make the tests no more expensive then $42. I feel that number is so low that virtually anyone could come up with the payment for it. I find it a non factor


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 9, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> you sure love throwing around that 45% number, and it really is a smoke job once again.. It does not really mean what you are implying it does. Lets remove out of that percentage the number of people who are being supported by someone else who does in fact pay taxes, lets take out of that number those that are earning a living and who pay sales tax, gax tax, or any other form of tax besides income tax, I might be missing something more here... like community service..but we will not include that, lets include the people who do not earn any money, and who do not pay any taxes of any kind, and who are given money by the government out of other peoples tax dollars, those are the only ones who are truely not paying any form of tax... so your 45% number... no good not by a long shot.



Yeah, it kind of is.  And it's a conservative staple in arguments about taxation, so it's part of 'our side', you know.  Are you not even familiar with the conservative point of view on taxation in the USA?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1



> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but  for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.
> *About  47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009*. Either  their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits,  deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according  to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research  organization.
> ...
> In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown  so much that *a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no  federal income tax for 2009*, as long as there are two children younger  than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm  Deloitte Tax.
> ...



These are all conservative think tanks, by the way.  Hardly a popular liberal position.

And again, simple proposition.  If you're in favor of people who get taxpayer paid services for nothing being required to not be illegal drug users, then you should have no problem with nearly half the US population being forced to take drug tests before entering a national forest or driving on our highways.  It's the same thing - they get something for nothing.

Unless you have a *different* motivation for wanting Welfare recipients to be drug tested.



> umm in regards to the entitlement argument and the law... hello they are changing the law. they are including stipulations to qualifying for it... so adding the passed drug test by passing a law is doing exactly what you are saying.... changing the law.. so that argument is done...



The law they are 'changing' is a state law.  Hello, the Welfare 'entitlement' is a federal law.  That's why Michigan's attempt was struck down - it was found to be in conflict with the US Constitution.



> oh ya your gun argument, also invalid and using smoke screen logic to muddy the waters..
> the big difference is entitlements are not included in the constitution, there is however a very specific part that says.... "shall not be infringed" thats pretty damn clear. So ya none of your arguments you are using really hold any weight when looked at with how do you like to put it... oh ya logically.... thanks



Saying my argument is a 'smoke screen' does not invalidate it.  Welfare is an entitlement.  Period.  Not my decision, and I'm not even in favor of it, but it is one.  You can argue all day long that it should not be, or that I'm using a smokescreen, but the simple fact is that I'm right about this, and you are wrong.  The courts say you're wrong too.  Let me know when you gain the authority to overturn that.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I never said I was OK with that. I said I am OK with the Constitution. It's not theoretical, it's the real framework for our system of governance. If one person can say it's OK to ignore it when it involves Welfare users, then it's just as valid to ignore it when it involves gun owners. You can't just pick and choose what you like about it and ignore the rest. That's why I end up supporting the right of the KKK to march in the streets of downtown Skokie, Illinois, even though I hate the KKK. I support the right of the Phelps group to shout at military funerals even though I hate Phelps and all he stands for. I support the right, not the people involved. You could, I suppose, say that I'm _"OK with the KKK,"_ but that would be incorrect. I support the Constitution, even when it says things I do not like. That's not theory; that's the real world.


 
Well spoken


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yeah, it kind of is. And it's a conservative staple in arguments about taxation, so it's part of 'our side', you know. Are you not even familiar with the conservative point of view on taxation in the USA?
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1
> 
> ...


 
lol I never have used that argument, just because its a conservative argument does not mean its my argument. Besides it is apples and oranges the way you are using it. The fact is most of those people are wither paying some form of taxes, and or are being partly supported by other people who are, so your argument holds no water. I have never said anything ever about those people needing to pay more in taxes, ever. I have only simply stated that taxing the rich more because they are rich is wrong. so once agian smoke screen logic, does not apply at all to this argument. Personally I think anyone who can not take care of themselves and needs public assistance is in fact doing something wrong, not necessarily nefarious and purposefully, it quite possibly can be out of ignorance, stupidity, or even by no fault of their own. But In a time when the economy is in the *******, the government is ransoming our kids future, and people are flocking to get what they can from any source possible, I want as many safeguards as possible to prevent abuse of a system, and to ensure that any money used for welfare is going where it will have the most chance of helping someone get off of assistance. 

btw the law they are changing is a state law because the form of welfare they are applying it to is state funded. HELLO...


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Just following this to its logical conclusion. If the goal of Welfare is to identify and shame them by forcing them to pick up trash by the side of the road like prisoners, we should probably go the extra step of providing them signs to wear so passing motorists know the difference between them and convicts laboring in similar conditions.
> 
> I get the concept of wanting to encourage people to get off Welfare. I doubt if forcing them to perform menial public tasks in public view so that they can be 'named and shamed' is going to accomplish that, but I'm sure it makes a lot of angry people very happy.


 
I'm simply saying to limit it.  Unemployment benefits are limited.  Once they run out, you're eiher SOL or ya gotta get a job...somewhere.  Instead of these people sitting on their ***, collecting free money, getting everything paid for, give something back.  IMO, I dont think that giving back a few hours of your day at the local soup kitchen or doing some other community service based thing, is too much to ask, nor do I feel that it makes them prisoners.

This is a long thread and I havent read every single post, so you may/may not have already said this, but it seems that you're not keen on suggestions like mine.  That being said, what is your solution?


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 9, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> there was mention they had worked out a deal that would make the tests no more expensive then $42. I feel that number is so low that virtually anyone could come up with the payment for it. I find it a non factor


 
This tells me you have not had any experience or known anyone that have been in "desperate straits."  $42 can feel like a fortune when every cent you have is going to required expenses, such as food, housing, and utilities.  Now if Florida does something like having recepients pay for the test at $42 after they have already recieved some assistance then that isn't as much an issue.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But, all they have to do is, not do drugs and obey the law to pass.
> 
> That can't be that hard can it?



Spoken like someone who doesnt seem to know a whole lot about addictions and how hard they can be to break.



Bill Mattocks said:


> But I notice that most of those in this thread who are in favor of drug testing for Welfare recipients also make other statements, and I believe that goes to motive.  They note that people on Welfare sit around and smoke Newports and watch Maury on TV.  This would tend to make me think that they are under the assumption that Welfare recipients are all lazy abusers of the system who have no interest in getting jobs.  They seem to be in favor of Welfare reforms such as Welfare-to-Work (Workfare) but not aware that this already exists.  They seem to be in favor of lifetime caps on Welfare use, but seem to be unaware that those caps already exist.  They seem to be in favor of putting Welfare recipients to work - one suggestion was that they clean up highways.  This makes an assumption that Welfare recipients are all able-bodied, healthy, and young enough to go stand on the side of the road and pick up trash, which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the sometimes debilitating physical illnesses that some on Welfare suffer from.  In other words, they have a firm picture in mind of the average Welfare recipient, and that mental image is a negative one.  It would appear to me that their motive, then, is one of punishment; regardless of what they say, their published opinions betray them.



Thank you!!

glad someone said that.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 9, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> This tells me you have not had any experience or known anyone that have been in "desperate straits." $42 can feel like a fortune when every cent you have is going to required expenses, such as food, housing, and utilities. Now if Florida does something like having recepients pay for the test at $42 after they have already recieved some assistance then that isn't as much an issue.


 
Ya and you would be dead wrong wouldn't you. The whole point is to weed out abusers of the system before they participate, giving assistance first would be a FAIL.
no I hope they hold to their guns, and I hope the nation follows, I am tired of failures, I am tired of failures getting babied, accepted, and supported. Its time they step up. I am not interested in hand holding people, they need to take responsibility for themselves. Its time we toughen up as a nation.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 9, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Spoken like someone who doesnt seem to know a whole lot about addictions and how hard they can be to break.



I'll admit I don't know much about them. See, my whole life I've avoided smoking. I rarely drink. I've never so much as tried an illegal drug. I went to school surrounded by them, but never gave in. 

So, I'm afraid I don't know how hard it is to kick them.
I do know how hard it is to avoid starting them...being in pain pretty much all the time right now, it's easy to think "just pop an extra pill". 
But I don't.

See, I'm the only non-smoker in my family.
Last august I buried my uncle. Lung Cancer.
Some years earlier, my grandmother. Same thing.
A few before, an aunt and an uncle. Same.
Buried a friend of mine who wrapped his motorcycle around a signpost while ripped.
I went to highschool where you could get high in gym class...the teachers looked the other way. Some of my peers...never made it out. Lead Poisoning as it were.

So, no....I avoided it all. I'm rabid anti-tobacco. 
Never mind 'harder' stuff.
Ironically, I support medical use of pot.  There's your contradiction.

I've had plenty of opportunity to try. Used to admin a BBS back in the 90's. Owner was always doing coke parties with his staff. I stuck to the carbonated version.


So I stick to my position that -my- tax dollars shouldn't be going to support someone elses -illegal- habit. Test em, get them clean, lock em up, but don't give em my hard earned money to snort, smoke or shoot. Or else legalize the drugs and make it a non issue.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 9, 2011)

MJS said:


> I'm simply saying to limit it.  Unemployment benefits are limited.  Once they run out, you're eiher SOL or ya gotta get a job...somewhere.  Instead of these people sitting on their ***, collecting free money, getting everything paid for, give something back.  IMO, I dont think that giving back a few hours of your day at the local soup kitchen or doing some other community service based thing, is too much to ask, nor do I feel that it makes them prisoners.
> 
> This is a long thread and I havent read every single post, so you may/may not have already said this, but it seems that you're not keen on suggestions like mine.  That being said, what is your solution?



Welfare is limited already.  Most states implement lifetimes caps.  Most states have Welfare-to-Work requirements that require people who are capable of doing work (medical and physical conditions permitting) to find work, and help provide training while they do so, but cut off assistance if they do not.

It seems most in this thread say they want those things - they already exist.

But again, your words show that you believe what most seem to believe; that Welfare recipients are dishonest, lazy, and don't want to work.

You talk about what is 'too much to ask for' but I don't disagree with the basic concept.  I reply that a) they have that now (Welfare to work) and b) you don't get to decide what is too much to ask for (neither do I).  When we're talking about a legal 'entitlement', which Welfare is, then the courts get to decide what is too much to ask.  That is my point.

As to my solution, it's much more complex than I can lay out here.  First, as I pointed out, most waste, fraud, and abuse of Welfare and social programs occurs at a much higher level than the recipient.  I'd want to address that.  Second, I'd consider what my motivation was as well as my intended end-result. If the goal is to get people off Welfare and back to work, do drug tests do that?  If not, then other concepts should be explored.

However, it seems to me that the actual goal for many in this thread is not about getting Welfare recipients back to work.  It's about resentment over the thought that they get free money and services without having to work for it, on our taxpayer dime, and we don't like it, so anything we can legally do to prevent them from getting it, humiliating them for taking it, or ending their access to it, is what we want.  This I believe from simply reading the comments about what people are saying in this thread about Welfare recipients.  They "sit on their asses" and they "smoke Newports" and the "watch Maury."  Do they?  Is that an accurate picture?  And even if it was, I'm not hearing "I want them to get jobs," I am hearing "I want them to pick up trash by the roadside in exchange for the money we gvie them."  Sounds to me like it's about humiliation and punishment.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 9, 2011)

Bill.  My position is simple.
End -ALL- social programs. welfare, wic, medicare, medicade, social security, unemployment, and so on.  All of em.

Baring that, make sure the money spent is going to law abiding American's.

Put in criteria that rather than allow them to sit home doing nothing, some time is spend helping the community.

If that's considered demeaning, then TFB in my opinion.

I've picked up enough trash, cleaned enough toilets, hosed out enough septics and so on. Not asking anyone to do anything I my self personally haven't.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 9, 2011)

Y'all do realize that this is just a screening for applicants-that there'll be no follow up screenings, no random urinalysis once applicants are accepted? 

Nothing a really lazy hardcore junkie couldn't beat.

 It'll only catch potheads.....


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'll admit I don't know much about them. See, my whole life I've avoided smoking. I rarely drink. I've never so much as tried an illegal drug. I went to school surrounded by them, but never gave in.
> 
> So, I'm afraid I don't know how hard it is to kick them.
> I do know how hard it is to avoid starting them...being in pain pretty much all the time right now, it's easy to think "just pop an extra pill".
> ...



I drink sometimes, i tried a cigarette as a teen but never got addicted. I avoided all of it too. But i know for a fact that its not easy to quit. even if you give em incentives, 'i have to quit so i can pass a drug test and get on welfare' it won't be easy to do.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Y'all do realize that this is just a screening for applicants-that there'll be no follow up screenings, no random urinalysis once applicants are accepted?
> 
> Nothing a really lazy hardcore junkie couldn't beat.
> 
> It'll only catch potheads.....


 

weeding out stupid ones is a good first step in my opinion.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Bill.  My position is simple.
> End -ALL- social programs. welfare, wic, medicare, medicade, social security, unemployment, and so on.  All of em.



Military retirements? VA disability pensions?  Police and fire?  Workman's Comp?



> Baring that, make sure the money spent is going to law abiding American's.



And you think Welfare recipients are not law abiding why?



> Put in criteria that rather than allow them to sit home doing nothing, some time is spend helping the community.



Helping the community?  I thought the idea was to get them trained and/or back to work and off Welfare?

As to that...

http://www.floridajobs.org/workforce/wel_trans.html



> In October of 1996 two Acts (one Federal and one State) went into law  that dramatically changed welfare programs in the State of Florida and  around the country. The October 1996 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), Public Law 104-193,  eliminated the open-ended federal entitlement program, Aid to Families  with Dependent Children (AFDC), and replaced it with the Temporary  Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. The TANF legislation  changed the nations welfare system from the receipt of cash assistance  as an entitlement to one that requires work in exchange for time-limited  assistance.
> ...
> In  October 1996, Florida enacted  the Work and Gain Economic  Self-Sufficiency (WAGES) Act.  The Act was developed to implement the  requirements of TANF and to emphasize work, self-sufficiency, and  personal responsibility as well as time-limited assistance.



Everything you say you want, already exists.  But you refuse to accept that it exists.  You still seem to want to believe that Welfare recipients are not law-abiding, they're lazy, they 'sit around' doing nothing. 



> If that's considered demeaning, then TFB in my opinion.
> 
> I've picked up enough trash, cleaned enough toilets, hosed out enough septics and so on. Not asking anyone to do anything I my self personally haven't.



So getting their benefits lifetime-capped is not enough.  Requiring training and/or work in exchange for benefits (as Florida law currently requires, posted above) is not enough.  They also have to pick up trash by the highway or perform some other form of 'community service' as prisoners do in exchange for work-release programs.

I can see where your mind's at Bob.  I don't understand why you can't.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> So your attitude is if one equally valid amendment is being crapped on, then you don't care if all of the amendments are being crapped on?
> 
> As I said before, the answer to injustice is to correct the injustice, not to perpetrate other injustices so that everything is equally unjust.



Nope, I PERSONALLY think they all need to be respected.   But I'm sick and tired of Liberal *******s screaming about their rights while denying me mine.   You want me to stand up for you, have the same common courtesy.   If its ok for you (for clarification by you, I mean people in general, not you specifically EH) to pick and choose, then why shouldn't I be able to as well?

If that's wrong, then so is denying me my Second Amendment rights, so get on fixing that for me as well, thanks!  Don't hide behind one while decrying the other, they either apply or they don't, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 9, 2011)

Bill, I said work. I gave examples. Examples that -I- in fact have 'lowered' myself to do. 
I see nothing dishonorable about insisting that a fair wage be paid for a fair labor, and saying 'no free handouts'.

I did not say 'all' welfare recipients were criminals.
But surely, if the use of narcotics is considered illegal, and if one who engages in illegal activities is a criminal, then there should be no problem insisting that benefits go to law abiding citizens, as opposed to criminals?

If they can comply with the law, give em their cheese.
Otherwise, hang em.


----------



## Flea (Jun 9, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Ya and you would be dead wrong wouldn't you. The whole point is to weed out abusers of the system before they participate, giving assistance first would be a FAIL.
> no I hope they hold to their guns, and I hope the nation follows, I am tired of failures, I am tired of failures getting babied, accepted, and supported. Its time they step up. I am not interested in hand holding people, they need to take responsibility for themselves. Its time we toughen up as a nation.



Just ... _wow._


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 9, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Bill, I said work. I gave examples. Examples that -I- in fact have 'lowered' myself to do.
> I see nothing dishonorable about insisting that a fair wage be paid for a fair labor, and saying 'no free handouts'.



As I pointed out, the state of Florida requires work to be done by those on Welfare. 

Is there something in that which you are failing to see?



> I did not say 'all' welfare recipients were criminals.



You did not.  But you described them as a class.  As have others in this thread.  Are we to pretend we do not know what you mean?



> But surely, if the use of narcotics is considered illegal, and if one who engages in illegal activities is a criminal, then there should be no problem insisting that benefits go to law abiding citizens, as opposed to criminals?



Shall we make certain that they all registered for the draft when they turned 18, and that they all have their taxes paid up to date and filed on time?  I mean, that's criminal activity too.

But as I have said, "there should be no problem" is meaningless, because there *is* a problem, and it's not me who is saying that; it's the federal circuit court (in the case of the similar law in Michigan).  You can say "there is no problem with that" all you like, your words do not have the force of law, and the courts do.



> If they can comply with the law, give em their cheese.
> Otherwise, hang em.



Yeah, we're back to describing Welfare recipients in derogatory terms again.  You didn't **say** they were all criminals, no.  But you continue to imply it, and frankly, I know you are aware of it.  Just like the person a few pages back to said they were all smoking Newports didn't **say* *they were all black, he just implied it.  It's a sad little game, Bob.  Have the courage to say what you mean and not play weasel word games.  I know what you mean and you know what you mean.  Now find your stones and man up.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Military retirements? VA disability pensions?  Police and fire?  Workman's Comp?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL. You whine more than a welfare recipient forced to pick up trash by the roadside.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 9, 2011)

Bill, I said what I mean, exactly how I mean it.
I'm afraid you are reading further into it that I have.

So please, tell me what I mean, because I'm afraid I don't see it.

Do I mean that welfare recipients are sub human?
That they are all the same?
All would be criminals?
All Lazy?
All child rapists?
All pigeon toed inbred Southern Red Necks?

Clarify for me as I apparently have no clue what I mean when I write precise wording here.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 9, 2011)

One other thing.  What -I- mean and what others mean are often quite different. You know this.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 10, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Ya and you would be dead wrong wouldn't you. The whole point is to weed out abusers of the system before they participate, giving assistance first would be a FAIL.
> no I hope they hold to their guns, and I hope the nation follows, I am tired of failures, I am tired of failures getting babied, accepted, and supported. Its time they step up. I am not interested in hand holding people, they need to take responsibility for themselves. Its time we toughen up as a nation.


 
Your statement tells me you have no experience with the people you want to demonize.  Tell me, is a young person trying to learn the skills neccesary for him to climb out of the destitution he was born in a "failure?"  Is the person facing a catastrophic illness who has lost everyhting to something like cancer a "failure" because they take money to survive?  Or maybe the mother who has left an abusive marriage and is struggling to work and keep food on the table for her children.  Is she a "failure?"

Most people on assistance would rather be doing just about anything else.  Applying for assistance is humiliating and then we must hear the kind of nonsense you posted above.  Are there the lazy and the welfare queens.  Yeah, there are and most people on assistance would love to get them off of assistance because they don't deserve it and give us all a bad reputation, not to mention being a waste of money.

Now how about the people who actually waste the most money?  Why aren't you up and at arms about them?  Hospitals that double charge for procedures, or charge outragious amounts or common items such as tylenol, plastic combs, unused disposable razors. What about the doctors that pad thier bills, charging exhorbitant amounts or even charging for things they didn't perform? The transportation companies that claim more miles that were driven.  There are many more examples, but these are the ones I have witnessed personally.  Why are these people not held to the standard of the law?

If you can figure out a fair and equitable way to seperate the truly needy from those that just want to abuse the system, I would be all for it.  It seems you really aren't interested in that though.  It seems to be more of a case of a serious lack of compassion for others and as long as you have yours, screw everyone else.  I'd love if you'd disuade me of that notion and actually address some of the things I have posted about.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 10, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Your statement tells me you have no experience with the people you want to demonize. Tell me, is a young person trying to learn the skills neccesary for him to climb out of the destitution he was born in a "failure?" Is the person facing a catastrophic illness who has lost everyhting to something like cancer a "failure" because they take money to survive? Or maybe the mother who has left an abusive marriage and is struggling to work and keep food on the table for her children. Is she a "failure?"


 

Those people..the cancer survivor and the mother...aren't doing drugs...at least shouldn't be.(Well maybe the cancer survivor is smoking medicinal pot but thats another argument)Those groups wouldn't be the type of person that would "take advantage" of the system, in fact, they are why the system is there in the first place...so submitting to a drug test shouldn't be a problem for them.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 10, 2011)

I can see husbands now all over Florida saying to their wives, "You had better shape up or you'll be peein' in a cup so fast your head will spin!"


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Bill, I said what I mean, exactly how I mean it.
> I'm afraid you are reading further into it that I have.
> 
> So please, tell me what I mean, because I'm afraid I don't see it.



OK...



> _As to reality.... My personal position is taxation is theft, the USC is in tatters, and the gov will work around law whenever it feels like it. I have to work for a living, don't get free money because my back hurts or I get dizzy, don't get a special parking place because I'm old, and have to buy my own food and pay my own rent. Why should someone else get it better by doing less work? _



Implication: People who get Welfare have it 'better' than you, and they don't work for it.
Fact: People on Welfare life in extreme poverty in general, and Welfare-to-Work laws require that they engage in training and/or work to remain on Welfare; and there is a lifetime cap.



> _Baring that, make sure the money spent is going to law abiding American's._



Implication: Welfare recipients are not law-abiding.



> _Put in criteria that rather than allow them to sit home doing nothing, some time is spend helping the community._



Implication: Welfare recipients are sitting home doing nothing.
Fact: Welfare-to-Work law requires that they receive training and/or work in order to receive benefits.  They're not _'sitting at home'_ now, unless they have some medical reason why they can't work.



> _If they can comply with the law, give em their cheese.
> Otherwise, hang em. _



Implication: Welfare recipients are worthless, like small rodents, sub-human.

When I look at your words, I see a pattern of assumptions that you refuse to change even when confronted with facts.  You keep harping on _'work'_ for Welfare recipients, and ignore the fact that they are required to work by law if they are able.  

However, you seem obsessed (as do others in this thread) with not just the idea of Welfare recipients doing work, but doing *visible and menial* work, work that can be seen by others, such as picking up trash by the side of the highway.  Is manual labor demeaning?  No, of course not.  It is not _'lowering'_ oneself, and I've never implied it is.  But demanding that they do road crew work *in lieu of the work they do now*, work which supposedly would help them obtain permanent work and get off Welfare, well, that tells a different tale.  The story it tells is one of vindictiveness, anger, and a belief that people on Welfare are bad people.

As I have asked you before, and you have chosen not to answer - do you want to see people on Welfare get jobs that get them off Welfare, or do you want to punish them for being on Welfare?  As much as picking up trash by roadsides is as dignified as any other kind of manual labor, I very much doubt there is career to be had doing it.  In other words, what skills will they learn picking up trash by the roadside that is going to lead to them getting a permanent job and getting off Welfare?  If they currently have to find employment, do work for the government, or obtain training NOW, what advantage is there in taking them away from that and making them pick up trash by the highway?  I can't imagine you want them to get off Welfare as much as you want to punish them for being on it.  If there is another reason, you have yet to address it, since you have ignored the information I've provided.

I've pointed out the Welfare-to-Work and lifetime caps on benefits to you personally twice now; you haven't addressed it even once, insisting that people are Welfare are just _'sitting around'_.  If that's not a preconceived notion about people on Welfare, I don't know what else to call it.  Intentional ignorance?  Do you really not want to know that the reforms you demand are actually in place as federal law?  Is it that important to you that this not be true?

Anyway, I have to back away from this now.  You've said the same thing several times now, and then denied it meant what you clearly stated.  Either that's intentional to push my buttons, or you really don't see it in yourself.  Either way, it becomes counter-productive for me to keep trying to point it out.


----------



## MJS (Jun 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Welfare is limited already. Most states implement lifetimes caps. Most states have Welfare-to-Work requirements that require people who are capable of doing work (medical and physical conditions permitting) to find work, and help provide training while they do so, but cut off assistance if they do not.
> 
> It seems most in this thread say they want those things - they already exist.
> 
> ...


 
Sadly Bill, its because that seems to be the norm....people milking the system.  Unless you're an honest person, who wouldn't milk the system, so they can sit on their ***, get free money, and instead of using it for food and things for their kids, spend it on booze and drugs.  Happens all the time.  Again, I'm all for helping, but it needs to end at some point.  You said most states have the welfare to work programs.  Ok, what about those states that dont?  

Is every welfare person lazy?  Nope, but its a case of a few bad apples ruining the bunch.  But, good, bad or otherwise, everyone on welfare should be required to give something back, ie: community service and have limits on when the free ride ends.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> One other thing.  What -I- mean and what others mean are often quite different. You know this.



Oh, to be sure.  But the tone is clear.  The folks in this thread who are in favor of the drug-testing all seem to follow the same pattern, the question is just one of degree.  In general, the pro-drug-testing folks believe:



Drug testing does not violate Welfare recipient's Fourth Amendment rights.
Even if it does, so what, because they have to get drug tested by their private employers, so why not Welfare recipients?
Welfare recipients should have to work for their money (despite the fact that there is a federal Welfare-to-Work law in place and has been adopted by the state of Florida).
Welfare recipients are on Welfare for life (despite the fact that there is a federal lifetime cap on Welfare and that has also been adopted by Florida).
Welfare recipients do not work.
Welfare recipients sit around and smoke Newports (a clear racist statement, by the way, but only one person made it; the rest have studiously ignored it but refused to repudiate it).
Welfare recipients watch TV all day.
Welfare recipients ought to be made to do menial work in public view (this while denying that this is an attempt to humiliate and/or punish them for being on Welfare).
The reason Welfare recipients ought to be made to do menial public labor is as a form of _'community service'_, a term generally used to describe people doing similar labor as a restitution, parole term, or probation sentence for criminal behavior.  Thus making it clear that Welfare recipients are viewed by these people in the same light as criminals.
You (generic 'you') claim to want them to have to work - that's law now.  You ignore that.
You claim to not want them on Welfare forever - that's law now.  You ignore that.
You claim they sit around and watch TV all day - that's not true, based on the above statements.  You ignore that.
You claim that drug-testing is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, despite the fact that the only other state to try it (Michigan) had their law struck down by a federal circuit court for precisely that reason, showing a break with reality.
You claim there is "no problem" with drug testing laws for Welfare recipients, despite the statement above where a federal court found that yes, there is a problem with it.  That's some powerful reality-denial there, guys.

The reasons you give why it ought to be the case are convoluted, but seem to revolve around the idea of people who get services or money from the government for which they did not pay ought to be required to be law-abiding in all other respects.  But you don't seem interested in OTHER people who get free services and money from the government, including those who don't pay net taxes but drive on public roads or send their children to public schools, or those who get disability retirements that they did not pay for in the public, private, and military sectors.  And you only seem interested in drugs, and not, say, their tax-return status or whether or not they break other laws - just the drug laws.  All of which leads me to believe the reasons you give are not the reasons you have.

I was born at night, but not last night.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And you think Welfare recipients are not law abiding why?




anyone not willing to be drug tested is pretty much admitting they are using drugs which is STILL against the law Bill.

so yes


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2011)

MJS said:


> Sadly Bill, its because that seems to be the norm....people milking the system.



The funny thing to me, is that it *is* becoming the norm, but not amongst the Welfare recipients.  There are Welfare crooks and cheats, for sure.  But the biggest, fastest-growing sector of fraud is one that should be near and dear to your heart - disability pension retirements for police and fire employees.

As one medically retired cop told me, he could get more from a 20-year disability pension than from a 40 year retirement, so why not?  And sure, he was a beat cop for 20 years, he's got all kinds of medical issues, from bad knees to a hip replacement.  Doesn't stop him from jet skiing or partying on his boat, though.  Still, 100% disabled according to his pension.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2011/01/police_fire_disability_pension.html



> Unless you're an honest person, who wouldn't milk the system, so they can sit on their ***, get free money, and instead of using it for food and things for their kids, spend it on booze and drugs.  Happens all the time.  Again, I'm all for helping, but it needs to end at some point.  You said most states have the welfare to work programs.  Ok, what about those states that dont?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

The federal government made it law, but can not force the states to enact enabling legislation.  However, they provide money to the states that do, so there is a carrot:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opa/fact_sheets/tanf_factsheet.html

It does exactly what the people here on this thread claims does not happen - aid recipients have to work, there is a lifetime cap on aid.  That's been the law since Clinton was in office, but to hear the people in this thread say it, it doesn't exist and Welfare recipients sit around all day and do nothing and remain on Welfare for life.  Now which is it?



> *Highlights of TANF*
> Work Requirements:
> 
> With few exceptions, *recipients must work *as       soon as  they are job-ready or no later than two years after coming on  assistance.
> ...





> Is every welfare person lazy?  Nope, but its a case of a few bad apples ruining the bunch.  But, good, bad or otherwise, everyone on welfare should be required to give something back, ie: community service and have limits on when the free ride ends.



_"Give something back." _ Is the goal to get them off Welfare or to make sure they _'Give something back'?_  I don't see how making them do 'community service' gets them off Welfare, especially when they are required to do work now.

As to limits, they exist now.  People seem bound and determined to pretend they don't.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/welfare.shtml



> *Establishing a Five Year Lifetime Limit on Assistance:* To         address long-term welfare dependency, *TANF placed a five year lifetime limit on         assistance*, but allowed states to exempt up to 20 percent of such cases for hardship         reasons. States are allowed to reduce this lifetime limit below 5 years, and almost half         of the states have done so.



Again, the federal government cannot make the states comply, but offer financial incentives to those that do.  Five years is the lifetime max, but some states make the limit less than five years.  Florida has a lifetime cap on Welfare benefits per TANF.

So these things people claim to want - they exist.  And of all people, it happened on President Clinton's watch.  Is that the reason we're all pretending they do not exist, the reason that we pretend that people on Welfare are on it for life, and that they are not required to work?

I keep posting this information, no one addresses it even to deny it, but then they post again that people on Welfare don't work and are on it for life.  It just is not true.  Not my opinion; fact and federal law.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> anyone not willing to be drug tested is pretty much admitting they are using drugs which is STILL against the law Bill.
> 
> so yes


 
Actually, in most jurisdictions, "drug *use*" is not illegal; drug _possession_ is.

If one of my employees tests positive for an illicit drug, he or she doesn't even lose their job, they get sent to rehab.......


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> anyone not willing to be drug tested is pretty much admitting they are using drugs which is STILL against the law Bill.
> 
> so yes



I would not be willing to be tested and I do not use any drugs but caffeine and my Metformin for diabetes.  Want to modify that statement, or would you prefer to call me a liar?  Because either you are wrong or I am lying.


----------



## oaktree (Jun 10, 2011)

Bill.is correct the state of Florida requires those who
Apply for welfare to be activity looking for work and have
A case worker handling their case. Florida welfare
And one stop centers work together with this. 

If you have ever been to welfare in Miami you will 
See the majority of people are not lazy drug addicts 
But immigrants working for 7.25 an hour and just have
Enough money to pay the roof over their heads, eldery
Who can not work, people just laid off from work and young people
Who's company gives then 15-20 hours a week and trying to
Get something to hold them thru.



In Florida you do not have to file yourself for welfare. 
Another member of household can file and in cases file on your behalf. 
So even if you were a hard core drug addict you don't even have
To get tested to receive benefits you can use the other persons benefits since 
From same household hell if you give that person authorization that person 
Can use the welfare card and get the money.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would not be willing to be tested and I do not use any drugs but caffeine and my Metformin for diabetes. Want to modify that statement, or would you prefer to call me a liar? Because either you are wrong or I am lying.


 

I also would like to add...just because you refuse a drug test doesn't mean you are automatically a drug user...simply means you don't want to be drug tested. Just because I don't want to go through the naked body scanner at the airport doesn't make me a terrorist.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2011)

Here is something interesting...

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...cott-says-welfare-recipients-are-more-likely/

Department of cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face:



> 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.



Read that again.  2.7 million taxpayer dollars to catch 335 drug users.  Wow, that's effective use of tax money, eh?

From the They're-Getting-Rich-on-Welfare Department:

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/docs/reports/caseload_circuit.xls


> About 233,000 Floridians applied for cash assistance in 2009-10,  according to statistics kept by the Department of Children and  Families. During May 2011, 93,170 Floridians received cash assistance, a  drop of 8.3 percent from a year ago. Payments can range from $100 to $200 a month per person.



Yep, they're smoking a lot of Newports and watching TV all day on that $100 to $200 dollars a month, eh?

The outcome:



> *Our ruling*
> 
> Let's remember what Scott said. He told CNN's T.J. Holmes that,  "Studies show that people that are on welfare are higher users of drugs  than people not on welfare."
> 
> ...



In the meantime, we've got people claiming that folks are getting rich off Welfare.  Not true.  They claim that people on Welfare don't have to work.  Not true.  They claim that people on Welfare are on it for life.  Not true.  They claim it's about saving taxpayer dollars; seems to me that at the cost of finding each drug user, that's not just not true, it's a patently stupid waste of taxpayer dollars.

On the other hand, I assert that this is basically a witch-hunt.  We don't like people on Welfare, and we're not particularly interested in what drug-testing might actually do; we're way more interested in trying to find a reason, any reason, to deny it to them.  So far, I have found no evidence that points away from that conclusion.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 10, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> I also would like to add...just because you refuse a drug test doesn't mean you are automatically a drug user...simply means you don't want to be drug tested. Just because I don't want to go through the naked body scanner at the airport doesn't make me a terrorist.




which is why i said "pretty much" and not "is"


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Actually, in most jurisdictions, "drug *use*" is not illegal; drug _possession_ is.


A distinction without a difference.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 10, 2011)

Bill, I don't specify dispute or agreement in most of my arguments. I didn't realize that I had to go through and make a line by line accounting. Aint gonna either.

My experience with the welfare system and populace comes from NY, not Florida.
http://www.nywfia.org/

When you say "must actively look for work" I hope it's a stricter system than the one my county unemployment office used to use where every week you had to turn in a list of places you applied to that they never verified.

People do cheat the system. People do sit home and collect money and do nada.
Most don't. But enough do that it's a problem, a waste and a theft.

It's nice that there are system in place that might fix that if used properly.
But I don't know anyone on welfare who gets up in the morning and goes to work.
I do know someone who was told if she left her husband, moved out and claimed he beat her, they would put her up in a house, feed her, give her full medical AND a free college education. All she wanted was an extra $20 in foodstamps to stretch their food budget. NY Bill.  It's why I want out.

In NY we have 3rd generation welfare families, never known another income source. They drive big Escalades and wear furs when shopping for their lotto and beers. I've been there enough to see the stereotype enough that it appears the norm, in NY.
Maybe in some states it still works, but in NY, its a broken system that's well abused.

As to the type of jobs I suggested they do...well, I'm sorry but there's not a lot of openings for CEO, and President and Chief of Operations available as compared to seasonal maint and upkeep positions.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2011)

Big Don said:


> A distinction without a difference.



You can't be arrested, convicted, or put in prison for having illegal drugs in your bloodstream in the USA.  That's kind of a difference.  I believe Kansas tried to make it legal to prosecute for drug possession based on drug tests a number of years ago - I am not sure but I do not think it became law. In the UAE, though, you can be prosecuted (and executed) for having illegal drugs in your bloodstream.  Maybe that's what you were thinking of.

You could be arrested for being intoxicated while in public or driving, but that's not the same as being arrested for possession of illegal drugs.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You can't be arrested, convicted, or put in prison for having illegal drugs in your bloodstream in the USA.  That's kind of a difference.  I believe Kansas tried to make it legal to prosecute for drug possession based on drug tests a number of years ago - I am not sure but I do not think it became law. In the UAE, though, you can be prosecuted (and executed) for having illegal drugs in your bloodstream.  Maybe that's what you were thinking of.
> 
> You could be arrested for being intoxicated while in public or driving, but that's not the same as being arrested for possession of illegal drugs.


No. Bill, actually, I was thinking:
How did the ILLEGAL, and let us remember, that IS the key word here, drugs get into the bloodstream if the person never had possession of them?

Did someone break in to their home, hold them down and shoot them up? Why have stories of these forcible intoxications never been mentioned?


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> *You can't be arrested, convicted, or put in prison for having illegal drugs in your bloodstream in the USA*. That's kind of a difference. I believe Kansas tried to make it legal to prosecute for drug possession based on drug tests a number of years ago - I am not sure but I do not think it became law. In the UAE, though, you can be prosecuted (and executed) for having illegal drugs in your bloodstream. Maybe that's what you were thinking of.
> 
> You could be arrested for being intoxicated while in public or driving, but that's not the same as being arrested for possession of illegal drugs.


 
Not to split hairs, but you can in some cases be prosected for having drugs in your system, but no possession of them. If you are on probation or parole, and you fail then it is a violation and you can be sent back to prison/jail, which is a seperate issue than fresh criminal charges I know, but just using it as an example the state setting conditions for people.

Also, in Michigan for example, if I smell marijuana on you and have PC while you are driving, I can arrest you and get a search warrant for your blood and have you tested for drugs in your system and prosecute you that way for operating under the influence of drugs.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Aint gonna either.



Then we don't have a discussion at all.  We have you ticking off a list of points which I claim are untrue and you refuse to discuss.  Since we have no basis for a discussion, I do not care what you think on this issue; you're wrong.  Sorry, I'd address the reasons why I think you're wrong, but _"I ain't gonna either."_


----------



## oaktree (Jun 10, 2011)

Hi Bill I wanted to add a little on the cash assistance in Florida. It is much harder to recieve cash assistance then food assistance. Some cases you get both some cases one or the other. Also you may get medicaid or medicaide only and no food assistance or cash assistance its very case by case. There is also WIC which alot of middle class people use which is also an assistance program.

One of the worest things about Florida welfare is students who are attending college even those who are not on financial aid can not apply for food assistance.

In Florida financial aid can take months before it clears making students have to pay out of pocket for courses sometimes never getting reimbursed when financial aid comes thru.

So a student living on their own and paying their bills and hardly have any money for school can not recieve food assistance really sucks I think. But of course like I said earlier as long as another member files for themselves they can put the other person on their card as access to use the funds. Which is why the whole drug testing for welfare doesn't work.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> Not to split hairs, but you can in some cases be prosected for having drugs in your system, but no possession of them. If you are on probation or parole, and you fail then it is a violation and you can be sent back to prison/jail, which is a seperate issue than fresh criminal charges I know, but just using it as an example the state setting conditions for people.



Good point.  However, let's split some hairs.  First, they're not being prosecuted for drug possession for having it in their system; this was the point I was making to Big Don, who said drug possession and drugs in your system were the same thing (a _"distinction without a difference"_).  Second, they are indeed being required to comply with requirements to not have drugs in their systems, but they are in fact convicted criminals.  Free citizens have some rights which convicted criminals do not.



> Also, in Michigan for example, if I smell marijuana on you and have PC while you are driving, I can arrest you and get a search warrant for your blood and have you tested for drugs in your system and prosecute you that way for operating under the influence of drugs.



Yes indeed.  I did actually say that.  But again, the crime is not one of possession, per se.  Possession is physical possession.  In the USA, having drugs in your system is not possession and is not charged as a possession crime.  Big Don implied that it is.  He is mistaken.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> anyone not willing to be drug tested is pretty much admitting they are using drugs which is STILL against the law Bill.
> 
> so yes



i use government money if someone tried to make me get a drug test I wouldnt wanna do it either and tell em to bite me.

I dont use drugs, and i still wouldnt submit to a drug test.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the USA, having drugs in your system is not possession and is not charged as a possession crime.  Big Don implied that it is.  He is mistaken.


No, what I implied is that it is nearly impossible to become intoxicated with illegal drugs without ever having possession of them. But, you knew that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 10, 2011)

Bill, simply put if I say the system should do X, and you say it already does...how much time should I spend on that point?  
I presented my -opinion-. An opinion that says aid should go to law abiding US Citizens, that some checks for legal compliance should be done, and that as a criteria for receiving the aid that those able to should contribute to the community supporting them.
You said the Florida system already pretty much does that.
We disagree on the drug test clause.
You say the stereotypes are wrong, I say I was in line last night between 2 of them at PriceRite.  *shrug*

If it would make you feel better, I'll go back through though, quote a lot of your text and tack on "I agree" just so we're clear where I agree, and "Disagree" where I don't, and "acknowledged" so you know I did read it but haven't yet decided if I agree or disagree at the moment.

Or....you can accept that if I'm not -arguing and refuting- a point, I'm pretty much accepting it and moving on to different ones.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2011)

Big Don said:


> No, what I implied is that it is nearly impossible to become intoxicated with illegal drugs without ever having possession of them. But, you knew that.



I know what you said.

Elder said:  _"Actually, in most jurisdictions, "drug *use*" is not illegal; drug __possession is."_

You replied: _"A distinction without a difference."_

Your statement is clear - drug use and drug possession are the same thing (_"without a difference"_).  They are not the same thing, per Elder's statement and in contrast to your reply to it.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I know what you said.
> 
> Elder said:  _"Actually, in most jurisdictions, "drug *use*" is not illegal; drug __possession is."_
> 
> ...


I can't USE your car, being hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from it, therefore, I cannot posses it. I have caffeine in my system because, half an hour ago, I had a soda, did I posses the soda? Or was there some kind of magical trick involved? In other words, if the, lets be honest, shall we, criminal, didn't have drugs in his/her possession, how did he/she use them? The laws need to be reconciled with the reality that it just is not possible to use drugs without possessing them.


----------



## MJS (Jun 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The funny thing to me, is that it *is* becoming the norm, but not amongst the Welfare recipients. There are Welfare crooks and cheats, for sure. But the biggest, fastest-growing sector of fraud is one that should be near and dear to your heart - disability pension retirements for police and fire employees.
> 
> As one medically retired cop told me, he could get more from a 20-year disability pension than from a 40 year retirement, so why not? And sure, he was a beat cop for 20 years, he's got all kinds of medical issues, from bad knees to a hip replacement. Doesn't stop him from jet skiing or partying on his boat, though. Still, 100% disabled according to his pension.
> 
> http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2011/01/police_fire_disability_pension.html


 
I agree.  The abuse of the system isn't limited to welfare.  Hell, just within the past few months, I've read articles in which cops have put in for OT that they never worked.  Hmm....





> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
> 
> The federal government made it law, but can not force the states to enact enabling legislation. However, they provide money to the states that do, so there is a carrot:
> 
> ...


 
Its interesting how the feds can make it a law, but the states dont have to follow it.  




_



			"Give something back."
		
Click to expand...

_


> Is the goal to get them off Welfare or to make sure they _'Give something back'?_ I don't see how making them do 'community service' gets them off Welfare, especially when they are required to do work now.
> 
> As to limits, they exist now. People seem bound and determined to pretend they don't.
> 
> ...


 
IMO, unless the person in question has no arms or legs, then theres no reason whatsoever, for someone on welfare, to get up and go out and work.  If jobs are that hard to find, then do something to 'give back.'  The goal, IMO, is to make them get back to work.  But, as I said, until they find something, a bit of community service goes a long way.  I'd rather see someone 'give back' 4hrs of their day, instead of sitting around doing nothing.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 10, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> which is why i said "pretty much" and not "is"


 
Well thank you for clearing that up. It just came came across that you were implying that all people who didn't submit must be guilty.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 10, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I can't USE your car, being hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from it, therefore, I cannot posses it. I have caffeine in my system because, half an hour ago, I had a soda, did I posses the soda? Or was there some kind of magical trick involved? In other words, if the, lets be honest, shall we, criminal, didn't have drugs in his/her possession, how did he/she use them?



maybe his buddy was really the one in possession and the poor sod just took a sniff.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Good point. However, let's split some hairs. First, they're not being prosecuted for drug possession for having it in their system; this was the point I was making to Big Don, who said drug possession and drugs in your system were the same thing (a _"distinction without a difference"_). Second, they are indeed being required to comply with requirements to not have drugs in their systems, but they are in fact convicted criminals. Free citizens have some rights which convicted criminals do not.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed. I did actually say that. But again, the crime is not one of possession, per se. Possession is physical possession. In the USA, having drugs in your system is not possession and is not charged as a possession crime. Big Don implied that it is. He is mistaken.


 
Nope, I am in agreement with you, that is why I said "split hairs".  Just giving a couple of examples, that could border up against that idea.  Drugs in your system is not in and of itself a crime, unless it affects other conditions.  Thinking about it, the only crime I can think of for the mere presence of a substance being a crime in and of itself is in Michigan, Minor in Possession of Alcohol, having a BAC of .002 or higher is a crime.  They don't need to be caught with the alcohol, just having it in their body is proof that they "possessed" it.

I know there have been attempts to charge mothers with babies born with drugs in their system as a crime, but I don't think any of those cases passed muster to go forward.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> Nope, I am in agreement with you, that is why I said "split hairs".  Just giving a couple of examples, that could border up against that idea.  Drugs in your system is not in and of itself a crime, unless it affects other conditions.  Thinking about it, the only crime I can think of for the mere presence of a substance being a crime in and of itself is in Michigan, Minor in Possession of Alcohol, having a BAC of .002 or higher is a crime.  They don't need to be caught with the alcohol, just having it in their body is proof that they "possessed" it.



I had to go look it up.  You're right, I'm wrong:

http://www.garmokiste.com/legal-services/criminal-defense/michigan-minor-in-possession-mip-law/



> Public Act No. 63 was  signed by Governor Jennifer Granholm on April 12, 2004, giving Michigan  one of the toughest Minor in Possession (MIP) laws in the country. The  MIP Michigan law was first revised in the year 1998 and Public Act No.  63 is the first major revision after that.
> Being in possession of  alcohol has had its definition amended to where blood alcohol content  (BAC) is now included explicitly in the definition.  Under the new MIP  law now, any bodily alcohol content is prohibited.
> Michigan law specifically provides that _A  minor shall not purchase or attempt to purchase alcoholic liquor,  consume or attempt to consume alcoholic liquor, possess or attempt to  possess alcoholic liquor, or have any bodily alcohol content.  _ A violation of this act constitutes a misdemeanor.



I stand corrected!



> I know there have been attempts to charge mothers with babies born with drugs in their system as a crime, but I don't think any of those cases passed muster to go forward.



I think those have been more of an 'endangerment' charge in cases where they have actually prosecuted.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 10, 2011)

If a drug is in your bloodstream, aren't you in possession of it?

Or, if say, I have Heroin in my bloodstream is someone else actually the one in possession?

I am confused by the distinction.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 10, 2011)

No wait, I think I got it.

If a cop sees me inhaling a Joint that Bob is holding up to my lips... Bob is in violation of the law, not me... yes?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 10, 2011)

If I had a joint in my hands, I'd be doing the inhaling, hoping that it would find it's way to a couple of herniated discs and mellow them out.
Theoretically.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> If a drug is in your bloodstream, aren't you in possession of it?
> 
> Or, if say, I have Heroin in my bloodstream is someone else actually the one in possession?
> 
> I am confused by the distinction.


It is MAGIC!


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 10, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> If a drug is in your bloodstream, aren't you in possession of it?
> 
> Or, if say, I have Heroin in my bloodstream is someone else actually the one in possession?
> 
> I am confused by the distinction.



I am not sure why you and Don are harping on this point.  We've confirmed in this thread that a positive drug test is not grounds for a possession charge except in one very specific circumstance in one place.  You obviously must have been in possession of a drug at one time to have it in your blood, and yet the law does not convict on these grounds.  We know this.  Why continue with it?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I am not sure why you and Don are harping on this point.  We've confirmed in this thread that a positive drug test is not grounds for a possession charge except in one very specific circumstance in one place.  *You obviously must have been in possession of a*


*ILLEGAL



			drug
		
Click to expand...

*


> at one time to have it in your blood, and yet the law does not convict on these grounds.  We know this.  Why continue with it?


Oh, I understand that that is the way it is. I'm just pointing out the abject stupidity of that. It took 5 pages or more to get you to admit they must have been guilty of possession to use illegal drugs...


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 10, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> All pigeon toed inbred Southern Red Necks?



LOL Hey! You got me with that one Bob!:wah: :lfao::boing2:


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 10, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As I pointed out, the state of Florida requires work to be done by those on Welfare.
> 
> Is there something in that which you are failing to see?
> 
> ...




Seriously dude are you clairvoyant? Please show the class where I made any reference to race when I made the comment about Newports and Maury Povich. You implied that I made reference to* only *black people with with my comment. You even called it a racist comment in a prior post. Prove it!  Do you assume that only black people smoke Newport cigarettes? Are you projecting your own prejudice into the argument? Also, aren't you the same guy that tried to equate the treatment of Jews during the Holocaust to welfare recipients preforming community service? Seriously, either prove that my intent was towards black people or stop whining and retract the statement.


----------



## MJS (Jun 11, 2011)

http://www.courant.com/community/mi...n-child-neglect-0611-20110610,0,3550214.story



> In the months leading up to the April day when state authorities removed Andy and Jessie Meeks' five starving and filthy children from their squalid Berlin Street house, the family's situation was growing more and more desperate, officials said.
> A premature baby was born to Jessie Meeks in November, creating further stress in a home with four other children, aged 2 to 6, including one child born prematurely who has developmental delays.
> The baby tested positive for opiates, but Jessie Meeks said that was because she'd had two poppy seed bagels shortly before giving birth, according to warrants for her and her husband's arrest


 

A classic example of what I'm talking about.  Yes, I know, I know, this is just one example, but my point is simply to show that maybe the drug testing isnt a bad idea. Hmm....lets see....IMO, depression, PTSD, and a kidney issue, isn't enough to make you unable to work.  IMO, if you're in that bad shape, why have more kids?  Why bring more kids, who didn't ask to be born, into such poor conditions?  Yeah, I know, I know, who am I to tell someone how many kids they can have.  Of course, thats true, but if welfare is being paid, well, where does that money come from?  Interesting that there was money for weed, cigarettes and some herbal junk though.  Nice to see where that $654 is going.  Yeah, lets buy stuff for ourselves, but let our kids starve.

Again, 1 example and there are many others who I'm sure are decent people, who can't help their situation, and have no choice to be on welfare.  So yeah, one bad apple shouldnt spoil the bunch, but in many cases, it does.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 11, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I am not sure why you and Don are harping on this point. We've confirmed in this thread that a positive drug test is not grounds for a possession charge except in one very specific circumstance in one place. You obviously must have been in possession of a drug at one time to have it in your blood, and yet the law does not convict on these grounds. We know this. Why continue with it?


 
Excuse me, but I'm not harping on any point.  This is the FIRST time I brought it up.  Im asking for someone to explain the distinction to me.  If Its in my body, am I not in possession of it, I don't understand how that distinction is made, and would like clarification of it.

Of course, by your logic you guys need to shut up and quit harping on Drug testing in Florida it, since We've confirmed in this thread that a positive drug test is grounds for denying Welfare in Florida by law.  

Seriously dude.  Either we are allowed to discuss it and state that we disagree with the position DESPITE whatever the fact and or rulings are, or we aren't... but that doesn't just apply to the portion of it *YOU* disagree with.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Excuse me, but I'm not harping on any point. This is the FIRST time I brought it up. Im asking for someone to explain the distinction to me. If Its in my body, am I not in possession of it, I don't understand how that distinction is made, and would like clarification of it.


 
It's a legal distinction, not a logical one. There are different levels of possession, based on quantity and intent-have so much, and the assumption is made that you have intent to sell-clearly, if it's already in your body, there can be no intent to sell, so it really doesn't count as "possession," _*legally*_.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 11, 2011)

MJS said:


> http://www.courant.com/community/mi...n-child-neglect-0611-20110610,0,3550214.story
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I do agree that with three kids and the issues this couple has, perhaps bringing anotherchild into the situation isn't the best idea.  Having a kidney issue could be serious enough to cause a person not to work, depending upon how advanced it is and how a person's body reacts to treatment.

We can all come up with examples of poeple behaving badly.  I think the biggest questions right now with this program is;
Is it constitutional?
Will it put up barriers for people who legitimately would qualify for the assistance?
Is the cost of implementing the program worth the net results?

In my opinion, Florida has not answered amny of these questions adequately.  Until they do, I would be very hesitant to suport such a program.


----------



## MJS (Jun 11, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> I do agree that with three kids and the issues this couple has, perhaps bringing anotherchild into the situation isn't the best idea. Having a kidney issue could be serious enough to cause a person not to work, depending upon how advanced it is and how a person's body reacts to treatment.


 
Yes, you are correct.  I'm not a doctor, dont know these people personally (Thank God) but on face value, well, I think you can see how bad this looks.  My point was....if these people are truely in as bad shape as the paper makes them out to be, it still isnt an excuse to be spending the money that they're getting on anything but things for everyone in the family, not just themselves.  



> We can all come up with examples of poeple behaving badly. I think the biggest questions right now with this program is;
> 1) Is it constitutional?
> 2) Will it put up barriers for people who legitimately would qualify for the assistance?
> 3) Is the cost of implementing the program worth the net results?
> ...


 

1) I dont see why it wouldnt be. 

2) IMO, if you are not guilty of violating any of the rules set in place by the state of Fl, then no, you shouldnt have anything to worry about.  No more, IMO, than someone who hasnt been drinking, going thru a DUI checkpoint.  

3) IMO yes.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 11, 2011)

elder999 said:


> It's a legal distinction, not a logical one. There are different levels of possession, based on quantity and intent-have so much, and the assumption is made that you have intent to sell-clearly, if it's already in your body, there can be no intent to sell, so it really doesn't count as "possession," _*legally*_.


 
So... bear with me here... If I take the drugs and shove them in my... backside... are they not already in my body, and therefore I am not in possession?

The distinction seems convoluted and full of holes.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 11, 2011)

elder999 said:


> It's a legal distinction, not a logical one.


Clearly


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 11, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Will it put up barriers for people who legitimately would qualify for the assistance?
> 
> In my opinion, Florida has not answered amny of these questions adequately. Until they do, I would be very hesitant to suport such a program.


 
Well, that depends.  If by law, a drug user does not qualify for assistance, then the only way I can see it would put up barriers is if someone got a false negative on their drug test.

If, however, it is decided that drug users are exactly who these programs are for, since they cant qualify for jobs since they cant pass a drug test for employment... then yes, it puts up a barrier for someone who would otherwise qualify.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 11, 2011)

Big Don said:


> It took 5 pages or more to get *you* to admit they must have been guilty of possession to use illegal drugs...



First time I've commented on this particular issue.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 11, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> First time I've commented on this particular issue.


You're right. I'm sorry.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2011)

hongkongfooey said:


> Seriously dude are you clairvoyant? Please show the class where I made any reference to race when I made the comment about Newports and Maury Povich. You implied that I made reference to* only *black people with with my comment. You even called it a racist comment in a prior post. Prove it!  Do you assume that only black people smoke Newport cigarettes? Are you projecting your own prejudice into the argument? Also, aren't you the same guy that tried to equate the treatment of Jews during the Holocaust to welfare recipients preforming community service? Seriously, either prove that my intent was towards black people or stop whining and retract the statement.



You may as well have said that Welfare recipients sit at home and eat watermelon.  I retract nothing.  I called it a racist comment and it is.  It is a common stereotype that black people smoke menthol cigarettes, particularly Newports.  The fact that you used that brand instead of simply stating that you think Welfare recipients sit at home and smoke cigarettes, but felt the need to name a brand, says all that needs to be said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport_(cigarette)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I can't USE your car, being hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from it, therefore, I cannot posses it. I have caffeine in my system because, half an hour ago, I had a soda, did I posses the soda? Or was there some kind of magical trick involved? In other words, if the, lets be honest, shall we, criminal, didn't have drugs in his/her possession, how did he/she use them? The laws need to be reconciled with the reality that it just is not possible to use drugs without possessing them.



I will try to explain one more time, because I am at work on a Saturday night, I was forced to miss a karate seminar that I very much wanted to attend, and I am waiting for others to finish their work so that I can do mine, so I am bored.  

You used a particular term, _"A distinction without a difference."_  That has a specific meaning.  You seem not to be grasping that meaning, no offense intended.

When a person makes a distinction between two things,  and you reply _"A distinction without a difference,"_ you are making a comment on the distinction the other person made.  You don't get to say what the distinction is, the person to whom you are replying did already.  What you did was to make a comparison between two statements that Elder never made.  That would be incorrect use of the language.

Repeating again:

_Elder said:  "Actually, in most jurisdictions, "drug use" is *not* *illegal*; drug possession *is*." 

You replied: "A distinction without a difference." _

The _'distinction'_ that Elder made was that _'drug use'_ is not illegal in most jurisdictions, but _'drug possession is'_.  The operative term is *'illegal'*. One thing is illegal, the other is not, according to Elder.

If you wish to argue that Elder's distinction is one with no difference, then you must show that the _'difference'_ he gave is not true.  Either drug use is illegal *AND* drug possession is illegal, or neither drug use *NOR* drug possession is illegal.  If either case was true, then your statement would be true; it would in fact be a distinction without a difference.

However, it is not true; Elder is correct in his distinction.  You have not argued that he is wrong, but rather something entirely different; that drug use required previous drug possession.  Perhaps true, perhaps not true; but not what Elder said, and therefore, your comment that his _'distinction'_ had no _'difference'_ was incorrect.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> So... bear with me here... If I take the drugs and shove them in my... backside... are they not already in my body, and therefore I am not in possession?
> 
> The distinction seems convoluted and full of holes.


 

Well, if they were in plastic and you shoved them there to hide them, then you're in possession. If they were in the form of a _suppository_ and you took them that way, then you're no longer in possession.....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Well, if they were in plastic and you shoved them there to hide them, then you're in possession. If they were in the form of a _suppository_ and you took them that way, then you're no longer in possession.....



And just to argue the sidebar discussion that this has become...

Is it possible to test positive for illegal substances and to not have had possession of illegal drugs?  Yes.  I can think of several examples.

First; one can test positive falsely.  That is, a very small percentage of all drug tests for illicit substances come back positive but the test results are wrong.

Second, one can test positive for an illicit substance and not have been in possession of an illegal drug by having had it administered by a doctor.  An example would be cocaine used by some eye doctors for a topical anesthetic in surgery.  Controlled substances are 'controlled' rather than being illegal per se.

Third, one can go to a country where such use is legal, consume the drug, and return to be tested.  They did possess the drug, but it wasn't illegal at the time and place they took it.

Fourth, approved religious use, such as the ceremonial use of peyote in certain Native American religious rites.  The drug would be illegal for them to possess outside of the context of the ceremony, and only certain individuals may possess it, but members of the tribe and religion may ingest it.

Fifth, by eating poppy seeds.   Yes, poppy seed buns are made with the same poppy seeds, papavar somniferum, that produces opium.  The sterile seeds are perfectly legal, but they can cause a positive test for opiates.

I am sure there are other reasons a person might test positive for illicit drugs in their blood and not have possessed illegal drugs.

But that was never your statement to Big Don; I understood your point clearly.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Fourth, approved religious use, such as the ceremonial use of peyote in certain Native American religious rites. The drug would be illegal for them to possess outside of the context of the ceremony, and only certain individuals may possess it, but members of the tribe and religion may ingest it..


 
That's not quite how it works, but it's the reason they don't normally test for mescaline in the workplace, even at Los Alamos National Laboratory.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And just to argue the sidebar discussion that this has become...
> 
> Is it possible to test positive for illegal substances and to not have had possession of illegal drugs? Yes. I can think of several examples.


 
And I did mention that in my Above post...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 12, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> And I did mention that in my Above post...



Yes, you did.  But you were not the person insisting that in order to have illegal drugs in one's bloodstream, one must, _ipso facto_, have possessed illegal drugs prior to that.

I was concluding my micro-rant by pointing out that not only was the response technically incorrect (distinction without a difference), but even if we visit that sidebar insistence, that's incorrect factually as well.

And yes, I've been up all night working, and I'm a bit loopy at the moment.  Sorry.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 13, 2011)

If it was a native american type deal...wouldn't the Reservation card be a "Get out of Jail Free" card on the welfare in the blood stream?  If they did happen to use it for Religous purposes?


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 13, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I had to go look it up. You're right, I'm wrong:
> 
> http://www.garmokiste.com/legal-services/criminal-defense/michigan-minor-in-possession-mip-law/
> 
> ...


 
No biggie, many officers don't know that law unless they deal alot with juveniles.  Being assigned as an SRO, I have written a misd. citation under that statute for a kid who showed up and smelled like alcohol.  That is how I knew the bac level etc.


----------

