So when receiving financial assistance that comes from government one is expected to surrender their Constitutional protections? What about people who receive government 'financial assistance' in other manners? Like tax breaks. If one takes a certain tax break should they be subject to random drug test?

 

It is very debatable how much or how long the government should provide ongoing financial welfare, just like tax rates are debatable. But people should be very vigilant when Constitutional protection are forced to be surrendered to the government.

 

What happens when the find a positive? Benefits may be denied. But are they charged with a crime? Are they put into a database and tracked. Is the data protected with HIPAA like vigilance?

 

And employers are not the government. They have the ability to do what they wish when it comes to 'at-will' employees. However, the People have a contract with the more powerful government - its called a Constitution.

 

Does one not surrender constitutional rights when you join the military ?

So when receiving financial assistance that comes from government one is expected to surrender their Constitutional protections? What about people who receive government 'financial assistance' in other manners? Like tax breaks. If one takes a certain tax break should they be subject to random drug test?

 

It is very debatable how much or how long the government should provide ongoing financial welfare, just like tax rates are debatable. But people should be very vigilant when Constitutional protection are forced to be surrendered to the government.

 

What happens when the find a positive? Benefits may be denied. But are they charged with a crime? Are they put into a database and tracked. Is the data protected with HIPAA like vigilance?

 

And employers are not the government. They have the ability to do what they wish when it comes to 'at-will' employees. However, the People have a contract with the more powerful government - its called a Constitution.

 

Then one has the right of not taking the test. When you ask for aid there may be strings attached, after all you are asking people to give you something. In this case one is receiving aid from tax money.

Does one not surrender constitutional rights when you join the military ?

 

I am missing point. At some level I guess the answer is yes.

 

You can always forfeit rights and freedom. But a government should not take them or use them as blackmail for services.

I am missing point. At some level I guess the answer is yes.

 

You can always forfeit rights and freedom. But a government should not take them or use them as blackmail for services.

 

It's blackmail to ask someone who wants to use other peoples money to not use drugs?

And employers are not the government. They have the ability to do what they wish when it comes to 'at-will' employees. However, the People have a contract with the more powerful government - its called a Constitution.

 

Actually, the government is my employer and they require me to be randomly drug and alcohol tested.

It's blackmail to ask someone who wants to use other peoples money to not use drugs?

 

To force surrendering of basic rights to receive services from the government is a form of Constitutional rights blackmail or maybe bribery.

 

In this case the service is welfare - I assume institutional, long term welfare and not ordinary UE benefits that paid for by payroll taxes (mostly).

 

If this is allowed on this 'service' - regardless of the feelings that its wasteful (it is), that it is abused (it is), and that some people who do not need it get it (they do) - then when can this or other forms of a warrent-less forced search be erected in exchange for some service or benefit.

 

Student loans, small business loans, grants, ... maybe basic services - like a drivers license, marriage license.

 

Once the government forces forfeiture of basic rights to gain a service or benefit the slope becomes very slippery. Whether its through blackmail or bribery its not a practice that the People should support if they hope to keep their basic freedoms.

Actually, the government is my employer and they require me to be randomly drug and alcohol tested.

 

As you said they are your employer. I assume under contract with the term that allows this specified or as ordinary 'at-will' employee where they can set all the rules but you can quit at any time.

 

By either signing the contract or accepting the job the right can be forfeited. You are free to not sign the contract or take the job if the terms are not acceptable. In the role of employer this testing is likely reasonable. Driving busses or public transit trains and many other roles certainly lend themselves to a level of drug testing.

As you said they are your employer. I assume under contract with the term that allows this specified or as ordinary 'at-will' employee where they can set all the rules but you can quit at any time.

 

By either signing the contract or accepting the job the right can be forfeited. You are free to not sign the contract or take the job if the terms are not acceptable. In the role of employer this testing is likely reasonable. Driving busses or public transit trains and many other roles certainly lend themselves to a level of drug testing.

 

You are also free not to accept taxpayer money in the form of any welfare program offered by the government.

Somewhat of an approach to only randomly violate the people's Constitution by the Government.

 

That darned old Constitution. Maybe we should just scrap the thing.

As you said they are your employer. I assume under contract with the term that allows this specified or as ordinary 'at-will' employee where they can set all the rules but you can quit at any time.

 

By either signing the contract or accepting the job the right can be forfeited. You are free to not sign the contract or take the job if the terms are not acceptable. In the role of employer this testing is likely reasonable. Driving busses or public transit trains and many other roles certainly lend themselves to a level of drug testing.

 

I used to run into burning buildings and tend to the sick and injured. Now I protect judges, the public and inmates.

 

People walk into the CHS office looking for assistance. That assistance is in the way of money. Why are they any better than me to be randomly tested for the money they receive? They are free not to accept the assistance they receive.

That darned old Constitution. Maybe we should just scrap the thing.

 

Please, show me in the Constitution where it says that people are entitled to welfare assistance? Then please show me where it says it would infringe upon their rights to be randomly drug tested to receive that assistance.

 

No Supreme Court case that has set precedent saying it would violate a persons Fourth Amendment protections nor the Fifth Amendment protections.

To force surrendering of basic rights to receive services from the government is a form of Constitutional rights blackmail or maybe bribery.

 

In this case the service is welfare - I assume institutional, long term welfare and not ordinary UE benefits that paid for by payroll taxes (mostly).

 

If this is allowed on this 'service' - regardless of the feelings that its wasteful (it is), that it is abused (it is), and that some people who do not need it get it (they do) - then when can this or other forms of a warrent-less forced search be erected in exchange for some service or benefit.

 

Student loans, small business loans, grants, ... maybe basic services - like a drivers license, marriage license.

 

Once the government forces forfeiture of basic rights to gain a service or benefit the slope becomes very slippery. Whether its through blackmail or bribery its not a practice that the People should support if they hope to keep their basic freedoms.

 

You are trying to equate welfare with basic services the government provides. It just isn't correct and is faulty logic.

 

If I as an individual can not work and provide for myself and I need to depend on other people to provide for there is nothing wrong with putting restrictons on that money.

 

It isn't your inalienable right to recieve welfare it's insane you are making this comparison.

I used to run into burning buildings and tend to the sick and injured. Now I protect judges, the public and inmates.

 

People walk into the CHS office looking for assistance. That assistance is in the way of money. Why are they any better than me to be randomly tested for the money they receive? They are free not to accept the assistance they receive.

 

There is no logical difference. BGC is making some weird case that welfare is an inalienable right and putting restriction somehow would violate the constitution.

 

He is wrong of course.

The funny and ironic part of this entire thread is many of the people who are acting like it's a violation of someone's rights to put restrictions on welfare benefits are the same people fine with gun ownership restrictions and calling for more restrictions on gun owners.

 

Gun ownership being an actual constitutional right and welfare benefits well are not. It's absolutely hilarious reading takes after taking that info in.

If the initial premise of this thread was that drug screening welfare recipients is unnecessary because in this one study only a small percentage tested positive isn't that kind of like the Obama Admin's spin on the latest Obamacare screw up where almost a million people got the wrong information that they need for their taxes and now have to wait for the correct information or may have to re-file their taxes? After all the White House spokesman said it was nothing to worry about because it's less the 1% of the total tax payers.

 

My question is when is the percentage big enough that it matters?