Are you guys talking about a off-the-shelf screening kit, or a clinic-administered kit? We have to utilize a clinic administered drug screening program for government drug-free workplace compliance, and those run us $180 a pop.

With all due respect, whomever did your negotiating should be fired.

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.

I'm typically right there with you on most issues. So please help me connect the dots between a drug screen and constitutional rights.

I'm typically right there with you on most issues. So please help me connect the dots between a drug screen and constitutional rights.

 

I'm scratching my head as well. A drug screen for a service that isn't a constitutional right.

I'm typically right there with you on most issues. So please help me connect the dots between a drug screen and constitutional rights.

 

I'm scratching my head as well. A drug screen for a service that isn't a constitutional right.

 

OK, gentlemen, let give it a try.

 

Where we agree:

 

- There is no constitutional right to institutionalized welfare.

- I hate wasteful, unnecessary spending as much as anyone. I have paid considerable amounts of taxes to the Feds and state that would easily pay for three kids to go to private colleges over the last 20 years.

- If institutionalized welfare were done away with I would not claim foul - its not a right or an undeniable entitlement.

 

Where I disagree:

- Like it or not institutionalized welfare is a government service paid, I assume, out of the general fund of the either the state or fed. I do look at as government service that anyone may need (and need is subjective) over their lifetime.

- I view those who receive the aid as ordinary citizens - just like those not receiving the welfare/aid. They should not be forced to endure a loss of basic constitutional right to arbitrary, warrentless searches by the government just as those who get a drivers license do not forfeit their right to privacy and warrentless search of their car when the obtain a drivers license.

- I do believe that mandatory drug screening is a violation of privacy - a 'principle' of the constitution and a warrentless search - a direct violation of the constitution.

- The premise of the drug testing is that that a high percentage of recipients are on drugs and that that is the reason they are on welfare and that is why our taxes are high. Yet, I can not recall studies that directly show this. Maybe they exist. If there is widespread and rampant fraud (and that somewhat subjective) then steps should be taken to address.

- The government, when NOT acting in the role of employer, should not insist on giving up a basic right (see above) in exchange for a service - that includes 'welfare'. The government holds enormous power that ordinary employers and other organizations or functions do not wield. Ensuring government does not get too much control over it citizens - including those 'on welfare' should be something that is always under scrutiny.

 

 

Somewhat subjectively here are my thoughts as I try to keep things objective when I can:

 

The mandatory wall to wall drug testing bothers me because it is search - a search of our bodies. People who drive busses, trains, etc. as part of their employment should be subject to this. Employers can do this as well - though I am not a big fan of it for no good reason.

 

The question is once the government has the results of a drug test what do they then do with that information - whether you 'pass' or not? Do they store in a database - again, even if you 'pass'? If you are found to have indicators of illegal or illicit drugs will they bring charges? Would the charges hold as they are from a 'warrentless' search. Is the data protected just like any 'patient' data under the HIPAA/HITECH act?

 

In general I am not a fan of surrending that much information - personal, detail, specific information - on peoples heath to the government merely to receive a welfare check.

 

I would support rooting out fraud and waste - that there is a good track record of that at any level. Defrauding government programs is probably one of the easiest things to do.

 

Personally, as much as I am anti-government - and most know that - I actually acknowledge a unique roll that government plays as the 'safety net of last resort' - or as I know it directly in Florida - the insurer of last resource. This is because the government can take risks that no private organization could ever do. It is a unique position and can be used to aid overall society.

 

I would love to see my taxes cut. But instituationalized welfare is only a small - very small portion that impact that.

 

Peace.

I understand and agree with most of your point. I'll only offer this, results aside, I certainly can understand the need for drug testing for private employers. I see no invasion of my privacy(I was screened before I was hired recently). As a matter of fact, I'd guess those who fail are no more or less likely to change their habit. So where is the invasion? I'll go a step farther, in that the company I currently work for keeps the results of the drug screen private and those results don't follow them until the next test(totally independent of the former). I think the bottom line is your fundamental opposition to drug testing if I read correctly. I would vote to continue this testing because the cost isn't 200 a pop. The article even says as much. There are other qualifications one must meet to obtain assistance. I see this as no different. As for the excess spending, I agree. But this drug test is a pimple on a whales rump in the grand scheme of things.

OK, gentlemen, let give it a try.

 

Where we agree:

 

- There is no constitutional right to institutionalized welfare.

- I hate wasteful, unnecessary spending as much as anyone. I have paid considerable amounts of taxes to the Feds and state that would easily pay for three kids to go to private colleges over the last 20 years.

- If institutionalized welfare were done away with I would not claim foul - its not a right or an undeniable entitlement.

 

Where I disagree:

- Like it or not institutionalized welfare is a government service paid, I assume, out of the general fund of the either the state or fed. I do look at as government service that anyone may need (and need is subjective) over their lifetime.

- I view those who receive the aid as ordinary citizens - just like those not receiving the welfare/aid. They should not be forced to endure a loss of basic constitutional right to arbitrary, warrentless searches by the government just as those who get a drivers license do not forfeit their right to privacy and warrentless search of their car when the obtain a drivers license.

- I do believe that mandatory drug screening is a violation of privacy - a 'principle' of the constitution and a warrentless search - a direct violation of the constitution.

- The premise of the drug testing is that that a high percentage of recipients are on drugs and that that is the reason they are on welfare and that is why our taxes are high. Yet, I can not recall studies that directly show this. Maybe they exist. If there is widespread and rampant fraud (and that somewhat subjective) then steps should be taken to address.

- The government, when NOT acting in the role of employer, should not insist on giving up a basic right (see above) in exchange for a service - that includes 'welfare'. The government holds enormous power that ordinary employers and other organizations or functions do not wield. Ensuring government does not get too much control over it citizens - including those 'on welfare' should be something that is always under scrutiny.

 

 

Somewhat subjectively here are my thoughts as I try to keep things objective when I can:

 

The mandatory wall to wall drug testing bothers me because it is search - a search of our bodies. People who drive busses, trains, etc. as part of their employment should be subject to this. Employers can do this as well - though I am not a big fan of it for no good reason.

 

The question is once the government has the results of a drug test what do they then do with that information - whether you 'pass' or not? Do they store in a database - again, even if you 'pass'? If you are found to have indicators of illegal or illicit drugs will they bring charges? Would the charges hold as they are from a 'warrentless' search. Is the data protected just like any 'patient' data under the HIPAA/HITECH act?

 

In general I am not a fan of surrending that much information - personal, detail, specific information - on peoples heath to the government merely to receive a welfare check.

 

I would support rooting out fraud and waste - that there is a good track record of that at any level. Defrauding government programs is probably one of the easiest things to do.

 

Personally, as much as I am anti-government - and most know that - I actually acknowledge a unique roll that government plays as the 'safety net of last resort' - or as I know it directly in Florida - the insurer of last resource. This is because the government can take risks that no private organization could ever do. It is a unique position and can be used to aid overall society.

 

I would love to see my taxes cut. But instituationalized welfare is only a small - very small portion that impact that.

 

Peace.

 

I appreciate your thoughts but this only makes sense if you feel people are entitled to other people's money. I don't feel that way. I have no problem helping people but I should have a right to put certain strings attached to my money to make sure people are putting themselves in the best position to succeed and get off the taxpayer dime.

I understand and agree with most of your point. I'll only offer this, results aside, I certainly can understand the need for drug testing for private employers. I see no invasion of my privacy(I was screened before I was hired recently). As a matter of fact, I'd guess those who fail are no more or less likely to change their habit. So where is the invasion? I'll go a step farther, in that the company I currently work for keeps the results of the drug screen private and those results don't follow them until the next test(totally independent of the former). I think the bottom line is your fundamental opposition to drug testing if I read correctly. I would vote to continue this testing because the cost isn't 200 a pop. The article even says as much. There are other qualifications one must meet to obtain assistance. I see this as no different. As for the excess spending, I agree. But this drug test is a pimple on a whales rump in the grand scheme of things.

 

I hold actions of the government to a different standard as that of private employer. The government - both the state and Federal - have much more power over the Citizenship than any private employer. One has options as and individual in the relationship with a private employer if one does not like the rules that come with the agreement of employment. Those options do not exist with the government.

 

As the IRS targeting shows a government that has specific information on individuals can use its power in abusive manner against its own citizenship. One of the triggers to Revolution was the Stamp Act - where warrentless searches were used harass ordinary citizens and to direct prosecution against individuals at will. With a detail 'search' of your body the same type of abuse is not outside the realm of possibility in this modern age.

 

I appreciate your thoughts but this only makes sense if you feel people are entitled to other people's money. I don't feel that way. I have no problem helping people but I should have a right to put certain strings attached to my money to make sure people are putting themselves in the best position to succeed and get off the taxpayer dime.

 

I do not feel people are entitle to other peoples money at all. I believe that if and how government does play a role as safety-net-of-last-resort is something that is fair game to be debated and to hold elected officials accountable for. I merely point out that government can play those roles. It is not obligated to do so - especially without the support of people. We should hold our elected representatives accountable for being too free with tax funds. Unfortunately, as someone said right after the founding of the country - our democracy will last until the politicians realize that we (a broad populace 'we') can be bribed with our own money. Meaning politicians will trade votes for government services - and certainly that has come to fruition in many ways.

 

When it does play that role strings can be attached. An example is requiring work from able-body people as part of receiving aid. Or taking education or training as part of the aid to gain skills instead of just watching TV all day. Those sort of strings I would not take issue with at all. As noted above it when the string is one that gives the government power and information it would not otherwise have in exchange for the aid.

Edited February 22, 201511 yr by Bluegrasscard

Pictures are worth a lot of words on the subject.

 

This risk of being too free with the public fund - from TJ:

 

 

Congress (but applies to all levels of government) ability to bribe the public with their own money:

 

I don't disagree with your points at all when it comes to the government. So, let me ask you this. Are you opposed to a drug screen as a requirement for employment with the fed gov't?

I don't disagree with your points at all when it comes to the government. So, let me ask you this. Are you opposed to a drug screen as a requirement for employment with the fed gov't?

If states are going to drug-test recipients on the lower end of the economic scale who receive government benefits, then said testing needs to be expanded to the higher end as well. Why not, for instance, drug-test farmers who receive federal payments for not growing certain crops ... or those receiving unemployment benefits ... or corporate fat cats who receive millions in federal subsidies? Why are they exempt?

 

It seems silly to just drug-test those on welfare. It takes a steady stream of income to support a drug habit. Hence, drug-testing those of means likely would see the "gotcha" percentage rise higher than the the less-than-1 percent figure for welfare recipients.

It is our money, but the Supreme Court has spoken and requires it to spent on the mass incarceration of individuals with minor offenses where they receive free taxpayer funded health care, food, lodging and education. Most get free legal representation also. We always here the conservative talking points on "welfare", but we never seem to hear objections to MASSIVE spending on the legal, judicial and penal costs associated with the prosecution of crimes that are relatively minor.

 

Not from conservatives but if you're not hearing it from the liberals then you are not listening. It all balances out.

 

However, is your point to not pursue "minor" crimes?

I appreciate your thoughts but this only makes sense if you feel people are entitled to other people's money. I don't feel that way. I have no problem helping people but I should have a right to put certain strings attached to my money to make sure people are putting themselves in the best position to succeed and get off the taxpayer dime.

 

The Founding Fathers had a way of looking at this problem and we need to return to it.

 

1. DO NOT help the needy completely. Merely help them to help themselves.

2. Give the poor the satisfaction of "earned achievement" instead of rewarding them without achievement.

3. Allow the poor to climb the "appreciation ladder", work your way up in job and housing.

4. Where emergency help is provided, DO NOT prolong it to the point where it becomes habitual.

5. STRICTLY enforce the scale of "fixed responsibility." The 1st and foremost level of responsibility is with the individual himself, the 2nd level is the family, then the church, next the community, finally the county, and in a disaster or emergency, the state. Under NO circumstance is the federal gov't to become involved in public welfare. The Founders felt it would corrupt the Gov't and also the poor. No Constitutional authority exists for the federal Gov't to participate in charity or welfare.

And before people start talking about compassion.....

 

Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counter-productive.

Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counter-productive.

Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive and excel is counter-productive.

If states are going to drug-test recipients on the lower end of the economic scale who receive government benefits, then said testing needs to be expanded to the higher end as well. Why not, for instance, drug-test farmers who receive federal payments for not growing certain crops ... or those receiving unemployment benefits ... or corporate fat cats who receive millions in federal subsidies? Why are they exempt?

 

It seems silly to just drug-test those on welfare. It takes a steady stream of income to support a drug habit. Hence, drug-testing those of means likely would see the "gotcha" percentage rise higher than the the less-than-1 percent figure for welfare recipients.

 

Good luck with that.

Good luck with that.

It's hard to separate GOP state lawmakers from their myth system.