No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

@Fluffy,

At the top of the thread, I see some random quote where someone SAYS it's unconstitutional, however the Supreme Court has never said so, and a Federal Appeals Court said it was in Florida.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...t-rejects-drug-testing-of-welfare-applicants/

However. That is Florida. Not the entire Country, and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, it's still a LEGALLY open and enforceable issue, no matter how objectionable it might be. Like the places where Marijuana is now pseudo-legal. Until it gets to the Supreme Court, it simply isn't over (from a legal standpoint)...

The people behind the push for Drug testing will -- as expected -- keep pushing upwards until it's either

1) heard by the SCOTUS
2) the SCOTUS rules that they don't have reason nor right to hear the case (in effect upholding the Federal Appeals Court decision).

Wayne
 
@Wayne,

Can you trust the people that handle your pee?

And why do we feel the need to kick those who are down instead of holding those who lord over us to their supposed high moral standards? Why spend millions (at the labs of political friends) to try to save thousands from a group that only gets a few billion in total when the public servants who are the custodians of trillions get to sling the cash around to whoever they feel like. Why don't the politicians pee in cups?
 
Wayne said:
We have no common ground on which to discuss this matter, as we have two completely different basis of perspective, but it's weird to figure out that you're fervently objecting to drug testing in America based on your beliefs as a Canadian citizen under a completely different set of laws..
Click to expand...
I think fluffy understands the laws of both nations just fine. I think this thread is about the hypocrisy of those who make anti-drug laws and end up being busted for using drugs.

As far as I know, drugs are already illegal for everyone. So why should we make special laws for people on welfare to force them to take drug tests? If it's simply because they receive public money, then to be fair all people who receive public money or help in any way should also be subject to a drug test. And that should certainly extend to the politicians who are on the public pay-roll and making those very anti-drug laws (in the tech world we call it dogfooding, it should apply to law makers too). I see little reason to single out just the poorest of the poor for this type of close scrutiny.

The above still works within the beliefs that forcing people to take drug tests is legal and fixes the problem of profiling certain groups. Now, do I think drug testing people for things like welfare or for the workplace is right? No I don't actually, but that's not really the main issue here so let's not go off on a tangent.
 
We all hate the idea of a bunch of layabout druggies leachng off of our hard earned tax dollars, but how well does that characterization apply to the most of the people who receive welfare? A lot of the people who work at Walmart and McDonalds also get welfare tomake up for insufficient pay despite the fact that those companies make very good money for their owners. But what about the banks? Surely working for a bank is like writing your own paycheques? Turns out that in Ney York, at least, 39% of bank tellers are layabout druggies that should be peeing in cups... I mean, are collecting some form of government welfare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top