Georgia passes drug testing for welfare bill...
Why is this a sad day? This should be interesting.
Just as we start showing signs of progression (sunday sales), we go and pass a regressive bill like this? What is it trying to accomplish? Creating more bureocracy?Originally Posted by Browning151
This has nothing to do with whether or not drugs should be legal, it's about enforcing current laws. Stick to one topic.
I love the idea I myself know way to many dope heads claiming welfare that im sure would be working or living a better life if drug free.
Maybe this will help clean a lot of them up if not then at least save some income and assistance for those who DESERVE it...
We're on the same topic. Not only is this not going to accomplish anything, the constitutionality of testing welfare recipients is questionable, and has already been declared unconstitutional once.
Does it comfort you to know that this doesn't affect people who abuse legal drugs, like alcohol and cigarettes?
I don't see how unreasonable search and seizure applies here (which is the only constitutional argument I've heard I believe) since welfare is voluntary, you have the option not to be subjected to any search by not applying for assistance. As far as not accomplishing anything, I haven't seen a cost-benefit analysis as to how much it could potentially save taxpayers by eliminating drug users from receiving welfare. I would absolutely agree that if it costs more to implement and maintain than it saves then it is a pretty pointless idea.
May I direct you to Marchwinski v. Howard?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr
...which basically says its not reasonable unless a warrant is issued. Which is pretty much concurrent with existing laws.
Yep cause things like Foodstamps won't purchase Alcohol or Cigarettes so they will have to work to achieve those
Is it legal for employers to require you to submit to a drug test as a condition of employment?
Lol. I don't get it. So if I'm on welfare, it's ok if I spend my personal $ (that I worked for) on alcohol or cigs, but NOT if I spend my personal $ on some weed? $50 bucks will by me a carton of cigarettes which won't show up on a drug test at all, $20 bucks will get me a decent amount of weed which will show up a month from now.Yep cause things like Foodstamps won't purchase Alcohol or Cigarettes so they will have to work to achieve those
Problem with that is.....they're getting assistance and then putting extra money towards those things instead of supporting themselves/their family. The money they spend on alcohol/tobacco should be used to support themselves or their families basic needs. This is where this whole debate gets very slippery.Yep cause things like Foodstamps won't purchase Alcohol or Cigarettes so they will have to work to achieve those
Stay on the same topic here, we're talking about govt mandated drug test, not civilian ones. But since we're on the subject, a lot of companies have gotten away from doing drug tests because of the costs of finding a positive result. It simply isn't worth it.
Yeah not my fault Cigarettes are legal but not pot maybe that will change some day soon. Also Pot is not addictive so thats a choice to smoke but Cigarettes are HIGHLY addictive and very hard to stop.
I've known numerous people to quit cold turkey. It's also a choice to begin smoking in the first place. Same with alcohol.
My point is why is it not ok for one, but ok for the other?
They're still paying for a luxury item while receiving tax payer dollars to provide basic necessities. Do you not see a problem with that?
In the case of employment drug screenings it ultimately comes down to an individual's decision whether to have drug screenings or not. In this case it's the govt. Since they've laid out a set of laws for themselves and everyone to adhere to (the constitution) that's where the legality is concerned. It's the same reason cops can't brethalyze you, or take something thats yours without following proper procedure.
If they added that judicial warrants must be issued every time they test you, it wouldn't be an issue.
Yes but from the taxes ive seen on cigarettes these days its being payed back just as fast unlike pot that can't be taxed lol
I say good...if you can sit around and do drugs all day, you have time to get a job.
Studies show that 70% of all illegal drug (including weed) users 18 and up have a full or part time job. Much more if you include cigs and alcohol.
im actually going to probably surprise a ton of people and side with blank on this one. Ive done a lot of research on the subject and the truth is, the correlation between welfare users and drug users is extremely small. It will cost more to drug test them and police it, then it will be to solve anything by kicking abusers off the system. They did a study about it in Florida.
Plus, this is a gross abuse of govt powers, telling a person how to spend their money/govt subsidy? If people are using welfare to abuse drugs. so be it, i trust the law will weed them out or they will take care of themselves eventually.
Do you want to spend $4million dollars to police a problem that costs less than $300,000 a year (in abuse to welfare)?
Its really just a talking point that sounds good on paper, but doesnt accomplish the goal
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
while in principle i 100% agree with you, i dont want the govt making those choices. Those people are simply just bound to be at the bottom of the pile, period. Accept it, move on.
I have friends that BITCH about being broke but spend $100 a week on beer and alcohol and cigs. Its retarded, but, thats their choice.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I don't think people spending their money on weed is a huge problem (unless there are some statistics out there that I'm not seeing). I would imagine most low-income drug users are recreational users. Chances are if you have children, you're probably not spending as much on drugs are you are on essentials. Stats are showing that the percentage of low income illegal drug users is in line with the percentage of the general population. I understand that there are few exceptions, but I don't think there's enough out there to consider it problematic enough to require this extra legislation. Since most hard drugs like meth flush through your system in days, this will impact the families (read: children) of the rec weed user who only spends a few bucks here and there on a joint, but is legitimately on welfare because of their situation.
If this bill is about doing the right thing, it's a half-step. Maybe even a quarter step. What it does do is infringes on already established constitutional rights. It also leads to a slippery slope on what recreations you can impose on people who are on welfare. Who's to say you can't stop me from spending $20 at the movie theater, which is also something I shouldn't be doing if Im financially strapped. Big govt opposers (conservatives, tea party patriots) should be up in arms over this, yet they're the ones who push it through. It's appalling.
You posted before I finished, but spot on.
thats the other thing that kinda has me scratching my head, this is a HUGE govt intrusion into peoples lives. There IS a way to solve it, nationalize all the grocery stores and utility companies and make welfare only good at those places :P
People are going to make dumb choices, which is probably why they are on welfare in the first place, but when you give the govt a LITTLE permission to be somewhat intrusive, it tends to get out of hand.
I dont want state Govt offices dictating what is recreational and what is not. Im totally ok with them banning the welfare cards on state lottery, alcohol , tobacco products. It should be used for food and shelter only IMO.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I will add though that I'm OK with regulating what people spend GOVT WELFARE money on, to a point (which is weird since they can't seem to do it themselves), but I can't say what you can/can't do with your OWN money.
I actually pretty much agree with both of you. The consequences of just kicking many people off the welfare roles if this is taken to the next level will be much worse than the comparatively few dollars lost on drug users. My main point of contention is where/how the fourth amendment comes into play with this since it is ultimately someones decision to submit to the drug screening.
Because its ultimately the governments decision to administer these drug screenings. Unless you've been arrested(which means your rights have been waived for the most part), the govt has to follow procedure when collecting things like this. That procedure is a warrant.
its voluntary to drive right? but even if they arrest you , you have the right to refuse a search/seizure IE drug or breath test. What happens if you test positive for weed? Can they prosecute you for fraud?
I mean like i said i think on paper it sounds perfectly fine, but once you think it through, its basically circumventing all due process.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
The only way the government will administer the drug screening is if you voluntarily sign up for public assistance.
Walk the drivers license back a step. Is it unreasonable search and seizure to require a drug test to receive a drivers license in the first place? They require hearing a vision tests, for safety reasons. The case could be made that a drug test is needed for safety reasons, to keep drug users from behind the wheel of a car.
I'm playing devils advocate a little bit here because I see where the case can be made on either side of the argument, it will be interesting to see where this lands with the courts.
ETA: 32 replies in 3 hours, I haven't seen this section that busy in a long time.
Its the SEIZURE part. You're not giving anything up for a hearing and vision test. For a drug screening they have to take a urine/blood/hair sample from you. It's the collection of physical evidence.
The problem with the drivers license example is there is no way to tell if someone is high right NOW or last week other than visually looking but bloodshot eyes doesn't= guilty. That's a major hurdle for legalizing marijuana, there's no accurate test out.
You can test hearing and vision on site for safety, alcohol they test in the field for the DUI. How do you test for marijuana?
Or cocaine? Or heroin? Or Meth?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
What if they changed the wording to "you must submit to a drug screen to apply for benefits ".
That way the state isn't picking and choosing. Or if you're convicted of a drug related offense your lose benefits.
What about that? Shift responsibility to the individual, not the state?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I'm not sure that changes much.
I can completely get behind this. I would also think maybe a "tiered" system could be implemented; 1st offense 6 month suspension. 2nd offense 1 year suspension. 3rd offense permanent suspension of benefits, or something similar.
Is it still unreasonable if you voluntarily submit to the screening?
I see where you're coming from, that's why I say this will be interesting to see where it lands with the courts.
How is it NOT an individuals decision whether or not to ask me and you to pay for their lifestyle?
Or they can just add a stipulation that a drug test is required as part of the application process.
Please cite where the Constitution says you have a right to welfare money.
Wrong. Many of the simple litmus strips are over 95% accurate. That is more accurate than a field sobriety test which can be the justification for a breathalizer.
Wrong again. There are litmus strips, there are individual cups and there are mass batch tests. All with well over 95% accuracy.
The mass batch tests are the cheapest. Those test require a minimum PPM reading (depending on the number of samples) to come back as a hit. If the lab tests a batch of 100 samples and gets a hit, they go back and test each individual sample to find the dirty one(s). This style of testing has a built in redundancy that makes a false positive nearly impossible.
I agree completely. I would go so far to say you are not allowed welfare if convicted of any felony within the previous 10 years.
As for the Government paying for screening I Just read that they would charge a $25 fee for the drug screening for which would be fully reimbursed if Negative.
I personally hope they start with places like here in Barrow county cause about 75% are drug abusers and not just Pot.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
