[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Drug Testing Welfare, Round 2 (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 2/12/2010 4:07:32 AM EDT
|
Here CHARLESTON, W.Va. (WSAZ) –– The idea of drug testing people on welfare was debated at the capitol in Charleston Wednesday. A similar bill was brought to lawmakers during last year's session but did not become law. Berkeley County Delegate Craig Blair (R) says demand from the public brought the issue back on the agenda. He says polls from his home county show that more than 80 percent of people are in favor of the idea. "It's the right thing to do for the taxpayers, it's the right thing to do for the drug addicts," Blair said. "It's the right thing to do for the people that are working in West Virginia. It's time we give them the respect they deserve and the drug addicts the help they need." Blair says he's improved the legislation that would require random drug testing for anyone who receives welfare benefits. One difference in this year's version of the bill is that if someone were to fail the test twice but was involved in a drug treatment program, they'd continue to get assistance. Blair urged fellow House members Wednesday to support the bill this year, but several other delegates believe it would only reinforce negative stereotypes. "It's picking on poor people,” Jefferson Delegate John Doyle (D) said. “Now I do reject the idea that this bill is racist. However, it is seriously classist. For that reason I think it should be rejected." “The war on poverty and the war on drugs have been melded together to become a war on the impoverished, and I think that's an unfortunate offshoot of this kind of legislation,” Wayne County Delegate Don Perdue (D) said. Blair says with many professionals already being required to take drug tests when applying for jobs, it's only fair that those receiving state assistance be subject to testing also. "Many, many people in business are being drug tested,” Blair said. “Those are the ones paying taxes and having their tax dollars redistributed. Don't you think we deserve the opportunity to make sure their tax dollars are being spent wisely and getting to those truly in need rather than those addicted to drugs?" Democrats say the legislation is unconstitutional and impractical and that another year was not enough to save the bill. Blair called for six Democrats to sponsor the bill with him, but Fayette County Delegate Tommy Louisos was the only Democrat who agreed to do so. Several Republicans did sign onto the legislation. The bill will now head to a committee for further review. |
|
I'll pass on supporting this. Not that it is a bad idea but it demonstrates our legislator's inability to prioritize their work week and I will pass on the added tax dollars it will take to piss test everyone on welfare.
End the WOD and require people on welfare to work 40 hours per week performing menial work for the state. Pay them barely enough not to starve. |
|
Quoted:
I'll pass on supporting this. Not that it is a bad idea but it demonstrates our legislator's inability to prioritize their work week and I will pass on the added tax dollars it will take to piss test everyone on welfare. End the WOD and require people on welfare to work 40 hours per week performing menial work for the state. Pay them barely enough not to starve. I'm having a hard time admitting that I agree with you. (this is clearly your most lucid post.) |
|
Quoted: "Democrats say the legislation is unconstitutional and impractical" Well there isn't anything in the Constitution about having to give anyone welfare either. Maybe they should use other .gov programs to better their lives istead of sitting on their dead asses.  One buys votes, one kills them. Its pretty easy to see why one is "unconstitutional". They only care about that piece of paper, in their fundamentally unsound interpretation of it, when it means it can be used to keep or buy additional votes. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll pass on supporting this. Not that it is a bad idea but it demonstrates our legislator's inability to prioritize their work week and I will pass on the added tax dollars it will take to piss test everyone on welfare. End the WOD and require people on welfare to work 40 hours per week performing menial work for the state. Pay them barely enough not to starve. I'm having a hard time admitting that I agree with you. (this is clearly your most lucid post.) Perhaps it's simply a lucid moment for yourself. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: You have to take a piss test to work at Target, I don't think it's out of line to require one for welfare. And piss test to work at Target shouldn't be allowed. I disagree. You are entering into an employment contract with them. Its their store, their money, their rules. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have to take a piss test to work at Target, I don't think it's out of line to require one for welfare. And piss test to work at Target shouldn't be allowed. I disagree. You are entering into an employment contract with them. Its their store, their money, their rules. If it's unconstitutional for welfare, it should be unconstitutional all around. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have to take a piss test to work at Target, I don't think it's out of line to require one for welfare. And piss test to work at Target shouldn't be allowed. I disagree. You are entering into an employment contract with them. Its their store, their money, their rules. If it's unconstitutional for welfare, it should be unconstitutional all around. It is unconstitutional. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have to take a piss test to work at Target, I don't think it's out of line to require one for welfare. And piss test to work at Target shouldn't be allowed. I disagree. You are entering into an employment contract with them. Its their store, their money, their rules. If it's unconstitutional for welfare, it should be unconstitutional all around. Listening to Democrats, regarding Welfare restrictions, when they say its unconstitutional is not the same as the USSC saying so. |
|
Oh great! Lets effectively drive drug addicts away from welfare, and leave them with no visible means of support. Great idea y'all...
What do you think most of those hard-core meth and heroin addicts are going to do to get their drug money? Clean themselves up and put in for a job at IBM? No... They'll be breaking into cars, sheds, abandon houses, and what have you. And despite the ARFCOM standard of "oh I'll just shoot them with my ______ and everything'll be just fine", well chances are you won't catch them or find out who the are till the police give you a ring; I'm knocking that right out of the equation. What I'm getting at, is I don't mind paying taxes to provide certain types of people a living off my work; simply because in some cases I'm covering my own ass. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have to take a piss test to work at Target, I don't think it's out of line to require one for welfare. And piss test to work at Target shouldn't be allowed. I disagree. You are entering into an employment contract with them. Its their store, their money, their rules. If it's unconstitutional for welfare, it should be unconstitutional all around. It is unconstitutional. On what grounds? |
|
Quoted: Oh great! Lets effectively drive drug addicts away from welfare, and leave them with no visible means of support. Great idea y'all... What do you think most of those hard-core meth and heroin addicts are going to do to get their drug money? Clean themselves up and put in for a job at IBM? No... They'll be breaking into cars, sheds, abandon houses, and what have you. And despite the ARFCOM standard of "oh I'll just shoot them with my ______ and everything'll be just fine", well chances are you won't catch them or find out who the are till the police give you a ring; I'm knocking that right out of the equation. What I'm getting at, is I don't mind paying taxes to provide certain types of people a living off my work; simply because in some cases I'm covering my own ass. At least you admit its protection money. Why not let them try to steal shit, and make it legal to put them down if they are caught doing it? |
|
This would be unfair to the Drug traffickers as it might have an adverse on their businesses. Mexico would be against it for the above reason. ACORN, Jesse and Al would cry racial targeting. Forcing one particular demographic to be productful has to be unconstitutional. On a brighter note, Drug treatment centers would be forced to increase staff numbers as Drug using welfare recipients will certainly choose treatment over abstinence. Hek, they are trying. Or are they just pretending to try. Who knows? I propose a "Work for your Drugs" program for those who continually test positive. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have to take a piss test to work at Target, I don't think it's out of line to require one for welfare. And piss test to work at Target shouldn't be allowed. I disagree. You are entering into an employment contract with them. Its their store, their money, their rules. If it's unconstitutional for welfare, it should be unconstitutional all around. Listening to Democrats, regarding Welfare restrictions, when they say its unconstitutional is not the same as the USSC saying so. ...just pointing out the Dempocrisy. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: You have to take a piss test to work at Target, I don't think it's out of line to require one for welfare. And piss test to work at Target shouldn't be allowed. at the risk of hijacking thread, why not? I'm as against the WOD as anyone, but I don't have a problem with employers making not using drugs a condition of employment (and using drug testing as a means to that end). |
|
Quoted:
Oh great! Lets effectively drive drug addicts away from welfare, and leave them with no visible means of support. Great idea y'all... What do you think most of those hard-core meth and heroin addicts are going to do to get their drug money? Clean themselves up and put in for a job at IBM? No... They'll be breaking into cars, sheds, abandon houses, and what have you. And despite the ARFCOM standard of "oh I'll just shoot them with my ______ and everything'll be just fine", well chances are you won't catch them or find out who the are till the police give you a ring; I'm knocking that right out of the equation. What I'm getting at, is I don't mind paying taxes to provide certain types of people a living off my work; simply because in some cases I'm covering my own ass. That is a weak mentality. Pay the bully not to beat you up? Man up, dude. And to others who are saying that the WoD is unconstitutional, etc, baby steps people. What do you think the likelihood of ending the WoD is? Denying benefits to those caught will more than offset the costs of the tests. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have to take a piss test to work at Target, I don't think it's out of line to require one for welfare. And piss test to work at Target shouldn't be allowed. I disagree. You are entering into an employment contract with them. Its their store, their money, their rules. If it's unconstitutional for welfare, it should be unconstitutional all around. It is unconstitutional. On what grounds? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against all 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. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have to take a piss test to work at Target, I don't think it's out of line to require one for welfare. And piss test to work at Target shouldn't be allowed. at the risk of hijacking thread, why not? I'm as against the WOD as anyone, but I don't have a problem with employers making not using drugs a condition of employment (and using drug testing as a means to that end). I agree, why shouldn't private companies be allowed to drug test. Home Depot does it. I wouldn't want a guy thats stoned operating my forklift with pallets on high shelves while customers are in the store. |
|
I called my state rep yesterday to suggest the same thing.
There has to be a way to deal with the ones who are addicted. I have a bunch of rentals where the tenants get state aid, they don't work but every time I am there it smells like weed. If you have the money for weed you don't need my tax dollars. It would really hurt my rental biz to require a piss test for welfare, but I am still supportive. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Oh great! Lets effectively drive drug addicts away from welfare, and leave them with no visible means of support. Great idea y'all... What do you think most of those hard-core meth and heroin addicts are going to do to get their drug money? Clean themselves up and put in for a job at IBM? No... They'll be breaking into cars, sheds, abandon houses, and what have you. And despite the ARFCOM standard of "oh I'll just shoot them with my ______ and everything'll be just fine", well chances are you won't catch them or find out who the are till the police give you a ring; I'm knocking that right out of the equation. What I'm getting at, is I don't mind paying taxes to provide certain types of people a living off my work; simply because in some cases I'm covering my own ass. You're a bad person. Its sad that even here we have people spouting the victim mentality "if I just give him my money he'll let me go." Fuck that. |
|
Quoted:
Oh great! Lets effectively drive drug addicts away from welfare, and leave them with no visible means of support. Great idea y'all... What do you think most of those hard-core meth and heroin addicts are going to do to get their drug money? Clean themselves up and put in for a job at IBM? No... They'll be breaking into cars, sheds, abandon houses, and what have you. And despite the ARFCOM standard of "oh I'll just shoot them with my ______ and everything'll be just fine", well chances are you won't catch them or find out who the are till the police give you a ring; I'm knocking that right out of the equation. What I'm getting at, is I don't mind paying taxes to provide certain types of people a living off my work; simply because in some cases I'm covering my own ass. So basically we have to bribe a certain class of people and pay extortion money to keep our cities safe? I'd rather pay the tax dollars to put them in prison than support their lifestyle. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have to take a piss test to work at Target, I don't think it's out of line to require one for welfare. And piss test to work at Target shouldn't be allowed. I disagree. You are entering into an employment contract with them. Its their store, their money, their rules. If it's unconstitutional for welfare, it should be unconstitutional all around. It is unconstitutional. On what grounds? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against all 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. Not applicable. |
|
Quoted:
Oh great! Lets effectively drive drug addicts away from welfare, and leave them with no visible means of support. Great idea y'all... What do you think most of those hard-core meth and heroin addicts are going to do to get their drug money? Clean themselves up and put in for a job at IBM? No... They'll be breaking into cars, sheds, abandon houses, and what have you. And despite the ARFCOM standard of "oh I'll just shoot them with my ______ and everything'll be just fine", well chances are you won't catch them or find out who the are till the police give you a ring; I'm knocking that right out of the equation. What I'm getting at, is I don't mind paying taxes to provide certain types of people a living off my work; simply because in some cases I'm covering my own ass. You just don't get it do you? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have to take a piss test to work at Target, I don't think it's out of line to require one for welfare. And piss test to work at Target shouldn't be allowed. I disagree. You are entering into an employment contract with them. Its their store, their money, their rules. If it's unconstitutional for welfare, it should be unconstitutional all around. It is unconstitutional. On what grounds? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against all 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. Not applicable. First of all, this is not the government doing it (in the case of Walmart) but a private entity. You would voluntarily submit to drug testing to work there, if that is something you disagree with, then you don't have to work there. In the case of welfare recipients, they don't have a right to welfare and no one would be forcing them to do anything. They would voluntarily agree to certain conditions to recieve certain benefits. If that is too onerous for them, they can choose not to recieve the benefits. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have to take a piss test to work at Target, I don't think it's out of line to require one for welfare. And piss test to work at Target shouldn't be allowed. I disagree. You are entering into an employment contract with them. Its their store, their money, their rules. If it's unconstitutional for welfare, it should be unconstitutional all around. It is unconstitutional. On what grounds? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against all 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. Doesn't even fit the situation. If you are sucking from the government tit you need to be held accountable for how you are spending the money. Don't like it get off your lazy drug ridden ass and go to work. |
|
As much as I like the IDEA of drug testing welfare recipients I have to agree that it is unconstitutional.
In essence, welfare programs are a public service to folks who need to eat. There will always be folks abusing those programs and there will always be drug addicts. I am not opposed to taking greater steps to curb the amounts of abuse in social programs, but required drug testing for a PUBLIC program would violate the 4th amendment IMHO. If you take away the Arfcom assumption that all welfare recipients are scumbags, and just look at welfare for what it is Supposed to be...folks applying for assistance have no choice. They can't just go to employer "B" or decide not to join the football team, etc... FWIW, there are a lot of people on welfare where I live. There are a lot of scumbags too :/ I would LIKE to see the scumbags tested for drugs, but as another poster mentioned, I don't want to see them loose their monthly pittance, or go to $200+/day drug rehabs that they have no desire to utilize, on my dime 
That will just cost us all MORE in the long run. I DON'T want to see the 50 some year old single, cat lady who broke her hip and lost her job and has to apply for welfare to pay her medical bills and eat until she heals or qualifies for SSI be required to go piss in a cup every week. Speed |
|
I understand that a good body of us here support certain freedoms, yet not other, like liberals do. However, Urine testing for retail jobs is a slippery slope.
It started with drug testing thank background checks then finger printing now credit checks next it will be.... DNA samples retina scans home visits/interviews with the spouses and on and on until you are marching like little lemmings, simply to earn $9 an hour at Walmart. Drug testing is not a hill I choose to die upon, at all. But the slippery slope of personal freedom is. |
|
Quoted:
As much as I like the IDEA of drug testing welfare recipients I have to agree that it is unconstitutional. In essence, welfare programs are a public service to folks who need to eat. There will always be folks abusing those programs and there will always be drug addicts. I am not opposed to taking greater steps to curb the amounts of abuse in social programs, but required drug testing for a PUBLIC program would violate the 4th amendment IMHO. If you take away the Arfcom assumption that all welfare recipients are scumbags, and just look at welfare for what it is Supposed to be...folks applying for assistance have no choice. They can't just go to employer "B" or decide not to join the football team, etc... FWIW, there are a lot of people on welfare where I live. There are a lot of scumbags too :/ I would LIKE to see the scumbags tested for drugs, but as another poster mentioned, I don't want to see them loose their monthly pittance, or go to $200+/day drug rehabs that they have no desire to utilize, on my dime
That will just cost us all MORE in the long run. I DON'T want to see the 50 some year old single, cat lady who broke her hip and lost her job and has to apply for welfare to pay her medical bills and eat until she heals or qualifies for SSI be required to go piss in a cup every week. Speed How is it unconstitutional? No one is making them take the welfare. Don't want to piss in a cup? Don't take my money. Pretty simple really. |
|
Quoted:
I will try and keep everyone posted when information becomes available. In other news, the death penalty being brought back is being tossed around in the capital as well. If you would like to email Del. Blair, feel free to send your support here His drug testing welfare site is here Is Blair your delegate? I'm just south of his district, in Miller's. Miller knows where I stand on this. Would love to see the DP brought back but that's another thread. ETA: here's the story from the local paper that covers Blair's district: Blair unsuccessfully invites Dems to join bill MARTINSBURG - In a floor speech Wednesday morning and press conference that followed the House session, Delegate Craig Blair invited Democrats to join him in sponsoring a bill that would require drug testing for individuals receiving welfare payments as well as public officials. Blair, R-Berkeley, said he took this somewhat unsuccessful action for several reasons, not the least of which is what he termed "the large percentage of bipartisan support that exists among the public" for his proposed drug-testing bill. "Polls have shown that this is not perceived by the public as a partisan issue - it's simply something that citizens support. I reminded my fellow legislators that people are expecting us to work together to get this done," Blair said Wednesday in a telephone interview from Charleston. He said the bill has room for 11 sponsors, and he'd left room for six Democrats to sign up. However, just two Democrats signed up - Delegate Tom Louisos, D-Fayette, and Delegate Daniel Hall, D-Wyoming, Blair said. Hall he signed on as a bill sponsor because he's seen the destruction that drugs have brought to his home in southern West Virginia. He hopes this legislation will be at least a "step in the right direction" toward solving that problem. "My district is not unlike a lot of other places in that we have a severe problem with drugs, mostly prescription drug abuse. I'm from an area where last year we averaged almost three deaths a month from drug overdoses," Hall said in a telephone interview from Charleston. He said illegal drugs also are partially responsible for related problems including drug-impaired driving and even child neglect when parents suffer from addiction. "It's clear that we've got to take some tough measures," he said. Louisos could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Blair said the fairly small response was disappointing. "Especially since I'd heard rumblings of others who said they supported this, but in the end, they didn't come forward," Blair said. "I feel so strongly about it that I would scratch my own name off as lead sponsor if we had an overwhelming response, because ultimately, I want it to be a bipartisan effort that results in this bill getting passed." Wednesday was the right time to extend this invitation because his bill should officially be introduced today, Blair said. At that time, it will get its committee assignments, he said. For now, it looks as if only he and his fellow Republicans - aside from Louisos - will be the bill's sponsors, Blair said. "That's a shame because this is really an opportunity for all of us to do the right thing at several levels. It's about doing the right thing to respect the taxpayers and also about helping people who are on drugs, so that they can get off public assistance and get back into the work force," he said. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
As much as I like the IDEA of drug testing welfare recipients I have to agree that it is unconstitutional. In essence, welfare programs are a public service to folks who need to eat. There will always be folks abusing those programs and there will always be drug addicts. I am not opposed to taking greater steps to curb the amounts of abuse in social programs, but required drug testing for a PUBLIC program would violate the 4th amendment IMHO. If you take away the Arfcom assumption that all welfare recipients are scumbags, and just look at welfare for what it is Supposed to be...folks applying for assistance have no choice. They can't just go to employer "B" or decide not to join the football team, etc... FWIW, there are a lot of people on welfare where I live. There are a lot of scumbags too :/ I would LIKE to see the scumbags tested for drugs, but as another poster mentioned, I don't want to see them loose their monthly pittance, or go to $200+/day drug rehabs that they have no desire to utilize, on my dime
That will just cost us all MORE in the long run. I DON'T want to see the 50 some year old single, cat lady who broke her hip and lost her job and has to apply for welfare to pay her medical bills and eat until she heals or qualifies for SSI be required to go piss in a cup every week. Speed How is it unconstitutional? No one is making them take the welfare. Don't want to piss in a cup? Don't take my money. Pretty simple really. I would argue, as probably any first year law student would, that persons applying for welfare have exhausted all other resources to support themselves and have no choice left but hope for public funds to obtain food and shelter. These programs exist for that reason and are not meant as an "alternative" to work. They should not be required to relinquish certain constitutional rights based solely on their economic situation. I didn't create the programs, nor am I arguing the legitimacy of welfare in general, only the rights to privacy of the applicants. Speed |
|
Quoted: Oh great! Lets effectively drive drug addicts away from welfare, and leave them with no visible means of support. Great idea y'all... What do you think most of those hard-core meth and heroin addicts are going to do to get their drug money? Clean themselves up and put in for a job at IBM? No... They'll be breaking into cars, sheds, abandon houses, and what have you. And despite the ARFCOM standard of "oh I'll just shoot them with my ______ and everything'll be just fine", well chances are you won't catch them or find out who the are till the police give you a ring; I'm knocking that right out of the equation. What I'm getting at, is I don't mind paying taxes to provide certain types of people a living off my work; simply because in some cases I'm covering my own ass. So you have no problem paying people to not commit crime. Well their fucking doing it anyway. Fuck that. It's my fucking money. Screw random. Test every one to start welfare and test them every few months there after. Make them work too. |