'Drug Test Welfare' Recipients: Is It Unconstitutional?

I do not believe that there is any moral and/or ethical answer to this continuing problem.

If a drug test is required and those found to be using drugs are removed from the various welfare programs as a result of their found to be drug problems, then we will be required to repeatedly pickup the cost of their drug overdosing vists to the emergency room, their incarceration in local jails and their stays in rehabilitation centers. Further, we will still need to provide welfare support to their dependent infants and/or school age children. All of which can be more expensive than allowing the drug user to remain on the various welfare programs.

If we don't require drug testing of suspected drug users on the welfare programs, then we are facilitating and supporting such abuse of both the welfare system and the illegal use of drugs by a welfare recipient. A scenario which is unexceptable in a law abiding society as well as contradictory to the purpose of taxpayer supported and funded, welfare programs.

Neither of the above scenarios/answers which I have posed to the problem are moral or ethical and therefore as I previously stated, I do not believe that any all encompassing or even an acceptable answer will be quickly forthcoming.

Drug abuse will remain a problem as long as drugs are available and drugs will always be available as long as pain and sickness is apart of our lives and pain and sickness will always be apart of our lives as long as we remain a human race.

"Drug abuse will remain a problem..."

No argument there. Nor is there a fix for the moral/ethical dilemma.

But by denying welfare as an easy haven for druggies, we could see a further reduction of the overall numbers. That would appear to be the idea - "Here's another way we can more people off welfare".

And as a more-humble proposal, it sounds like it could work.

Only idiots would think this could work. First off, they could go in today sign up for welfare, take a blood test and pass it..............six months later they start up on some drugs then what.

The other dufis idea, is guess who gets to pay for the test , most of you who work. Who ever came up with this idea is a moron.

What if the person is on medication that falls on the list of illicit drugs?

I think the testing agent can call a test OK if the person can show a legal script.

The Supreme Court unfortunately already said it was unconstitutional. I already asked one of my idiot elected officials about it awhile back

I searched Google using 'supreme court welfare drug test', and am not really seeing a clear call on this.

Do you have in mind a particular SCOTUS case?

Since it was one of your "idiot" elected officials that you asked about it, perhaps this person didn't actually know his stuff?

SCOTUS has said various things in various cases. People will argue about what means what, or doesn't...

... and this question has not been addressed directly by SCOTUS, nor "definitively" or "once & for all", but the lower & local courts, either.

Show me (with links to court decisions) I'm wrong - and I'll fess up. ;)

Yet another quagmire of regulations that should make it very clear to people why the less govt involvment in life the better.

They put so many other strings on getting federal money, why not welfare?

What they may to do is enforce this law for all NEW cases, the old ones get grandfathered in.

"... such requirements violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches."

I think the rub is in the word "such". It depends on how & in what context it is done.

Certainly, there is more-than-ample "reason" to go after the matter of substance abuse by welfare recipients. The abundance of reason makes it "reasonable".

Bars & taverns have special events, timed for the arrival of welfare checks.

Dope dealers who turn state's evidence, describe the large cyclic component to the 'dealing' business, coinciding with folks getting their public assistance checks.

"Public Housing" normally needs the heavy presence of extra law enforcement, and a big part of that is the high level of drugging & dealing going on in these places.

These and plenty more are "reasons" that make it "reasonable" to take action.

Just like the police officer in a car needs a "reason" to pull you over on the road. Otherwise, he can't. A burned-out tail light will do. Failure to signal properly will do.

But once you give the cop a "reason" to pull you over, that does not mean he can, say, try to shoot your tires out, or ram you with his cruiser. He has go about pulling you over in an approved manner.

Same thing with drug users on welfare. There is tons of "good reason" for taking action. But it has to be done properly .... or indeed, a given specific way of addressing the (bona fide) problem, may itself be unConstitutional.

If you go down to where they apply for their welfare and housing and poke your nose around enough you'll find that the government actually is regulating all of it to be like it is. They actually want those people who are "abusing the system" and are using drugs to do that, because they are the ones profiting from it all. And they are themselves abusing the system they created. They created it and legislated it to feasibly abuse it with ease and without traceable evidence. But if you make like a fly on the wall you can learn the truth. If you pay attention closely enough it's not hard to put it all together. They have a system going on for the housing owners, which are them and their friends and business partners. They are the ones that need to be investigated thoroughly. Including drug testing, Lie detecting test. And how and where they spend there money. All of it.

You get no argument from me on that, Card. If you Google "Cuyahoga County corruption" you will see the local government I am currently living with. You may have already heard about it since it has made national news. Our judges, county auditor and other politicians are all in court as defendants. Then Cleveland's mayor (I live in Cleveland) is so busy cutting our safety forces (police, fire, EMT) that response times are longer resulting in increased crime rates and folks are dying. This city and county are in a state of emergency, but our lovely local government are more concerned with using local dollars to pay for their legal fees (part of the corruption scandal - check Jimmy DiMora specifically).

I could go on for hours and this is just a single county in our large country. Yes, I believe our welfare system is broken, but I completely agree that those who run it need to be scrutinized harder and should go through the same processes (such as drug testing, etc).

I don't think I ever been in any city, state, or county where they are not all corrupt. In fact, I know I haven't. Because, they're aren't any in the whole country. Unless they are hidden somewhere.

You are free to chase after "government corruption", Card ... and good luck to you!

But back to the topic at hand - 24 states are moving to trim the welfare burden by requiring those who are obviously smoking up their rent ... to go find another Sugar Daddy.

That sounds like an idea that many voters could support.

Not a perfect or all-inclusive fix ... but not pie-in-the-sky, either ... won't help yer hemorrhoids, halitosis, or corrupt government ... but it does sound like a practical & achievable step in the right direction ... which most voters know is how most progress happens - one good step at a time.

The tax dollars going for a good high is nothing compared to the dollars going to prostitutes and other similar matters for your "governing" representatives. And I still don't agree that taking testing recipients is the "first" right step to take to head in the "right" direction. And like I said on down further in another comment. If we're going to take that route, then why don't we all go ahead and put our cards on the table. Let's have everybody going to get tested. Both for drugs and lie detectors. I don't think most all recipients actually want to be depending on those benefits. And the once that think they do are confused people, because the environment surrounding them has got there brains so brainwashed they don't have much of a chance at having a good mentality. Why? Because of corruption. Corruption makes them have to live in slums. Corruption gets them the drugs. Not just corruption out on the streets where they live. but corruption out on all the streets. But especially in government. And even the people in all the churches, especially the white "Protestant" churches not only want to help cover it up, they are part of it. So, like I said, if we're going to go the route of testing those piss poor recipients, lets go ahead and put all the cards out there. Everybody goes to get tested.

And as for the lie detecting test, I've got plenty of good ( the right) questions to ask. And I know where to find plenty of white "Protestant" churches to find the right ones in to ask.

"If we're going to take that route ... Let's have everybody going to get tested."

Your indignation is understandable, Card. It's not 'unreasonable'.

But I think it is 'mistaken' - and a 'known' mistake, at that.

Cops on the highway hear this every hour of every day. "But Officer, didn't you see that other guy doing XYZ that is worse than what you pulled me over for?!"

Local Judges on the bench get versions of this all the time, too. "Your Honor - my client is a hard-working, tax-paying citizen! [Unlike all those deadbeat culls who would be better targets of your wrath.]"

People do try to deflect attention from their own misdeeds, by pointing to supposedly worse examples. This goes on all the time ...

... And therefore, Card, everyone concerned is very familiar with it ... with what you are doing.

Did you read about the Florida governor who not only wants to force welfare recipients to have drug tests, but they have to pay for it themselves and use HIS drug testing company. Yeah, like he's not trying to profit off the backs of the poor, now, is he?

"Did you read about the Florida governor ...?"

No, I didn't see that story.

Do you have a link to the news article you read?

I will take a look, if you point me to what you saw.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html

Even though he divested his interest in Solantis, he transferred all controlling shares to...wait for it...his wife.

Thank you, Reno!

This is an informative, reasonable article ... tho it ties into the Rachel Maddow show, and thus cues us to the bias. Still, it's not bad.

A quick check of Rick Scott on Wikipedia shows that he has been a serious player in the corporate health care & hospital business for more than 20 years, at a high level.

Solantic, his current biz-interest, does a wide range of health stuff.

Obviously, he now has a problem. But equally obviously, he didn't invent Solantic so he could pass State drug-testing laws and milk/bilk the tax payer, etc.

Drug tests cost $35 at Solantic ... which is pretty small potatoes, as health-expenses go.

He almost certainly is not going to get out of the corporate health business. He needs to make some kind of change/arrangement, so that he isn't funnelling citizens to his company ... but in the interim, he also has to look out for his $62 million bucks (ie, not throw/give it away).

Anyone who spends lots of hours at a wringer washer, occasionally gets a tender part of their anatomy caught in the wringer. While he certainly isn't in the biz for philanthropy, the current situation looks like plausible approximation of an honest accident.

Tho of course, the Rachel Maddows etc of the world will have a field day with it, in the meanwhile.

Interesting situation with Scott. How on earth is he going to do high politics that involve health care ... and also be a big-time health care industry investor?

Looked like a great investment back in the 1980s ... kind of a pickle for him, now.

Thanks, Ted. I agree, it is quite a pickle for him. However, he does have two choices to get out of it: A) give up all interest in Solantic and any other medical company he might be involved with (including his wife's interest), or B), get out of politics.

Those are the only two ways he can avoid a conflict of interest. He is going to try to force people to use Solantic, if I remember correctly. Anyway, $35 for a drug test may not be a lot, but when you are broke and poor, it's a small fortune. I speak from experience, as I was once living below the poverty line for two years. Heck, $10 is a lot for someone in poverty.

"A) give up all interest in Solantic..."

Yes & no. He has to get the drug-test monkey off his back - but that's a minor part of what Solantic does. Solantic might for example sell this part of their service package to another company, while continuing to perform the service themselves. Companies do this kind of thing all the time.

It's just a matter of looking over the options, talking to various other people & companies, and making some adjustment.

The "problem" appears to be purely "political" (i.e., I see absolutely nothing to suggest he is any actual legal trouble) ... and as such, will be amenable to a political solution.

"B), get out of politics. "

The preferred solution for those who don't like his politics, I sure! ;)

If he wants out - he could use this as an excuse. If wants to stay in politics, I'm sure he will.

"Those are the only two ways he can avoid a conflict of interest."

That sounds like a abject underestimation of 'human creativity'.

Scott could well have an entire staff/team, pouring over a wide range of different ways to handle the dilemma.

He's got a "problem", yeah ... but we solve problems. All the time!

Now that is a ridiculous statement, Michael. Most people on welfare are not lifetime members, contrary to you'd have people believe. And, therefore, the money they are getting from the government is, in a sense, theirs. Every person who works and pays any kind of taxes pays into the system. I suppose you are one of those people who think that if a poor person can't financially support his own children then it's the fault of the poor person if their kid dies of starvation, right? I mean, surely, no one is to blame but the person who can't find a job in this lousy economy. Those darn poor people are just a bunch of lazy welfare queens, aren't they?

And yes, Rick Scott is attempting to profit off the backs of the poor. Let's do some math, shall we?

Florida's population currently hovers around 20 million people. The official unemployment in the state is 10.6%. That means more than 2 million people are officially unemployed. If only half of those people use his drug testing facilities that he has a controlling share in, that means more than $37 million dollars funneled to Solantic. I'm not a math whiz by any means, and I'm sure people doing the testing will need to be paid, so of course, profits will be less than that. But in any event, he stands to profit over the long term if he is allowed to go through with this.

And, pray tell, what makes you think that all welfare recipients are uneducated?

I suppose you are one of those people who think that if a poor person can't financially support his own children then it's the fault of the poor person if their kid dies of starvation, right?

YES!

26 federal food and nutrition programs through 6 different agencies
Countless programs offered at state/local level
Charities/Food Banks
Soup Kitchens
Churches
Neighbors
Friends
Family members
panhandling
Adoption
Dept of children services
...

Who in America has no way of finding some food for a starving child?

And no one ever falls through the cracks, do they?

And no one ever falls through the cracks, do they?

What cracks? Please describe how families would be unable to avail themselves of any of the options above through no fault of their own?

Well hell yeah, that's it Reno. We can solve this whole thing real easy. Since all that money is actually Mike E's money, we can just call Obama and ask him to give Mike E. his money back. Simple. Problem solved. I don't know why I didn't think of that before.

I'm jsut wondering how all those people managed to steal Mike E.'s money from his paycheck and never get noticed.

Well, Card, see, here's the deal. Welfare is mostly administered by the state, not the feds, so calling Obama to give MikeE his money back won't really help much. State taxes and all that jazz.

Mike must make a lot of money to have all the states' welfare recipients down in the "hood" steel it from his paycheck.

Welfare is mostly administered by the state, not the feds, so calling Obama to give MikeE his money back won't really help much. State taxes and all that jazz.

It may be mostly administered by the states, but it is mostly paid for on the Federal level.

They refuse to drug test cops and officials. And all the other whore hopping government leeches that are abusing the system, lawyers, senators, representatives, judges, and any others are not required to drug test. Why don't we just go ahead and put all the cards on the table and drug test everybody starting at 8 am tomorrow morning. Let's just have everybody, first thing tomorrow go for a drug test. Then, we'll see what the truth is about politicians, with the evidence. They are the number one "kingpin" drug pushers to begin with. They are the main suppliers of drugs and illegal weapons. And while we're at it why don't we just have everyone in for a lie detector test, simultaneously? Considering the shape of this country, what's unreasonable about that? No exclusions. My bet is that there would be a lot of politicians and other "law' people that would have a heart attack, literally, at the instant they received word of it.

Card,

I somewhat understand your frustration, however, the comparisons which you provide, by your own analogy, are not people who are listed on any government welfare program nor are they welfare recipients. In fact, the people you denote in your comments,actually pay the bulk of funds needed to operate the welfare system and do so from their hard earned wages.

As such, I do not understand why you have chosen to label those individuals as being "whore hopping government leeches who abuse the system and are kingpin drug pushers"

I feel your verbal demeaning of such honest hard working Americans, who via their payroll taxes supports the welfare system, is in it's self, unfair and unjust and without creditable basis.

Our country is made up of, have, almost have, and have not classes of people, with a sprinkling of system scammers. Further, we are a nation of hard working, fair minded, law abiding people who care about those in need of assistance.

Our police, government officials, politicians, attorneys and judges, all of which you attack in your comments, to me, are people who serve our country well and should be honered and respected for that service, not demeaned and/or scorned as you so viciously have done.

Well, Scott, you must be among them. I've been there where they go after hours at their hard work. I've been there, as a worker, where they show up for tee time - early in the morning after going to "work" for a few minutes, and then head for the clubhouse to gamble on such things as people's lives, as I witnessed firsthand. I witnessed the fact that they control the drugs and weapons trafficking, gambling, prostitution, and even murders. I witnessed these things firsthand. I witnessed for years as a child our towns sheriff, come mayor, come commissioner as he reigned boastfully over all these corrupt matters for about 30 years. If you don't believe me, contact the History Channel or Discovery Channel where they air, also boastfully, a documentary on him, telling all about his reign of corrupton and terror - holding little back - now that he's dead. You can google him to find out all this. His name is (was) James "Bookie" Turner, of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee. Go read all about it. I knew him personally - His son and his daughter also. He lived ssut about 4 blocks from me, and it just happens that my mother was a "call girl" under his reign of terror. I had police officers suddenly come to my house, me only 7 & 8 years young. They came in hordes, showing up suddenly one day to, as they thought, have their way with my mother, in front of my face, they thought - those "honorable s-o-b's - until I raised hell, and threatened to get someone there to run them off, while I had to stand outside the door ready to run like hell because they - those honorable "men" with guns - were threatening me - a child not even in his teens yet. They searched our house, while ones of them were trying to have their way with my mother, in front of me. Later, in my teen years they executed their revenge on me.
So what is you you like about them so much, do you give them blow jobs? That I wouldn't doubt.

"Well, Scott, you must be among them."

Better count me in there too, Card!

You should be more careful with that tar-brush.

No ... you're painting reality too black & white.

It isn't that simple. Worse, it isn't true.

You're fired, Card.

Well Ted, if that's your point of view, then, once again, my challenge is:
Why don't we all go for, not only drug testing, but lie detection testing as well? And I mean everybody. Young, old, cop, robber...the whole nine yards. And let's add one more too, Psychological testing. With all those test being done on everybody, then we ought to be able to get to the bottom of all the issues, and get more on the right track. That is, if it is done to insure no pocket padding or coercion is possible.

Card, your challenge is, as the Judge says every day as people try to stray off the case - "Out of order".

Your mission - should you ever decide to accept it - is to learn to stick with the issue at hand. Or at least to discern when you will be able to successfully divert attention to other matters of your chosing ... and when it probably won't work.

You wanna talk about something else. Go write your own Post.

Miles
If you are insinuating me with that comment, no I'm not on welfare or worried about losing it. Obviously you are the one with something to hide. I've never used welfare to buy any gd drugs. But certainly have made some very good points that you keep trying to throw monkey riches into the gears of. What is it you are trying to hide? Not that I don't already know the answer. Like I told Ted, your diversion tactic aren't going to work with me, and your ass ain't going to push me around or lock me up for any of your scum crap. And if you think you want to try to push me around, bring your ass on. I'll put your ass in its proper place.,

Keep in mind, too, that it would not be a problem for Polytickians to spend our money on drug testing welfare recipients - having the government pay for it - because they own all the big and some small medical organizations. Just like they own the pharmaceutical companies. Remember what Bob Dylan said in his song? "GD the pusher."

You just keep talking about Bob Dylan, Card.

The rest of us are not confused.

Welfare druggies are uncool.

It would smart & good, to boot them off.

JJ, I'm a little concerned.

What are the Cartels going to say?

I mean - "do" - if millions of welfare checks aren't automatically funnelled into their mail boxes & bank accounts?

Sounds like it could be an issue.

I never thought of the Cartel angle, Ted. It is an interesting thought. But I agree with what you have said above and what JJ has said. I do not want my tax dollars paying for someone else's drug habit. Sorry, I just don't.

Well, I'm not saying that I agree with my tax dollars being used to pay for their habits either. Or anyone elses. My point is this is not the right step to take to start testing them. The government will turn it into raising taxes if they can get it to have those minorities tested. It is just another one of their schemes. If not for all their schemes we would not have so many on drugs and on welfare. They want them on welfare, because it is part of their many schemes of things. Going after those hands full of recipients is none other than like kicking a man whose already down or dead. The real ones to go after concerning these such problems are at the top, not at the bottom. So to be honestly logical it makes far more sense to go after them. But, economically speaking - for certain ones - that's not so now is it?

"If not for all their schemes we would not have so many on drugs and on welfare. "

Yikes.

Hey - 'they' are schemers; "Yeah-huh!".

But that doesn't mean we just lay down and roll over for them.

"I'm just a waste, 'cause of all them schemers!"

Wow. I can't bite on that, Card.

Despite all the manipulations & con-games going on - I still want to be responsible for my decisions. And so do lots of us ... enough of us to keep society greasy-side down and shiney-side up, most of the time.

And, you can believe it or not, but the drug cartels are our government's friends. And for you to want to deny that just tells me that you must be benefiting from it too. I gave you a reference above to go check out about the Sheriff, come Mayor, come Commissioner. Again, his name was James (Bookie) Turner. All you have to do is google that name. Instead of accusing me of getting off the subject and trying to throw me curves, why don't you go check it out? Perhaps because you benefit from the drugs that your "tax dollars" are "paying for." Because, yes it is true, your government that you so hardily support puts the drugs out there. And they also cause most of those scamming the system to be the way they are.

My point is this is not the right step to take to start testing them...Going after those hands full of recipients is none other than like kicking a man whose already down or dead.

Ignoring the problem and continuing the give the support simply enables them to continue the same destructive behavior (destructive both to their well-being and to my wallet).

Card, if I allowed you to send me off to investigate your pet extraneous idea, I would be letting you do to me, exactly what you claim "they" are doing to us. ;)

I'd be allowing you to control me. To have your way with me.

It's not that easy, Card. Not with me, and not with an awful lot of us.

I mean, yeah, we can be 'had'. Sometimes. But it ain't easy, conning us, Card.

Or, in more-familiar terms: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and you can fool all the people some of the time ... but it's pretty damn tough to suck all of us all the time." :)

Ted,
Your diversions don't work with me, and you don't have anything I'd want to suck on.
And mike p
Apparently you're the one wanting to ignore something. I'm not. I have made that extremely plain. Apparently you want to create a diversion - pick on the little guy. You and Ted. Your support for testing the recipients is not going to save tax dollars but increase them being taken from the working class that don't have vehicles to shelter them from taxes. It's not going to "get the druggies off welfare" either. It's simply going to cause more suffering from more bureaucracy.
And I'm through arguing with you, because I see where you're going. Like stated before, you are one of them. What a cop? Or what. My guess is your paychecks come from a government source. And I know there's no point arguing with a wall. You'll get yours, but your sure as hell not going to take it from me. And your sure as hell not going to push me around or lock me up for plain out crap devised by schemes for your benefit.

"It's not going to "get the druggies off welfare" either."

You're pulling my leg.

"Welfare reform" has been underway for a long time now. If we as a nation, society, culture are ready to face the issue - and maybe we are! - then it will be both easy & fast to get a large majority of drug life-stylers off the rolls.

Or, as it will often work - get many welfare recipients completely off the drugs. A lot of them are 'casual' users who don't "need" drugs. They will get a period of time to 'straighten up' ... maybe even counselling/therapy, too.

If these laws pass, then it will very quickly become virtually impossible for anyone getting welfare ... to so much as hang around in a room with others who are smoking drugs.

No locking anybody up. All the Lindsay Lohan welfare types just get a notice that they failed their test - and no check.

Card,

Did you forget to take your meds? Are those paranoid delusions coming back?

mike p
Is that the best you can do? The president himself has stood in front of television cameras repeatedly and confessed to their corruption. As has countless Senators, Congress, and Reps. And state locals. Through the big corporate style ownership programs, they own/regulate the big Medical organizations, the big pharmaceutical companies, the FDA, the USDA,and etc. Of course they would like to have this mandated testing, they have plans of turning profits form it, using your tax dollars to develop it all into their financially/legislatively secured mandate. But I think you know that, because I think you are one of those who will be profiting from it too. You and Ted, and JJ, and any others with the same/similar responses you submit. You see, your responses are very revealing to me, just as are the governments actions and use of words. You might fool some people, but you're never going to fool me. You have skeletons in your closet. Eh, JJ. What about those 'pedophiles" you hate so much? Not that feel for them or support them. But, could it be you are one?

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/16/136368744/in-warrantless-search-case-top-court-rules-for-police?ps=cprs

Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches
by NINA TOTENBERG

May 16, 2011
The U.S. Supreme Court has made it significantly easier for police to force their way into a home without a warrant. On Monday, the court, by an 8-1 vote, upheld the warrantless search of an apartment after police smelled marijuana and feared that those inside were destroying incriminating evidence.

It's like a cop pulling somebody over on the road.

It has to be 'warranted'. A taillight out. Failure to signal. Swerving.

Phone the courthouse and get a piece of paper?

No - the visible (or olfactory) evidence "warrants" the action. (In fact, we have had recent high-profile cases of road-arrests following cops smelling dope from cars on the road.)

In the burning marijuana case, the cops did have enough evidence to "warrant" going through the door.

Incidentally, I think this is less about fine-tuning questions & answers about warrants, than it is about refining the effort to tamp down growth of an unhealthy 'drug culture' in our country.

Ted,
Have you ever witnessed a prominent, ranking cop drive up in an official, unmarked car, get out and open the trunk of that car - the trunk completely full of illegal guns - and walk into a business owner's business and sell him two of those guns, illegally? I have. And those guns, both of them wound up in the hands of that business owners sons who were two little punk thugs with a long history of crimes. One of them, now dead, eventually went to prison for murder. Here's you a link to that appeals hearing summary judgment. http://vlex.com/vid/lively-v-the-state-20396939
I don't just think I know where the true problems are, I know.

Card,

I too have many dramatic experieces.

Unrelated to the bills before 24 states to drug-test for welfare.

I think drug-testing for welfare checks is a useful idea, and that it sounds like it could actually be successful.

It might portend an important shift in national policy. It could help reduce the drug problem. It could help cities deal with their festering problems.

I'm willing to do my little part to help this movement gain a wider audience.

I think it's good for us ... and I will resist having the discussion side-lined.

Like you haven't referenced "unrelated" matters all through here.

Rosemary Kitchen noticed:

"I never thought of the Cartel angle, Ted."

Actually, a pretty darn pregnant thing, isn't it?

Esp. in the vast inner city populations where drugs & welfare play such a huge role.

Where does all that dope come from? Not much from nice Farmer Suzie gardens, eh?

Yeah - of course - it is - has to be - the Cartels who supply a very hefty portion of the drugs that our largest welfare sectors use.

Testing welfare recipients could have a goodly impact on the biggest drug smugglers.

"Esp. in the vast inner city populations where drugs & welfare play such a huge role."

If that's where the huge role of drugs is at, those people wouldn't bother with welfare and they would have the nice houses that are so neatly tucked all around them - in the far out skirts of where they live. And those big fancy houses up on the ridges and mountains around them. Statistics even point out the fact the the huge role of drugs is played out in the big boys gardens - the ones who have it all already. The ones who get it to the inner city. The ones that own those slum houses in the inner city. The lawyers, doctors, big business executives, government, and etc. That's not my saying. That is what statistics say. And those same ones are the ones that want to pick on the ones they are getting the drugs to, and push them into more bureaucracy by making them drug test. Because they have a scheme all worked out to make money off of it. Those people have ways around the drug test. It's not going to help, but hurt. It's not going to do anything but make matters worse, and they will have the media claiming one day that is working wonderfully and then on another day the opposite. That's the norm these days, to flip-flop back and forth to create chaos.

This article states:
"If a person works a job, there is a good chance that the employer will require the person to take a drug test, so being drug tested on public assistance or welfare will only prepare the person for future employment. This is an argument being used by lawmakers. It does make sense, since the goal of welfare is to be a temporary help to a person in a time of need, and not for life.

If a person was found to be abusing drugs, the children would not lose benefits. "Bills in some states, including Florida and New Mexico, would allow children of parents who fail drug tests to continue receiving their share of the benefits through a third-party caregiver," reports Seattle PI. All in all, this is a win-win. The person with a drug problem gets help and the child continues to get help, and hopefully gets a 'clean' parent in the end."

I would like for someone to explain to me how this could work? Is the plan to remove the positive tested drug user parent from the home and replace them with a government parent? Or is the Mayor going to oversee the wife and kids, while the drug user parent is placed in drug treatment? Uh uhm! Or will the Mayor's secretary (or mistress) be sent to fill in for the drug user wife who tested positive? Or, will we have to build more housing, or rent more run down buildings for the kids to be sheltered by government overseers? And will the big rich who take far more than their fair and equitable share out of companies donate a quarter or two, like they do when they tip the "grocery boy?"
I would just like to know things like this. I want to help and make sure that folks like Ted and Mike don't have to pay with their tax dollars for the drugs these recipients use, that they actually sell their drugs to buy. And, of course just keep letting the government run the show the way they have been - they've been doing such a good job. Everything is doing so well in the country, to vouch for that fact. And, I can't understand why the government, themselves, even Obama, keep telling us how corrupt they are? And the preachers all around the country are preaching it on the mountain tops and everywhere. Why, just ask Scott how wonderfully perfect they are. Honest. Honorable. And fully above board about everything. And working hard and long to solve all our problems.
And just because they take more from companies they share ownership of that is fair and equitable, and because of it the whole country is now going under, doesn't mean that instead, that money could have been used to make the world a better place to live in for those who can't get a job, because there aren't enough jobs, because those big company share owners didn't want them to have, and many of them wanted to have those wives of those who don't have. And, of course, others want to have their kids for "sex toys." Don't they Mike? Because, they are so perfect and above board. And we should not even consider forcing them out of their positions and put where they truly belong, and actually start doing things more realistic to make this a decent country to live in. Instead, we just go after those darn druggy welfare scammers, first and foremost, and let the big wigs continue on their path of righteousness. Just like they did when this country was founded as a free nation. Except for those 'ol black people that thought they should rebell about being slaves, and had the nerve to think they should be free too, after being beat and raped, and spit on and crapped on, and drug over here by all those nice, wonderful, honest, Christian, and free white men. How could I think of anything but kissing up to my government and support them in every wrongful thing they do, which is everything they do?

I meant Miles, not Mike. But Mike too. What about those kids Miles?

Card,

Large numbers of Americans from all walks of life have been sent to treatment programs for drug & alcohol problems, for many years.

There is no legal difficulty in that.

It can be inconvenient, but we work through it - every day.

I think that it will be a fine step forward, if welfare folks find themselves living by the same standards that the employed have lived by, all along.

i'm not arguing against what you stated here, at least not totally. But the part about the "same standards." I feel like you have, apparently, a pretty good life for you and your family, from statements you have made. And sometimes, me included, we just don't see things like they really are. Usually because of lack of being experienced or lack of knowledge. The work environment you are accustomed to is perhaps a fairly good environment. The fact is drug testing in the workplace has not worked, only in pre-determined statistics designed to mislead. And I agree, those druggies need to get off those drugs and quit scamming the system. But, they are the least of the scammers. And I don't agree to having them be the "first step" to reform, because as usual that will also be the last step in this particular issue. And the first step should be to go after the ones who keep sitting/standing in front of us admitting to their corruption and then turn around and put on acts that they are trying to correct that when all along they are just further building their Empire. It is just exactly the very same thing the Bible is referring to when it refers to the ones of the times claiming to be God, while deceiving the nations. They keep painting themselves to be the "Good Guys," while all along the truth is they are not so good after all. Going after them means taking the drugs away from those piss poor recipients, so they wouldn't even need testing. Now, are you going to argue against that? I know for a fact that the government is behind the drugs getting to them. I don't just think that. I've been there to learn the truth. I've seen it and heard it with my own eyes and ears. And I know that this testing mandate is just another one of their diversions. Going through all this process of setting it all up and it evolving forward is just buying time, and especially diverting attention. The drugs out there, legal and illegal, and including the marijuana is actually all tainted by government operations forcing the manufacturers to taint them, by incorporating tainted substances into their manufacturing process. The reason is they put substances in them to make the users develop medical complications like colds and flu, and worse, on down the road. This has been exposed for a long time now. Every "legal" pill manufactured is deliberately tainted to do that, all regulated by the FDA. Not just some, but every single one. This is deeply buried public records that proves this to be a fact. It is because they want the people to have to keep going to the doctor, because they all profit through their corporate ownership. And that's why they want you to think like you do. They don't want you to know that, that is the truth.

It could be beneficial if they don't just simply drop a person for failing the drug test but instead, help them get help for their substance abuse. Welfare programs are intended to help people get back on their feet and to be able to provide for their families. If drug abuse is getting in the way of that, then identifying it might help. However, just dropping them from the program without any further assistance will just lead to an increase in substance abuse. It's tough for people who are already down and low. To lose their benefits, too would be more stress and depression and more reason to use. I appreciate that the states are recognizing the children in these families as well, since they are the ones who suffer the most.

From what I have read about this, the general idea would be to give the benefits to a responsible third party (like a relative) to handle for the person while they are given substance abuse treatment. This way, any children or other dependents involved would not have to go without while the parent gets the help he or she needs to get clean. Florida has passed the drug testing law last week or the week before, so I will have to look and see if this is how they are handling it.

I can see both sides of this issue. Being a drug and alcohol counselor I know the problem isn't going away just by demanding drug tests. It will get some people off welfare and some people off drugs. But the big issues will still be there. How do we raise a generation of people who work hard but also are willing to help others.