who ya got?

[Deleted User 89]

piss tests can easily be be passed with fake urine (unless you’re actually being watched)

we gonna pay out the ass for hair tests?

[TDub]

I think we've been over this, but - what about the constitutional issue? That is, what about the fact a drug test constitutes an unreasonable search of a person? It's effectively treating welfare recipients like criminals.

And what constitutes "welfare," anyway? Do you test only the folks on food stamps? What about rich folks with their tax breaks -- you think Japhy is gonna be cool with pissing in a cup as a prerequisite to his servicing? You think those types aren't even more stoned than the poor folks?

Heck, if you really wanna crack down on welfare queens, how about corporate handouts? Should we start drug testing business executives and boards of directors?

Or how about foreign aid? Should we start withholding that much unless the leadership of other countries submits to urine analysis?

and, as has been mentioned, what to make of the fact that drug tests are often unnecessarily expensive and not cost-effective?

Does the constitution require that the governemnt provide aid? If it doesnt than the aid is subject to whatever the requirements put upon that aid are and any constitutional rights regarding search and seizure are forfeited when accepting said aid. They arent coming to search you if you arent requesting aid.

[TDub]

piss tests can easily be be passed with fake urine (unless you’re actually being watched)

we gonna pay out the ass for hair tests?

So we shouldnt try? Just give money to anyone who wants it? Vote bernie then. I won't.

[ousdahl]

reducing social services like welfare is just plain dumb

what should happen is those in need of such assistance should be helped so that they get to the point where the service/s isn’t needed anymore

reduce the demand...don’t cut the supply

I'm also curious whether there's a correlation between reducing the demand for welfare, and a living wage.

[TDub]

Im not against drugs, theyre not for me but I'm not against others partaking. I am against people who cant or wont work because of their habits being supplied a means to use by the federal government, or by any government.

[TDub]

reducing social services like welfare is just plain dumb

what should happen is those in need of such assistance should be helped so that they get to the point where the service/s isn’t needed anymore

reduce the demand...don’t cut the supply

I'm also curious whether there's a correlation between reducing the demand for welfare, and a living wage.

Criminy. This again? Go to the mininum wage thread.

[Deleted User 89]

piss tests can easily be be passed with fake urine (unless you’re actually being watched)

we gonna pay out the ass for hair tests?

So we shouldnt try? Just give money to anyone who wants it? Vote bernie then. I won't.

never said that

you want to continue to throw money at a failed system?

[ousdahl]

I think we've been over this, but - what about the constitutional issue? That is, what about the fact a drug test constitutes an unreasonable search of a person? It's effectively treating welfare recipients like criminals.

And what constitutes "welfare," anyway? Do you test only the folks on food stamps? What about rich folks with their tax breaks -- you think Japhy is gonna be cool with pissing in a cup as a prerequisite to his servicing? You think those types aren't even more stoned than the poor folks?

Heck, if you really wanna crack down on welfare queens, how about corporate handouts? Should we start drug testing business executives and boards of directors?

Or how about foreign aid? Should we start withholding that much unless the leadership of other countries submits to urine analysis?

and, as has been mentioned, what to make of the fact that drug tests are often unnecessarily expensive and not cost-effective?

Does the constitution require that the governemnt provide aid? If it doesnt than the aid is subject to whatever the requirements put upon that aid are and any constitutional rights regarding search and seizure are forfeited when accepting said aid. They arent coming to search you if you arent requesting aid.

I'm not sure I can answer your constitutional question.

Where should the line be drawn, then, about what sort of gummint aid requires a drug test?

would you be cool with being drug tested to, say, get a driver's license and use public roads? Or what if your house is on fire so you call 911 and they respond with, "we'll send the fire department but only if you prove there's not weed in your system first?"

It just seems like an unnecessarily criminal investigation for non-criminal behavior.

[ousdahl]

piss tests can easily be be passed with fake urine (unless you’re actually being watched)

we gonna pay out the ass for hair tests?

man, Japhy's servicings are only getting weirder.

[TDub]

piss tests can easily be be passed with fake urine (unless you’re actually being watched)

we gonna pay out the ass for hair tests?

So we shouldnt try? Just give money to anyone who wants it? Vote bernie then. I won't.

never said that

you want to continue to throw money at a failed system?

No. I want to end the supply of welfare to people that are abusing the system and to people who are spending that money on drugs and alcohol.

[TDub]

I think we've been over this, but - what about the constitutional issue? That is, what about the fact a drug test constitutes an unreasonable search of a person? It's effectively treating welfare recipients like criminals.

And what constitutes "welfare," anyway? Do you test only the folks on food stamps? What about rich folks with their tax breaks -- you think Japhy is gonna be cool with pissing in a cup as a prerequisite to his servicing? You think those types aren't even more stoned than the poor folks?

Heck, if you really wanna crack down on welfare queens, how about corporate handouts? Should we start drug testing business executives and boards of directors?

Or how about foreign aid? Should we start withholding that much unless the leadership of other countries submits to urine analysis?

and, as has been mentioned, what to make of the fact that drug tests are often unnecessarily expensive and not cost-effective?

Does the constitution require that the governemnt provide aid? If it doesnt than the aid is subject to whatever the requirements put upon that aid are and any constitutional rights regarding search and seizure are forfeited when accepting said aid. They arent coming to search you if you arent requesting aid.

I'm not sure I can answer your constitutional question.

Where should the line be drawn, then, about what sort of gummint aid requires a drug test?

would you be cool with being drug tested to, say, get a driver's license and use public roads? Or what if your house is on fire so you call 911 and they respond with, "we'll send the fire department but only if you prove there's not weed in your system first?"

It just seems like an unnecessarily criminal investigation for non-criminal behavior.

There is nothing in the constitution about welfare

And im fine being drug tested for anything but thats not the question. The question is about directly supplying money to people. Not about public utilities and emergency services.

[TDub]

Most jobs, career type jobs, require a pre employment drug test. If a company wont trust you enough to hire you why should the government trust you with our tax payer dollars?

I cant believe there is this much support for supplying drug users with welfare money.

[zsn]

Welfare reduction, and incuding mandatory drug testing for recipients seems like a good idea. It also seems like the opposite directions most democrats are heading. Havent seen this idea promoted by anyone. Had it been?

Why exactly would you want drug testing of welfare recipients?

Because i am all for my tax dosrs going to someone truly in need. I do not want my tax dollars going to support a habit. And yes i know not all welfsre recipients are drug users, i never said that they were. Some are, i know of some that are. I dont think that staying clean is too stringent of a requirement for recieving state provided income.

Sure. Let’s add all members of the House, Senate, Cabinet, under Secretaries, President, WH Staff and Federal Judiciary. If it’s a State order then let’s add the corresponding State officials.

We know most of them are clean but they do get paid by taxpayers (“state provided income”) and we can’t be too sure!

[HouseDivided]

I think we've been over this, but - what about the constitutional issue? That is, what about the fact a drug test constitutes an unreasonable search of a person? It's effectively treating welfare recipients like criminals.

And what constitutes "welfare," anyway? Do you test only the folks on food stamps? What about rich folks with their tax breaks -- you think Japhy is gonna be cool with pissing in a cup as a prerequisite to his servicing? You think those types aren't even more stoned than the poor folks?

Heck, if you really wanna crack down on welfare queens, how about corporate handouts? Should we start drug testing business executives and boards of directors?

Or how about foreign aid? Should we start withholding that much unless the leadership of other countries submits to urine analysis?

and, as has been mentioned, what to make of the fact that drug tests are often unnecessarily expensive and not cost-effective?

I'm not for drug testing. I do think exploring a lifetime benefits cap makes sense.

[zsn]

Biden-Sinema.

Book it.

Why would I reserve a ticket for a movie about Biden?

[TDub]

Id be surprised if they werent drug tested. Federal employment generally requires a pre employment drug test.

[DCHawk1]

Biden-Sinema.

Book it.

Seems like the same mistake that Democrats regularly make.

If you're saying the ticket should be reversed, I agree.

[DCHawk1]

piss tests can easily be be passed with fake urine (unless you’re actually being watched)

we gonna pay out the ass for hair tests?

So we shouldnt try? Just give money to anyone who wants it? Vote bernie then. I won't.

This particular part of the thread is high-larious.

I'm not really concerned about welfare recipients being tested. But Trad's response that results can be faked, so why bother is perfect.

Especially from Trad.

[zsn]

Id be surprised if they werent drug tested. Federal employment generally requires a pre employment drug test.

At the same frequency as proposed for welfare recipients?

[Deleted User 89]

Most jobs, career type jobs, require a pre employment drug test. If a company wont trust you enough to hire you why should the government trust you with our tax payer dollars?

I cant believe there is this much support for supplying drug users with welfare money.

what proportion of “welfare” recipients fail drug tests?

what proportion are alcoholics?

i don’t necessarily disagree with you, but why stop at drugs/alcohol? why not restrict these people from eating fast food? or drinking soda? or smoking cigarettes?