100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Welfare recipient drug tests are unconstitiutional :) | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The major reason that drug abuse is so hard to stop in this country is because of our personal freedoms. We have the right to kill ourselves if we so want to. Bad drugs, bad food, bad cigs, bad alcohol, parachuting, race car driving, etc... Just because a person happens to be poor does not make them more likely to kill themselves in one of these manners, believe it or not. But if we can start limiting them from doing it then we need to be able to limit all from doing it. So I will agree that if welfare recipients who have given no signs of being a druggie have to submit to drug testing then so should everyone. Maybe we should do it weekly just to be sure and tell your boss you don't know when you will have to go but that it is requirement to live here in these United States. Of course, he should know already because his color is blue. Usually when a person applies for welfare they have exhausted all other means to supporting themselves. So in a way it is mandatory for their families survival. It is a sad state that we have to then accuse them of being a drug user on top of their plight. Believe you me when I worked for the department, druggies couldn't keep up with what we required of them and they usually lost their kids so they weren't on welfare for very long if at all most couldn't do what we required them to do before they got their first check. It has nothing to do with being more likely to do anything. It has to do with not giving them money to feed the habit if they are doing it. Lets see... pee in a cup and get free money or don't pee in a cup and don't get free money. Is it a hard choice? Nope. Not hard for you since you are not being subject to an illegal search of your body fluids based on no good evidence that you should be searched at all. But it is wrong for them no matter what the result of doing would be. And it isn't free money, they have to work for it. Its not an illegal search. I have applied for jobs that require a drug test. I did the drug test. I got the job. Its that simple. If I didn't want to do the drug test I could say no. They have the same option. No one is being forced to do anything. It is merely a stipulation. Try again. Since we are speaking of people in desperate need, it is not voluntary anyway. These people are being told to give up their right to search their body because they are poor. That is BS. That's like saying they are giving up their right to stay anonymous because they have to fill out a form. The government is not responsible for housing and feeding its people. Its called personal responsibility. Now if the government (or anyone) wants to offer free aid they can give any stipulation they want. If I tell a homeless guy I would give him $100 to streak through the park I am not taking away his right to wear clothes. (extreme example but still). I have to xray all my crap and go through full body scanners when I PAY to fly but you can't pee in a cup for free money? Get over yourself. Yep. I give up my right of privacy every time I enter a courthouse. I have to go through a metal detector and a man searches my purse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was a time when it was a qualification for disability. You are talking about official, out in the open qualification. I'm talking about people that lie about their drug us. Its a 'thing' in california. It was well known in the homeless community in west LA that if you did certain drugs you could increase your chance at the 'crazy check'. I'm sure it didn't work for everyone, but I knew people who were successful at it. Also if you had ever had to go through the application process, you would know that it doesn't go like that. I don't need to go through the process myself when my fellow activists, my friends, and my housemates tell me about it. If you hung out with criminals more - outside of the office, where they are prepared to lie to you - you would know how much the welfare system is being scammed. Having been a welfare recipient myself and having lived in very poor neighborhoods most of my life known my share of criminals and having worked for the welfare department for many years until I got sick and had to apply for disability which makes me kinda an expert at all levels, makes your expertise, sad to say the least. All of which doesn't change the fact that poor people are being coerced to give up their search and seizure rights with the threat of starving their children or pee in a cup. Only those who have never had to deal with that in life would consider a crazy idea like this one as humane and civil. I know when I am talking to those who have never been there. I also know when I am talking to those who are speaking out of the side of their neck so to speak, hint hint. Lies. You know full well if they couldn't feed their kids social services would take them away. The kids wouldn't starve. Try again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is BS. That's like saying they are giving up their right to stay anonymous because they have to fill out a form. The government is not responsible for housing and feeding its people. Its called personal responsibility. Now if the government (or anyone) wants to offer free aid they can give any stipulation they want. If I tell a homeless guy I would give him $100 to streak through the park I am not taking away his right to wear clothes. (extreme example but still). Exactly! The sickness here has as its foundation the entire "free money from the government is a right" mentality. If you accept that premise, then also see advocating personal responsibility as 'victimizing the poor' and such. But if you favor personal responsibility, then its obvious no one is coercing anyone, or violating anyone's rights. I have to xray all my crap and go through full body scanners when I PAY to fly but you can't pee in a cup for free money? Get over yourself.  Seriously. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The major reason that drug abuse is so hard to stop in this country is because of our personal freedoms. We have the right to kill ourselves if we so want to. Bad drugs, bad food, bad cigs, bad alcohol, parachuting, race car driving, etc... Just because a person happens to be poor does not make them more likely to kill themselves in one of these manners, believe it or not. But if we can start limiting them from doing it then we need to be able to limit all from doing it. So I will agree that if welfare recipients who have given no signs of being a druggie have to submit to drug testing then so should everyone. Maybe we should do it weekly just to be sure and tell your boss you don't know when you will have to go but that it is requirement to live here in these United States. Of course, he should know already because his color is blue. Usually when a person applies for welfare they have exhausted all other means to supporting themselves. So in a way it is mandatory for their families survival. It is a sad state that we have to then accuse them of being a drug user on top of their plight. Believe you me when I worked for the department, druggies couldn't keep up with what we required of them and they usually lost their kids so they weren't on welfare for very long if at all most couldn't do what we required them to do before they got their first check. It has nothing to do with being more likely to do anything. It has to do with not giving them money to feed the habit if they are doing it. Lets see... pee in a cup and get free money or don't pee in a cup and don't get free money. Is it a hard choice? Nope. Not hard for you since you are not being subject to an illegal search of your body fluids based on no good evidence that you should be searched at all. But it is wrong for them no matter what the result of doing would be. And it isn't free money, they have to work for it. Its not an illegal search. I have applied for jobs that require a drug test. I did the drug test. I got the job. Its that simple. If I didn't want to do the drug test I could say no. They have the same option. No one is being forced to do anything. It is merely a stipulation. Try again. Since we are speaking of people in desperate need, it is not voluntary anyway. These people are being told to give up their right to search their body because they are poor. That is BS. That's like saying they are giving up their right to stay anonymous because they have to fill out a form. The government is not responsible for housing and feeding its people. Its called personal responsibility. Now if the government (or anyone) wants to offer free aid they can give any stipulation they want. If I tell a homeless guy I would give him $100 to streak through the park I am not taking away his right to wear clothes. (extreme example but still). I have to xray all my crap and go through full body scanners when I PAY to fly but you can't pee in a cup for free money? Get over yourself. You get over yourself. Like I said it is a coercion to give up their rights to search and seizure so that they can feed and house their family. Which is exactly what welfare is designed to help do. Flying in no way compares. You are not being coerced to give up your right to search and seizure with the threat of some your daily needs being met if you do not pee in a cup. Like I said I know when I am talking to those who do not know what they are talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is BS. That's like saying they are giving up their right to stay anonymous because they have to fill out a form. The government is not responsible for housing and feeding its people. Its called personal responsibility. Now if the government (or anyone) wants to offer free aid they can give any stipulation they want. If I tell a homeless guy I would give him $100 to streak through the park I am not taking away his right to wear clothes. (extreme example but still). Exactly! The sickness here has as its foundation the entire "free money from the government is a right" mentality. If you accept that premise, then also see advocating personal responsibility as 'victimizing the poor' and such. But if you favor personal responsibility, then its obvious no one is coercing anyone, or violating anyone's rights. I have to xray all my crap and go through full body scanners when I PAY to fly but you can't pee in a cup for free money? Get over yourself. Seriously. Except they are violating search and seizure with the threat to living or dyihg for some. Which is coercion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still don't see what is so horrible about submitting to a drug test especially when you are not doing any drugs.
I still don't see why you feel you would be giving up your rights or that you are being "illegally searched." That is just NOT TRUE. Go ask a lawyer. Anyway anyone who would NOT pee in a cup to feed their kids is hiding something. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The major reason that drug abuse is so hard to stop in this country is because of our personal freedoms. We have the right to kill ourselves if we so want to. Bad drugs, bad food, bad cigs, bad alcohol, parachuting, race car driving, etc... Just because a person happens to be poor does not make them more likely to kill themselves in one of these manners, believe it or not. But if we can start limiting them from doing it then we need to be able to limit all from doing it. So I will agree that if welfare recipients who have given no signs of being a druggie have to submit to drug testing then so should everyone. Maybe we should do it weekly just to be sure and tell your boss you don't know when you will have to go but that it is requirement to live here in these United States. Of course, he should know already because his color is blue. Usually when a person applies for welfare they have exhausted all other means to supporting themselves. So in a way it is mandatory for their families survival. It is a sad state that we have to then accuse them of being a drug user on top of their plight. Believe you me when I worked for the department, druggies couldn't keep up with what we required of them and they usually lost their kids so they weren't on welfare for very long if at all most couldn't do what we required them to do before they got their first check. It has nothing to do with being more likely to do anything. It has to do with not giving them money to feed the habit if they are doing it. Lets see... pee in a cup and get free money or don't pee in a cup and don't get free money. Is it a hard choice? Nope. Not hard for you since you are not being subject to an illegal search of your body fluids based on no good evidence that you should be searched at all. But it is wrong for them no matter what the result of doing would be. And it isn't free money, they have to work for it. Its not an illegal search. I have applied for jobs that require a drug test. I did the drug test. I got the job. Its that simple. If I didn't want to do the drug test I could say no. They have the same option. No one is being forced to do anything. It is merely a stipulation. Try again. Since we are speaking of people in desperate need, it is not voluntary anyway. These people are being told to give up their right to search their body because they are poor. That is BS. That's like saying they are giving up their right to stay anonymous because they have to fill out a form. The government is not responsible for housing and feeding its people. Its called personal responsibility. Now if the government (or anyone) wants to offer free aid they can give any stipulation they want. If I tell a homeless guy I would give him $100 to streak through the park I am not taking away his right to wear clothes. (extreme example but still). I have to xray all my crap and go through full body scanners when I PAY to fly but you can't pee in a cup for free money? Get over yourself. You get over yourself. Like I said it is a coercion to give up their rights to search and seizure so that they can feed and house their family. Which is exactly what welfare is designed to help do. Flying in no way compares. You are not being coerced to give up your right to search and seizure with the threat of some your daily needs being met if you do not pee in a cup. Like I said I know when I am talking to those who do not know what they are talking about. I do know what I am talking about. Let me spell it out. Hello, this is your government speaking. We know you are in a bad situation that may or may not be cause by bad choices you have made in your life. We don't care about that though. We are here to help you. We will give you money for food, rent, cell phone, transportation, daycare, school for your kids, etc. All we ask in return is you submit a drug test so we can make sure our funds, which we are in no way obligated to give out but we give out because we are such swell guys, are not misused. Good Day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is BS. That's like saying they are giving up their right to stay anonymous because they have to fill out a form. The government is not responsible for housing and feeding its people. Its called personal responsibility. Now if the government (or anyone) wants to offer free aid they can give any stipulation they want. If I tell a homeless guy I would give him $100 to streak through the park I am not taking away his right to wear clothes. (extreme example but still). Exactly! The sickness here has as its foundation the entire "free money from the government is a right" mentality. If you accept that premise, then also see advocating personal responsibility as 'victimizing the poor' and such. But if you favor personal responsibility, then its obvious no one is coercing anyone, or violating anyone's rights. I have to xray all my crap and go through full body scanners when I PAY to fly but you can't pee in a cup for free money? Get over yourself. Seriously. Except they are violating search and seizure with the threat to living or dyihg for some. Which is coercion. No it is not coercion. You don't know much about the law but you sure know a few words. You don't know what they mean though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was a time when it was a qualification for disability. You are talking about official, out in the open qualification. I'm talking about people that lie about their drug us. Its a 'thing' in california. It was well known in the homeless community in west LA that if you did certain drugs you could increase your chance at the 'crazy check'. I'm sure it didn't work for everyone, but I knew people who were successful at it. Also if you had ever had to go through the application process, you would know that it doesn't go like that. I don't need to go through the process myself when my fellow activists, my friends, and my housemates tell me about it. If you hung out with criminals more - outside of the office, where they are prepared to lie to you - you would know how much the welfare system is being scammed. Having been a welfare recipient myself and having lived in very poor neighborhoods most of my life known my share of criminals and having worked for the welfare department for many years until I got sick and had to apply for disability which makes me kinda an expert at all levels, makes your expertise, sad to say the least. All of which doesn't change the fact that poor people are being coerced to give up their search and seizure rights with the threat of starving their children or pee in a cup. Only those who have never had to deal with that in life would consider a crazy idea like this one as humane and civil. I know when I am talking to those who have never been there. I also know when I am talking to those who are speaking out of the side of their neck so to speak, hint hint. Lies. You know full well if they couldn't feed their kids social services would take them away. The kids wouldn't starve. Try again. I know I am not the liar here that is for sure. I have spoken nothing but truth. Obviously you know nothing about what you speak of. Welfare and foodstamps is to help house and feed those who cannot do it themselves for what ever reasons. So no we didn't take kids away, we gave them foodstamps and helped them find housing so they wouldn't be out in the cold. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make those kids pee in a cup too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is BS. That's like saying they are giving up their right to stay anonymous because they have to fill out a form. The government is not responsible for housing and feeding its people. Its called personal responsibility. Now if the government (or anyone) wants to offer free aid they can give any stipulation they want. If I tell a homeless guy I would give him $100 to streak through the park I am not taking away his right to wear clothes. (extreme example but still). Exactly! The sickness here has as its foundation the entire "free money from the government is a right" mentality. If you accept that premise, then also see advocating personal responsibility as 'victimizing the poor' and such. But if you favor personal responsibility, then its obvious no one is coercing anyone, or violating anyone's rights. I have to xray all my crap and go through full body scanners when I PAY to fly but you can't pee in a cup for free money? Get over yourself. Seriously. Except they are violating search and seizure with the threat to living or dyihg for some. Which is coercion. No it is not coercion. You don't know much about the law but you sure know a few words. You don't know what they mean though. It seems I know more than you on this subject anyway. Coercion is extrication of information or denial of rights with the threat of harm or harm to their loved ones. This is coercion to a mom with the threat that her children may be in the cold or hungry if she doesn't give up her right to legal search and seizure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was a time when it was a qualification for disability. You are talking about official, out in the open qualification. I'm talking about people that lie about their drug us. Its a 'thing' in california. It was well known in the homeless community in west LA that if you did certain drugs you could increase your chance at the 'crazy check'. I'm sure it didn't work for everyone, but I knew people who were successful at it. Also if you had ever had to go through the application process, you would know that it doesn't go like that. I don't need to go through the process myself when my fellow activists, my friends, and my housemates tell me about it. If you hung out with criminals more - outside of the office, where they are prepared to lie to you - you would know how much the welfare system is being scammed. Having been a welfare recipient myself and having lived in very poor neighborhoods most of my life known my share of criminals and having worked for the welfare department for many years until I got sick and had to apply for disability which makes me kinda an expert at all levels, makes your expertise, sad to say the least. All of which doesn't change the fact that poor people are being coerced to give up their search and seizure rights with the threat of starving their children or pee in a cup. Only those who have never had to deal with that in life would consider a crazy idea like this one as humane and civil. I know when I am talking to those who have never been there. I also know when I am talking to those who are speaking out of the side of their neck so to speak, hint hint. Lies. You know full well if they couldn't feed their kids social services would take them away. The kids wouldn't starve. Try again. I know I am not the liar here that is for sure. I have spoken nothing but truth. Obviously you know nothing about what you speak of. Welfare and foodstamps is to help house and feed those who cannot do it themselves for what ever reasons. So no we didn't take kids away, we gave them foodstamps and helped them find housing so they wouldn't be out in the cold. Yea so you were not saying they were afraid they could't house or feed their kids? Cause you said that. And if the parent didn't have a home and was homeless what would happen? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is BS. That's like saying they are giving up their right to stay anonymous because they have to fill out a form. The government is not responsible for housing and feeding its people. Its called personal responsibility. Now if the government (or anyone) wants to offer free aid they can give any stipulation they want. If I tell a homeless guy I would give him $100 to streak through the park I am not taking away his right to wear clothes. (extreme example but still). Exactly! The sickness here has as its foundation the entire "free money from the government is a right" mentality. If you accept that premise, then also see advocating personal responsibility as 'victimizing the poor' and such. But if you favor personal responsibility, then its obvious no one is coercing anyone, or violating anyone's rights. I have to xray all my crap and go through full body scanners when I PAY to fly but you can't pee in a cup for free money? Get over yourself. Seriously. Except they are violating search and seizure with the threat to living or dyihg for some. Which is coercion. No it is not coercion. You don't know much about the law but you sure know a few words. You don't know what they mean though. It seems I know more than you on this subject anyway. Coercion is extrication of information or denial of rights with the threat of harm or harm to their loved ones. This is coercion to a mom with the threat that her children may be in the cold or hungry if she doesn't give up her right to legal search and seizure. Lets flip that around. Now the mom is threatening us, the tax payer, that if we don't give her money her kids will go cold and hungry. Guess we should just arrest those poor people for coercion of tax payer dollars. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make those kids pee in a cup too. Stop victimizing the poor and make EVERYONE pee in a cup weekly so we know all their health problems and if they are drinking enough water, if their liver is giving out, etc.... It could be quite informative about the population of this country. The color system works well like with probation here. They give you a color and you call in each day and if your color comes up you get to pee. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make those kids pee in a cup too. Stop victimizing the poor and make EVERYONE pee in a cup weekly so we know all their health problems and if they are drinking enough water, if their liver is giving out, etc.... It could be quite informative about the population of this country. The color system works well like with probation here. They give you a color and you call in each day and if your color comes up you get to pee. I am not victimizing the poor. (I'm poor and nobody is victimizing me either.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is BS. That's like saying they are giving up their right to stay anonymous because they have to fill out a form. The government is not responsible for housing and feeding its people. Its called personal responsibility. Now if the government (or anyone) wants to offer free aid they can give any stipulation they want. If I tell a homeless guy I would give him $100 to streak through the park I am not taking away his right to wear clothes. (extreme example but still). Exactly! The sickness here has as its foundation the entire "free money from the government is a right" mentality. If you accept that premise, then also see advocating personal responsibility as 'victimizing the poor' and such. But if you favor personal responsibility, then its obvious no one is coercing anyone, or violating anyone's rights. I have to xray all my crap and go through full body scanners when I PAY to fly but you can't pee in a cup for free money? Get over yourself. Seriously. Except they are violating search and seizure with the threat to living or dyihg for some. Which is coercion. No it is not coercion. You don't know much about the law but you sure know a few words. You don't know what they mean though. It seems I know more than you on this subject anyway. Coercion is extrication of information or denial of rights with the threat of harm or harm to their loved ones. This is coercion to a mom with the threat that her children may be in the cold or hungry if she doesn't give up her right to legal search and seizure. Lets flip that around. Now the mom is threatening us, the tax payer, that if we don't give her money her kids will go cold and hungry. Guess we should just arrest those poor people for coercion of tax payer dollars. You are intentionally being stupid there right? It is our nations responsibility to help those of our population who run on hard times or whatever. You measure the richness of a nation not by it's rich but how well it takes care of it's poor, elderly, disabled. Like I said before since your one one millionth of a cent that goes to help welfare is a problem for you, stop paying, taxes are voluntary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make those kids pee in a cup too. Stop victimizing the poor and make EVERYONE pee in a cup weekly so we know all their health problems and if they are drinking enough water, if their liver is giving out, etc.... It could be quite informative about the population of this country. The color system works well like with probation here. They give you a color and you call in each day and if your color comes up you get to pee. I am not victimizing the poor. (I'm poor and nobody is victimizing me either.) That was a general statement not directed at you. Sorry. Lets just pee test the whole country. It will solve the problem of discrimination and will help give all the searched and seized information for the government to keep |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is BS. That's like saying they are giving up their right to stay anonymous because they have to fill out a form. The government is not responsible for housing and feeding its people. Its called personal responsibility. Now if the government (or anyone) wants to offer free aid they can give any stipulation they want. If I tell a homeless guy I would give him $100 to streak through the park I am not taking away his right to wear clothes. (extreme example but still). Exactly! The sickness here has as its foundation the entire "free money from the government is a right" mentality. If you accept that premise, then also see advocating personal responsibility as 'victimizing the poor' and such. But if you favor personal responsibility, then its obvious no one is coercing anyone, or violating anyone's rights. I have to xray all my crap and go through full body scanners when I PAY to fly but you can't pee in a cup for free money? Get over yourself. Seriously. Except they are violating search and seizure with the threat to living or dyihg for some. Which is coercion. No it is not coercion. You don't know much about the law but you sure know a few words. You don't know what they mean though. It seems I know more than you on this subject anyway. Coercion is extrication of information or denial of rights with the threat of harm or harm to their loved ones. This is coercion to a mom with the threat that her children may be in the cold or hungry if she doesn't give up her right to legal search and seizure. Lets flip that around. Now the mom is threatening us, the tax payer, that if we don't give her money her kids will go cold and hungry. Guess we should just arrest those poor people for coercion of tax payer dollars. You are intentionally being stupid there right? It is our nations responsibility to help those of our population who run on hard times or whatever. You measure the richness of a nation not by it's rich but how well it takes care of it's poor, elderly, disabled. Like I said before since your one one millionth of a cent that goes to help welfare is a problem for you, stop paying, taxes are voluntary. If taxes are voluntary then why is Wesley Snipes in Jail? And that is your opinion. Nowhere does it state the government is responsible to pay for anything for people. Feel free to show in the Constitution where it says they have to pay for poor people if you feel it says that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ya'll are just victimizing the poor!
You are bad, bad people! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7203.html
Tax law, they are not voluntary. Oh you lied again 
|
|
|
|
|
