She didn't lie, she's just wrong. She is so thoroughly wrong, and so certain she is right, that its easier for her to believe other people's simple truths are lies.

Taxes are voluntary, jail is the consequence for not paying but they can't make you pay regardless.

The constitution is not the only law so it doesn't matter that it isn't in there.

Taking care of the poor is all nations responsibility but especially in a capitalist nation. Since the object is to create as many poor as possible on your way to the top.

But coercing the poor to give up their search and seizure rights should be something people should be ashamed of.

Wrong again.

Just because a person feels threatened, does not mean that she is a victim of coercion.

No one has threatened her or or loved ones harm by asking her to submit to a drug test.

That would be all in her mind. What does she think will happen if she submits to the test? (She can only feel threatened IF she is using drugs and knows that she can't pass the test, or if she imagines that the results of the test will be used against her in some other unrelated way.) S

She would have to be paranoid or on drugs to feel threatened.

And Coercion requires intent.

The intent is only to prevent drug users from abusing the system. There is no intent to deprive anyone of their rights. They do not have the right to the assistance.

It is not personal,accusatory or a violation of rights. And it is not a threat or coercion just because a paranoid person might perceive it as a threat.

It is the price you have to pay to receive the help.

Pee in the damn cup.

And no, you don't know more about the subject than I do.

That's obvious.

except "she" isn't none of that.

She is right and cannot be proven wrong because 'she' has been at all levels of the argument.

I never lied.

If others lied I don't know but I do know others speak out of the side of their neck because they show they don't know by what they say.

Wesly Snipes was convicted for Income tax evasion. That is more like lying about how much you made than failure to pay it.

Income taxes are voluntary. Not many people know that.

If you are honest about what you make and file an honest tax return, but you just don't pay the taxes, they can't put you in jail.

They can take your property and the money out of your bank though.
They are supposed to have a court order first, but that seems to be easy for them.

Payment of taxes or non payment of them is a civil matter, not a criminal offense.

Lying about them and filing a false return is a criminal offense. That is what they got Wesley Snipes on.

Its like purgery.

Not true at all.

If you are a mother and have nothing and no one and have to break down to apply for help which for many is a terrible thing to have to do and they tell you to violate your search and seizure rights so your kids can eat and you can keep the heat on, you are going to let them do it.

But it coercion.

What they give back for the money is community service and their child support pays it back.

They should not "owe" a violation of their rights, that is sad.

That is no different that submitting for a drug test for your employer. That is not coercion or a violation of rights.

What is "sad" is your stubbornness and your refusal to admit when you are wrong.

Go see a lawyer. Learn something about your rights and the law.

And then just go pee in the damn cup.

My kids father paid every dime I got in welfare and medicaid back to the state here.

So there is no debt owed here. And that is the case for a lot of cases.

And then I worked for many years and payed lots of taxes as I made quite a bit of money a month and I gladly paid.

And then I got sick and have had to cash in on the social security disability. I still gladly pay my taxes.

I hope they help all those welfare moms out there who are struggling.

Yes and all those on drugs who can't work.

I don't need to learn that it is illegal to search and seize when their is no reasonable reason to do so.

In this case there is no way to be suspicious of drug abuse to take bodily fluids and parts which makes it illegal search and seizure so maybe you need to check up on it.

I am not wrong here and I am damn sure not peeing for any damn body. They would have to show me how I am suspected of drug abuse to get me to do it.

It is just sad to see the prejudice against the poor.

You are poor so you have no rights, that is sad.

I'm going to say this one more time, but obviously you are totally convinced you are right,..... but you are wrong.

The drug test is voluntary.

No one is forcing anyone to take it. Therefore, it is not illegal or a violation of anyone's rights. Plain and simple.

Nobody is threatening anyone. Therefore it is not coercion. Plain and simple.

Go ask Judge Judy. You are wrong no matter how many times you claim to be right.

Learn something. Check the law.

Or maybe you just like the illusion of thinking you are right.

Did you mean druggies?

Do you realize that most addicts are "functioning addicts"? They work and carry on their addiction with work money.

By the time they get to the point of not working, they are usually pulling tricks and stealing from anyone who will let them close enough to get the drugs.

You know most enablers are family and friends who keep helping them over and over so they have no need to apply for welfare. Those druggy moms kids are usually living with other family members.

I wanted to be a social worker until I saw one kid beat so bad by their mom that you couldn't see her facial features and the rage I felt made me change my mind. I would have went to jail trying to do that job.

I know there are functioning addicts. Too many in fact. They are the people who support the huge bloody drug cartels.

But illegal drugs are still illegal, whether you are "functioning" or not.

If a functioning addict is using illegal drugs, and sharing them, and buying them and even selling them, they are basically criminals.

And they support the biggest criminals and Drug Lords in the world.

If there were no users, these monsters would be out of business.

There is nothing voluntary about desperation.

You do not understand what it is like to have mouths to feed and no way to do it without asking for help.

So it still becomes coercion.

I am right and you just misunderstand what it like to be in that situation.

As do the others.

Misunderstanding that turns into prejudicial judgements.

It is coercion to take a person who is up against the wall with no where to go which is where people are when they ask for help from the welfare office and take away their rights or they have to let their children starve or freeze. The income restrictions for welfare are so low that these people are barely living anyways and what the welfare gives them helps them to barely live still. It is barely the leg up it is suppose to be.

It is a scary thing to see that people who cannot understand get influence in situations that they shouldn't because of their blindness to the situation.

These types of prejudices are usually taught at home. So after hearing dad and mom and grandma and pa run down these people it gets hard to unlearn it and relate to "them" as you would yourself.

And then we have such a large amount of these prejudice folks in society it tends to get accepted that it must be right which is the case with all racial prejudices in this country and all prejudices against gays in this country.

Prejudice against the poor and welfare recipients especially stems from white prejudice against blacks since they believe falsely that all black folks are on welfare. But then it will stem out to just cover welfare recipients in general. Most all stigmas about them are incorrect. But that doesn't matter to those who want someone to hate on.

But there are people who are not intentionally trying to be prejudice but have bought into what they have heard. It is still prejudicial.

I am hoping to reach those folks who are open enough to realize that to judge any group of human as all bad and treat them as such is prejudice and they would not want what they have done to be done to themselves.

Actually, he didn't pay every dime back but only a percentage of what you recieved. They do take monies toward welfare recieved,but not towards medicaid nor food benefits. They do not place the whole burden upon the father, but only a percentage and based on income just as the CS itself remains based on income. Now what they do, do for welfare is they keep the CS check itself and issue a welfare check should you receive welfare. At the point CS starts to be received by the custodial parent, most custodial parents choose the CS over the welfare mainly in most cases the CS ends up being more than the welfare check itself except for in the cases where the welfare remains more than the CS check that was based in the absent parent income.

Marchwinski v. Howard in 2003

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public...

Random drug testing of welfare recipients is likely unconstitutional under both the U.S. Constitution and some state constitutions:

Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.<16>

At the time Michigan’s drug testing scheme was struck down, the 49 other states had rejected such a program for a variety of fiscal and practical reasons: at least 21 states concluded that such a program “may be unlawful”; 17 states cited cost concerns; 11 states had not considered drug testing at all; and 11 gave a variety of practical/operational reasons.<17>

In halting the implementation of Michigan’s drug testing law, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients “could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.”<18> Indeed, any of the justifications put forth to subject welfare recipients to random drug testing would also by logical extension apply to the entirety of our population that receives some public benefit and/or that is a parent. It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well.

Some states’ constitutions actually offer greater privacy protection to individuals than does the U.S. Constitution. It is very possible that random drug testing schemes for welfare recipients will run afoul of these state-specific protections as well.

Wrong.

He paid back every dime and all the medicaid. I saw the papers and the amount he had to pay back and it was not just a part of it.

They even made him pay half of the in house counseling my son had to do while I was working for the welfare department which was a big break for me since they took it right out of my check each month.

I did not know that welfare or medicaid was a loan that had to be paid back. Or was that connected to child support laws?

This is not about "prejudice" against any group of "poor" people. That is absurd and ridiculous.

If people are poor they probably won't be doing drugs.. or probably shouldn't be doing drugs...and if so, they should not have any problem with random drug testing requirements.

The idea that people who favor drug testing are prejudice against the poor is all in your head.

The testing is aimed at people who take advantage of the system because they would rather stay high than work for a living.

In other words, drug addicts.