100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Welfare recipient drug tests are unconstitiutional :) | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
here's what many seem to be missing. drug tests when performed by an employer or potential employer are not protected by the fourth amendment. if you want the job, you submit to the test. there's nothing illegal about the "search". but when the government does a drug test without probable cause that a crime has been commited and no warrant issued it becomes an illegal search. you folks can argue all day that the court got it wrong but that will not make these laws constitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
here's what many seem to be missing. drug tests when performed by an employer or potential employer are not protected by the fourth amendment. if you want the job, you submit to the test. there's nothing illegal about the "search". but when the government does a drug test without probable cause that a crime has been commited and no warrant issued it becomes an illegal search. you folks can argue all day that the court got it wrong but that will not make these laws constitutional. Here is what you seem to be missing. Various parolees, perpetrators of domestic violence, and others have been required to be drug tested which apparently did not violate their constitutional rights and there was no assumption of "presumed guilty" involved. It was merely a requirement to make sure the person was "walking the straight and narrow" to receive what they were receiving ... which could vary from time with children to time in jail. I was drug tested to renew my pilot's license ... by the Federal Government; not an employer. I would think you would know that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the issue would be though, with how to justify it when such a majority of americans obtained their status because of that very policy being in place when their ancestors were in this country,,, That matters not. Countries were formed by people just like this one. There were people long before there were countries. This rule would then apply to all of them. As they have changed their policies so can we. I think you are missing the point I was making. Yes, there were people long before there were countries. However, once countries are created, and laws are enacted, it is hard to justify when and why the law should afford privileges to some and then detract them from others...especially with a privilege as significant as citizenship Not really. A country's loyalties are with its citizens. Currently this law does nothing to help citizens but does a lot to hurt them. by definition, this law determines who its citizens are those it disenfranchises will be hurt Its not disenfranchising anyone. Its not removing citizenship from anyone. Its just not giving it to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any form of mandatory drug testing is unconstitutional. Such testing presumes guilt by its very use. (they test to find the guilty). We do not have to make any statements that might incriminate. the 5th! Pissing in a cup is a statement. Giving blood or hair is a statement. Refusing the test on these grounds should not get a person fired (that would be a presumption of guilt). No because its not mandatory. You have an option in applying for government assistance. You can choose to not apply for government aid and not be tested for drugs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for your other comments...same thing, the requirments are/were specific and relative.
Yes, and I think its perfectly reasonable to require all welfare recipients to either (a) state they are not doing drugs, and submit to random drug testing or (b) enter a program of drug rehabilitation. If they don't like it, they can choose not to participate. (by the way, hope you filed a complaint about the less than qualified teachers) This would not have done any good. I find this problem throughout our culture - science education is whack. There are high school science teachers in my area who are completely not qualified to teach science, but the district is strapped for money and its hard to get people to teach in these schools. I am all for other forms of checks and balances to make sure the money is being used for it's intended purposes..i.e. putting a roof over the kids head, healthy food in their mouths, providing stability so their education doesn't suffer....if there is a drug user/abuser in the home preventing these intended purposes...it will become apparent....then further actions can be taken. I agree with you, but again we have the problem of diminishing returns on the money spent. Measuring and regulating those expenditures cost the rest of us money. Which isn't to say we should do it, just that we have to accept imperfections. What gets me is when people argue against these checks and balances by saying that welfare recipients have a right to privacy with how they spend the money. They don't. Its not their money. It is important we do not enter into witch hunt mentality
Why do people keeping dramatizing this? Its a totally reasonable expectation: Public funds that are just given to people should not be financing their drug habits. Welfare recipients are not victimized here. --------------------------------------- AB wrote: Any form of mandatory drug testing is unconstitutional.
Good thing welfare isn't mandatory! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for your other comments...same thing, the requirments are/were specific and relative.
Yes, and I think its perfectly reasonable to require all welfare recipients to either (a) state they are not doing drugs, and submit to random drug testing or (b) enter a program of drug rehabilitation. If they don't like it, they can choose not to participate. (by the way, hope you filed a complaint about the less than qualified teachers) This would not have done any good. I find this problem throughout our culture - science education is whack. There are high school science teachers in my area who are completely not qualified to teach science, but the district is strapped for money and its hard to get people to teach in these schools. I am all for other forms of checks and balances to make sure the money is being used for it's intended purposes..i.e. putting a roof over the kids head, healthy food in their mouths, providing stability so their education doesn't suffer....if there is a drug user/abuser in the home preventing these intended purposes...it will become apparent....then further actions can be taken. I agree with you, but again we have the problem of diminishing returns on the money spent. Measuring and regulating those expenditures cost the rest of us money. Which isn't to say we should do it, just that we have to accept imperfections. What gets me is when people argue against these checks and balances by saying that welfare recipients have a right to privacy with how they spend the money. They don't. Its not their money. It is important we do not enter into witch hunt mentality
Why do people keeping dramatizing this? Its a totally reasonable expectation: Public funds that are just given to people should not be financing their drug habits. Welfare recipients are not victimized here. --------------------------------------- AB wrote: Any form of mandatory drug testing is unconstitutional.
Good thing welfare isn't mandatory! Good post Massagetrade! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Tue 11/01/11 08:53 AM
|
|
here's what many seem to be missing. drug tests when performed by an employer or potential employer are not protected by the fourth amendment. if you want the job, you submit to the test. there's nothing illegal about the "search". but when the government does a drug test without probable cause that a crime has been commited and no warrant issued it becomes an illegal search. you folks can argue all day that the court got it wrong but that will not make these laws constitutional. Here is what you seem to be missing. Various parolees, perpetrators of domestic violence, and others have been required to be drug tested which apparently did not violate their constitutional rights and there was no assumption of "presumed guilty" involved. It was merely a requirement to make sure the person was "walking the straight and narrow" to receive what they were receiving ... which could vary from time with children to time in jail. I was drug tested to renew my pilot's license ... by the Federal Government; not an employer. I would think you would know that. having been a professional pilot for four decades i must say that i've never had to renew my pilot certificate and for damn sure have never been drug tested by the faa or any other government agency. yes, the faa does require that employers perform pre employment and random drug testing for crew members, mechanics, etc., in the case of a company operating under the requirements of an air carrier certificate, ie, far 135, 121, 125, etc., but no pilot flying outside the requirements of these FARs is required by the government to be drug tested. but again, i suppose i could have missed something during all those years and nineteen thousand hours of flying as an atp and faa designated pilot examiner. but then i never was issued a "pilot's license" in the first place as i've always carried a pilot CERTIFICATE on which i can find absolutely no expiration date. as regards what i may have missed regarding convicted criminals and parolees, due process of law and probable cause apply. it's near impossible to understand any of the amendments and the rights that they protect without seeing it in context with other amendments and the constitution itself. the fact is that the court found that drug testing does amount to an illegal search in welfare cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
here's what many seem to be missing. drug tests when performed by an employer or potential employer are not protected by the fourth amendment. if you want the job, you submit to the test. there's nothing illegal about the "search". but when the government does a drug test without probable cause that a crime has been commited and no warrant issued it becomes an illegal search. you folks can argue all day that the court got it wrong but that will not make these laws constitutional. How about, if you want welfare assistance, you submit to the test. Period. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What gets me is when people argue against these checks and balances by saying that welfare recipients have a right to privacy with how they spend the money. They don't. Its not their money. the court did not consider who's money was who's. it considered what is and is not an illegal search. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
here's what many seem to be missing. drug tests when performed by an employer or potential employer are not protected by the fourth amendment. if you want the job, you submit to the test. there's nothing illegal about the "search". but when the government does a drug test without probable cause that a crime has been commited and no warrant issued it becomes an illegal search. you folks can argue all day that the court got it wrong but that will not make these laws constitutional. How about, if you want welfare assistance, you submit to the test. Period. quite simple really, a federal court ruled such a requirement as unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What gets me is when people argue against these checks and balances by saying that welfare recipients have a right to privacy with how they spend the money. They don't. Its not their money. the court did not consider who's money was who's. it considered what is and is not an illegal search. A drug test as a requirement to receive assistance is NOT an illegal search because people are not required to ask for assistance. They can always decline to give the test. An illegal search is when they are held down and forced to give a blood sample while being under arrest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
here's what many seem to be missing. drug tests when performed by an employer or potential employer are not protected by the fourth amendment. if you want the job, you submit to the test. there's nothing illegal about the "search". but when the government does a drug test without probable cause that a crime has been commited and no warrant issued it becomes an illegal search. you folks can argue all day that the court got it wrong but that will not make these laws constitutional. How about, if you want welfare assistance, you submit to the test. Period. quite simple really, a federal court ruled such a requirement as unconstitutional. That was a mistake. Plain and simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
here's what many seem to be missing. drug tests when performed by an employer or potential employer are not protected by the fourth amendment. if you want the job, you submit to the test. there's nothing illegal about the "search". but when the government does a drug test without probable cause that a crime has been commited and no warrant issued it becomes an illegal search. you folks can argue all day that the court got it wrong but that will not make these laws constitutional. How about, if you want welfare assistance, you submit to the test. Period. quite simple really, a federal court ruled such a requirement as unconstitutional. Actually, the Federal granted a temporary injunction until the matter is settled in court in Florida. The case has had no ruling. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, the Federal granted a temporary injunction until the matter is settled in court in Florida. The case has had no ruling. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ITs a collosal waste of money and another way to demonize the down trodden. In reality, their drug use rate is no different than the average.
What is next? are we gonna make sure they arent buying sweets? Make sure they dont smoke? make sure they arent participating in illicit sex? How many other undesirable or unhealthy things are we gonna concern ourself with besides the basic premise of whether or not they can EARN a living? This one baffles me. Drug testing would be wasteful and singling out people in need. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What gets me is when people argue against these checks and balances by saying that welfare recipients have a right to privacy with how they spend the money. They don't. Its not their money. the court did not consider who's money was who's. it considered what is and is not an illegal search. A drug test as a requirement to receive assistance is NOT an illegal search because people are not required to ask for assistance. They can always decline to give the test. An illegal search is when they are held down and forced to give a blood sample while being under arrest. you and i don't get to decide what is and is not illegal, jeannie. that's what courts do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
here's what many seem to be missing. drug tests when performed by an employer or potential employer are not protected by the fourth amendment. if you want the job, you submit to the test. there's nothing illegal about the "search". but when the government does a drug test without probable cause that a crime has been commited and no warrant issued it becomes an illegal search. you folks can argue all day that the court got it wrong but that will not make these laws constitutional. Here is what you seem to be missing. Various parolees, perpetrators of domestic violence, and others have been required to be drug tested which apparently did not violate their constitutional rights and there was no assumption of "presumed guilty" involved. It was merely a requirement to make sure the person was "walking the straight and narrow" to receive what they were receiving ... which could vary from time with children to time in jail. I was drug tested to renew my pilot's license ... by the Federal Government; not an employer. I would think you would know that. having been a professional pilot for four decades i must say that i've never had to renew my pilot certificate and for damn sure have never been drug tested by the faa or any other government agency. yes, the faa does require that employers perform pre employment and random drug testing for crew members, mechanics, etc., in the case of a company operating under the requirements of an air carrier certificate, ie, far 135, 121, 125, etc., but no pilot flying outside the requirements of these FARs is required by the government to be drug tested. but again, i suppose i could have missed something during all those years and nineteen thousand hours of flying as an atp and faa designated pilot examiner. but then i never was issued a "pilot's license" in the first place as i've always carried a pilot CERTIFICATE on which i can find absolutely no expiration date. as regards what i may have missed regarding convicted criminals and parolees, due process of law and probable cause apply. it's near impossible to understand any of the amendments and the rights that they protect without seeing it in context with other amendments and the constitution itself. the fact is that the court found that drug testing does amount to an illegal search in welfare cases. You are now using semantics to try to prove your point. This is considered intellectually dishonest. You know perfectly well that you need a medical certificate for your pilot's license to be valid. Calling the license a certificate is using the FAA terminology but for Mingle, it's the same damn thing. And remember, Mingle is world wide, not just the US. Since you profess great knowledge of the the FAA world for being a pilot (I am one too) I'll post the FAA rules for you. § 61.14 Refusal to submit to a drug or alcohol test. (a) This section applies to an individual who holds a certificate under this part and is subject to the types of testing required under appendix I to part 121 or appendix J to part 121 of this chapter. (b) Refusal by the holder of a certificate issued under this part to take a drug test required under the provisions of appendix I to part 121 or an alcohol test required under the provisions of appendix J to part 121 is grounds for: (1) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of such refusal; and (2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part. I see no mention of "due process" or "just cause". I was asked to provide a sample of my urine at my last medical. Had I refused, my "certificate" would be toast. I guess you don't fly anymore. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for your other comments...same thing, the requirments are/were specific and relative.
Yes, and I think its perfectly reasonable to require all welfare recipients to either (a) state they are not doing drugs, and submit to random drug testing or (b) enter a program of drug rehabilitation. If they don't like it, they can choose not to participate. (by the way, hope you filed a complaint about the less than qualified teachers) This would not have done any good. I find this problem throughout our culture - science education is whack. There are high school science teachers in my area who are completely not qualified to teach science, but the district is strapped for money and its hard to get people to teach in these schools. I am all for other forms of checks and balances to make sure the money is being used for it's intended purposes..i.e. putting a roof over the kids head, healthy food in their mouths, providing stability so their education doesn't suffer....if there is a drug user/abuser in the home preventing these intended purposes...it will become apparent....then further actions can be taken. I agree with you, but again we have the problem of diminishing returns on the money spent. Measuring and regulating those expenditures cost the rest of us money. Which isn't to say we should do it, just that we have to accept imperfections. What gets me is when people argue against these checks and balances by saying that welfare recipients have a right to privacy with how they spend the money. They don't. Its not their money. It is important we do not enter into witch hunt mentality
Why do people keeping dramatizing this? Its a totally reasonable expectation: Public funds that are just given to people should not be financing their drug habits. Welfare recipients are not victimized here. --------------------------------------- AB wrote: Any form of mandatory drug testing is unconstitutional.
Good thing welfare isn't mandatory! Too bad the need may as well be mandatory. The law is unconstitutional, live with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Tue 11/01/11 01:27 PM
|
|
As for your other comments...same thing, the requirments are/were specific and relative.
Yes, and I think its perfectly reasonable to require all welfare recipients to either (a) state they are not doing drugs, and submit to random drug testing or (b) enter a program of drug rehabilitation. If they don't like it, they can choose not to participate. (by the way, hope you filed a complaint about the less than qualified teachers) This would not have done any good. I find this problem throughout our culture - science education is whack. There are high school science teachers in my area who are completely not qualified to teach science, but the district is strapped for money and its hard to get people to teach in these schools. I am all for other forms of checks and balances to make sure the money is being used for it's intended purposes..i.e. putting a roof over the kids head, healthy food in their mouths, providing stability so their education doesn't suffer....if there is a drug user/abuser in the home preventing these intended purposes...it will become apparent....then further actions can be taken. I agree with you, but again we have the problem of diminishing returns on the money spent. Measuring and regulating those expenditures cost the rest of us money. Which isn't to say we should do it, just that we have to accept imperfections. What gets me is when people argue against these checks and balances by saying that welfare recipients have a right to privacy with how they spend the money. They don't. Its not their money. It is important we do not enter into witch hunt mentality
Why do people keeping dramatizing this? Its a totally reasonable expectation: Public funds that are just given to people should not be financing their drug habits. Welfare recipients are not victimized here. --------------------------------------- AB wrote: Any form of mandatory drug testing is unconstitutional.
Good thing welfare isn't mandatory! Too bad the need may as well be mandatory. The law is unconstitutional, live with it. We are all aware that there are those who do not understand not having a means to pay for what is needed. It is obvious on the boards daily. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 11/01/11 02:10 PM
|
|
What gets me is when people argue against these checks and balances by saying that welfare recipients have a right to privacy with how they spend the money. They don't. Its not their money. the court did not consider who's money was who's. it considered what is and is not an illegal search. A drug test as a requirement to receive assistance is NOT an illegal search because people are not required to ask for assistance. They can always decline to give the test. An illegal search is when they are held down and forced to give a blood sample while being under arrest. you and i don't get to decide what is and is not illegal, jeannie. that's what courts do. And they HAVE already done that. You or I had nothing to do with it. If they pass the law that drug test are required for people wanting assistance, that is not against anyone's rights. If you want assistance, you will submit to a drug test. If you don't want to submit to a drug test, then don't apply for assistance. It is illegal to force someone to take a drug test against their will... unless it is by court order or as a result of some kind a plea bargain or agreement. I did not "decide" this, the courts decided this. |
|
|
|
|
