Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not sure where you are coming from by objecting to me using numbers on the low end of the estimates-- are you actually denying this happens? I knew some people objected to the term 'corporate welfare' but I had no idea people denied that the US government heavily subsidizes corporations. Remember Romney's 'corporations are people' speech?
I used a low end estimates but other groups put this number closer to $100 billion (estimates range depending on what you include).
But please, do not take my word for it--do your own research.
I wonder why the government, and private sector employers, do not test for alcohol and tobacco use along with all the rest of the drug universe. All of these drugs harm the individual so why not test?
Maybe because it is none of the control freak tester's business?
I wonder why the government, and private sector employers, do not test for alcohol and tobacco use along with all the rest of the drug universe. All of these drugs harm the individual so why not test?
Maybe because it is none of the control freak tester's business?
Government sector: Constrained by the 4th and 14th Amendments. Private sector: Probably the cost.
I wonder why the government, and private sector employers, do not test for alcohol and tobacco use along with all the rest of the drug universe. All of these drugs harm the individual so why not test?
Maybe because it is none of the control freak tester's business?
Companies do test for alcohol. If your company suspects you've been drinking on the job (if it's a corporation), they will send you for a test.
At the company I work for, if you are involved in a car wreck with a company vehicle or on company business, you'll get an alcohol test.
Generally speaking, alcohol is easier to detect via observation than other drugs.
And, of course, it comes down to companies wanting to reduce liability.
As more states make pot legal (which I'm in favor), it will become interesting to see what happens in regards to drug testing by employers.
Note that the 11th Circuit decision applies to Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. Interestingly, the 11th Circuit is one of the most conservative Circuits in the United States.
It basically comes down to this: "The Fourth Amendment, as applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, does not prohibit all searches; only unreasonable searches are unconstitutional. Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619. 'To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.' Chandler, 520 U.S. at 313."
Notable exceptions (with some limitations) are employees responsible for public safety and public schools.
Thank you for the links. An interesting read. I did find it funny how both decisions decided to note the fact the plaintiff was a veteran, as if it were somehow germance to the underlying issue. I also would agree that the fact of requiring someone who has no money to pay fo a drug test to receive assistance is a little absurd. It will be interesting to see if other Circuits agree or if we will end up with a Circuit split.
I've never been in an accident, yet I legally am forced to pay insurance in order to drive. If I get in a wreck it's there.
I've never needed welfare of any kind, yet I am forced to pay it if I want to maintain employment. If I loose my job, welfare is there.
I don't see a difference. Some people abuse auto insurance, some people abuse welfare. Get over it.
As I said earlier, I think you're making (bad) comparisons where they don't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velvet Jones
Well, unfortunately for you genius, no court has ever agreed with you. Sorry, you loose.
I guess the thread should be closed then, since the topic of the thread is about our opinions on drug testing for welfare recipients. You understand this is a discussion forum, not a "state facts as they are" forum, right?
BTW, genius, it's LOSE, not loose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChessieMom
You pay welfare to maintain your employment?
I didn't understand that either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
I wonder why the government, and private sector employers, do not test for alcohol and tobacco use along with all the rest of the drug universe. All of these drugs harm the individual so why not test?
Maybe because it is none of the control freak tester's business?
Mainly because alcohol and tobacco are legal, I assume. Whatever effect they have on an employee's performance is to be dealt with on it's own. If someone wants to drink while not work, and their work performance isn't affected, it's entirely their freedom to do so.
I am not sure where you are coming from by objecting to me using numbers on the low end of the estimates-- are you actually denying this happens? I knew some people objected to the term 'corporate welfare' but I had no idea people denied that the US government heavily subsidizes corporations. Remember Romney's 'corporations are people' speech?
I used a low end estimates but other groups put this number closer to $100 billion (estimates range depending on what you include).
But please, do not take my word for it--do your own research.
I don't object to your numbers. I recognize that you are one of the 47 percenters to whom information means nothing. You make snarky remarks about the Koch brothers, who have done more for America than most people could ever hope to do, and use meaningless buzz words like corporate welfare.
You claim that the US subsidizes corporations without the slightest attempt at discussing what that might mean. As the owner of a corporation (now closed) I find that outright laughable. You don't know what you are talking about and you are obviously unaware of that fact, too.
The most frightening thing about your posts is that they seem to be written by someone who is qualified in some way to vote, and you will vote based upon how you 'feel'. But you have to; you know nothing.
I would appreciate it if you would put me on your ignore list, because that is certainly where you are going.
I guess the thread should be closed then, since the topic of the thread is about our opinions on drug testing for welfare recipients. You understand this is a discussion forum, not a "state facts as they are" forum, right?
No.....what this thread was supposed to be about was how people justify holding dichotomous views when it comes to the Bill of Rights. i.e. decrying challenges to the 2nd amendment while ignoring the fact that drug testing violates the 4th amendment. It's not about welfare being a "right". Often, drug testing can violate the 4th and in many cases the 5th amendment as well, yet many of the people advocating this testing scream bloody murder when their right to keep and bear arms is threatened.
Is the Constitution to be followed as a whole or do you (supporters of drug testing) just defend the parts that serve you?
Thank you for the links. An interesting read. I did find it funny how both decisions decided to note the fact the plaintiff was a veteran, as if it were somehow germane to the underlying issue. I also would agree that the fact of requiring someone who has no money to pay fo a drug test to receive assistance is a little absurd. It will be interesting to see if other Circuits agree or if we will end up with a Circuit split.
Personally, I loved it. The plaintiff's counsel was seeking certification of a class action and presumably the veteran would have been the lead plaintiff if the class was certified. Excellent choice for lead plaintiff, not only because he presented well (veteran, custodial father of 3 year old child AND added bonus here: was caring for his disabled mother) but also because this case was based on a "suspicionless search." Given his character, there was no reason for the State to suspect he was using drugs. So, the veteran status, etc. was germane to the case. In addition, he was receiving SNAP benefits and Medical Assistance, neither of which mandate drug testing. Why the discrepancy? Another bonus point for the plaintiff's side. No stereotypical single mother with multiple children to represent the class. A wise attorney chooses his or her lead plaintiff very carefully.
BTW, I also noticed that when he applied for cash assistance he initially consented to undergo drug testing and then withdrew his consent. Apparently he was able to show (probably through a letter from social services) that he qualified for the assistance except for his failure to complete the drug test. I don't know whether this was sheer luck or whether he sought advice from counsel before he decided to refuse the drug test. If he had undergone testing, the court may have dismissed the case based on mootness. Overall, excellent representation by counsel.
BTW, the District Court decision referred to a similar case in Michigan (a different circuit) where the result was the same.
No.....what this thread was supposed to be about was how people justify holding dichotomous views when it comes to the Bill of Rights. i.e. decrying challenges to the 2nd amendment while ignoring the fact that drug testing violates the 4th amendment. It's not about welfare being a "right". Often, drug testing can violate the 4th and in many cases the 5th amendment as well, yet many of the people advocating this testing scream bloody murder when their right to keep and bear arms is threatened.
Is the Constitution to be followed as a whole or do you (supporters of drug testing) just defend the parts that serve you?
The premise of your argument is based on something that many of us, obviously, do not agree with. It's not a dichotomous view to us. Regardless of anything else at all anywhere for any reason at any time, including what anyone thnks about any other law or right, if someone wants free money from the government, it is not unthinkable for them to have to submit to drug testing. I highlighted that for you since you don't seem to understand that there are rules to every contract which is freely entered into. Guns (or any other Amendment) have absolutely nothing to do with this. If you were to speak in front of the Supreme Court on the issue of drug testing welfare recepients, and tried to bring up guns, you'd be shut down instantly, because one has nothing to do with the other.
Frankly, it's a laughable point now that I've thought about it. There's nothing to argue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
