Texas advances bill to require drug screening for welfare
 

First off, the Fourth Amendment says the government can't search you without probable cause. So now we're saying that if you're on welfare, that's a criminal behavior that opens you up to governmental search?

So now you say I'm a bleeding heart liberal with a soft spot for welfare queens? Ok, let's talk about it in terms that the Tea Party loooooves to harp on. Government spending.

Let's talk money and math. How many drug addicts do you think you're going to catch here out of all the welfare recipients tested? 20%? 10%? 1%?

Let's look at Florida, where a similar law was put into place:

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/ed...das-lesson.ece

:damn: And not to mention that a federal appeals court struck down Florida's law.

Waste of my taxpayer dollars. :nope:

Well, the amendments have been ignored for the past four years. What's another one being ignored?

People must learn to take responsibility for themselves. Public money should not be spend for paying the consummation of drugs. I am for solidarity when somebody gets into trouble and falls down the social ladder due to accident, bad fate, disease. But it should be solidarity that shows in helping him to help himself. Not for sitting at home, taking other people's money and spending it for tons of softdrinks, cigarettes and huge flatscreen TVs.

Or worse: buying drugs. Maybe even trading them? Social wellfare to criminals? No inviting prospect for me. At best considering it for a program to help people abandoning the drug or criminal scene. Help them to help themselves.

Violating this principle - see Europe where it leads. It sends the social security system over the fiscal cliff. People in Europe do not want to realize it, but the simple truth is: the ambitious, excessive social wellfare state a la Europe, has failed. It is unsustainable and non-affordable over the long term. We wanted too much, we lost reasonable standards and sense of proportion.

Exactly. If they can infringe on the American peoples right to keep and bear arms they can certainly infringe on any other right with impunity.

What a load of silliness.

I have to consent to a drug test to draw my paycheck... whats the difference???

I move to pass a law to defund welfare and redirect those funds to a more useful end.

I'm drug-tested fairly often for work. No big deal, there's an actual solid reason for that, whereas this idea just seems silly.

To me, this idea is more about whipping up anti-welfare-cheat feeling rather than er, whatever it's supposed to be doing.

It can't be about making sure taxpayer's money isn't spent on drugs. If that were the idea, then you'd have to take a drug test to qualify for tax credits, qualify for electric car purchase credit, get health insurance for your kids in some cases. It goes on and on.

Oh yeah, and drug tests for everyone in the public sector before they get paid. So it's not about keeping money from druggies. It's about looking like you're getting tough on "takers".

Great. And exactly how many taxpayer dollars are you willing to spend to prove that point? We need politicians that will think fiscally and pragmatically, not ideologically.

Exactly. It's a stunt for politicians to use in their next election campaign. And the taxpayer is the one footing the bill for it, because it ends up costing the state thousands of dollars. It's asinine.

You like riots, huh? :hmmm:

They're ok with me. I'm sufficiently armed.

I don't know what America has against work, I completely fail to understand why we not only condone laziness and sloth and hind tit feeding within our populace... But we openly and actively go out if our way to promote it.

Pathetic

If Texas defunded welfare all those leeches would move to Louisiana or Oklahoma. I say push em up north lol

I second that idea.

Great. More social experimentation known as dipping the public toe into the waters of a police state. Blind leading the blind. Corrupt assisting the corrupt by making the poor into the scapegoats for their own thievery using alleged drug addiction as the reasoning for a crackdown on the poor. It's pathetic how reasonably intelligent citizens can be so easily brainwashed by government propaganda.
In essence, I consider forced drug testing an unlawful act of illegal search without a warrant. Corporate America can get away with it by simply printing the rule in their employee handbook. But, no government entity can use it for any reason because it's unconstitutional!
Replacing the carrot with a stick will not motivate the mule to pull the cart.
The real welfare queens in this country are not poor. If the states and the feds want to save some money they should first cut their own exorbitant salaries, privileges and perks. Trim the fat out of every agency, then go after the poor.
Probably won't need to if that gets done.

Nobody is forcing them to undergo drug testing. Accepting public assistance is a voluntary act just like accepting employment with a private company. You want the money you pee in the cup.

Precisely.

Now to address Mookie's point regarding the cost: on the surface, it may cost more, but there may be savings here that are difficult to detect. For one, if this can deter welfare recipients from using drugs, this may make them more confident in passing employer screenings. For another, how many hospital emergency room beds which are not paid for will be freed by additional healthy immune systems, less drug-related illnesses, fewer drug-related accidents, etc?

I think that perhaps you're looking at this the wrong way, as though it's supposed to be a measure to kick drug users off of the welfare rolls. I see it differently, as I've first hand witnessed the rampant drug use in the low-income welfare community: it's yet another incentive to get people clean, healthy, and employable.

Returning to self-sufficiency is what welfare is about - not merely a substitute for a real, earned paycheck.

No violation of the 4th amendment as applying for welfare is not mandated by the government. It is done by choice, and thus its requirements fall under said choice.

What the premise of "how many are you going to catch" fails to take into account is simple - how many people heard about the law, knew they would be tested - and knew they would fail? How many didn't even apply because of it? More than enough to make up that $118k for sure.

Something to think about.....