Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
No, what you want to ignore is that a governmental search of someone's person requires probable cause. Applying for welfare is not evidence of criminal activity and offers no probable cause.
|
So the ONLY time the government can require a drug test is if they have "probable cause"? Are you sure about that?
Apply to be an employee of the Federal (or local/State) Government sometime. Guess what - you pretty much have to pass a drug screen as a condition of employment. In such a case, the gub'ment has no "probable cause" to create such a mandatory employment condition - but it is perfectly legal for them to do so. Why? Because no one is MAKING anyone apply for governmental employment. By doing so, one is informed of the requirement and their choice to continue to pursue employment is voluntary - meaning they are voluntarily CONSENTING to said "search". There is no difference between that and the APPLICATION for welfare benefits. No one is making someone apply - and if they are informed of the requirement - then their choice to continue the application process is, legally speaking, voluntary consent to the "search".
Yes, I know - a judge said they couldn't do it. Actually, if you look into it, an appellate court (11th Circuit) actually upheld on Feb 26th the TEMPORARY injunction keeping the Florida law from going into effect. However, the fight still isn't over, and the 11th Circuit did not rule the law unconstitutional.
Quote:
|
"Judge Rosemary Barkett said attorneys for the state did not prove that children of families who receive TANF are more at risk without drug testing in place."
|
Because this injunction is still temporary, and the governor has stated that he will take it to the Supreme Court, you can point to one decision all you want - the question is still up in the air.
Quote:
|
More victimization and stigmatization of the poor.
|
Yes, victimization by identifying those with drug issues and getting them help, or refusing to provide them assistance so they can continue to be druggies. Of course - the mere fact that they are drug users makes them "victims" already doesn't it - even though they are CHOOSING to be druggies. Getting them help makes them even more of a victim? Yea ok. Stigmatizing? Really? So again - does it "stigmatize" someone who applies for employment? Or maybe it just "victimizes" them?
Quote:
|
More populist and childish ideas that offer no real reform or benefit to the taxpayer.
|
So removing roughly 10% (or up to 37%) of those on the welfare rolls who are by definition abusing the system - it offers no real reform or benefit? What then is your definition of "real reform"? What things would be?
Quote:
|
If you want to drug test people based on receiving benefits, might as well drug test yourself if you've taken a student loan
|
Uhm... key word - LOAN. It gets paid back. Last I checked, welfare is not some loan - its a "gift" from the benevolent gub'ment that is never "paid back" by the recipient. Even then, I could see some reason for it - because it is a benefit one must "apply" for and uses taxpayer dollars. How many more people would get through college if they were not whacked out part of the time?
Quote:
|
or a mortgage interest deduction.
|
Now here we see a big difference in how you think compared to how I do. See - a mortgage interest deduction does not cost the taxpayers - it doesn't "cost" te government - because the money doesn't belong to the government to start with. To you, it would seem it "costs" the government and the taxpayers - but that can only be the case is its the government's money to start with. That just isn't how I see it.