The effing ACLU seems to do more harm than good it seems. I see no reason a person asking to receive state assistance should not be drug tested. I was drug tested every single time I have ever applied for a job.

Florida Today

ORLANDO — A federal court judge in Orlando is hearing arguments about the constitutionality of a Florida law that requires state welfare applicants to take drug tests before receiving assistance.

The Florida American Civil Liberties Union is arguing against the law Monday and contends that by applying for welfare in Florida, applicants are being forced to forfeit their constitutional right against unlawful search. The state is being represented by an attorney from the governor’s office.

The ACLU is asking the judge to issue a preliminary injunction against the law.

Some state Republicans say a recent figure showing that 2.7 percent of about 2,000 applicants were denied funds after positive tests shows that the program is a deterrent to drug users. A Democratic state senator has proposed legislation to repeal the law.

I wonder if you would feel the same way if some drugged out or hung over A&P Mechanic, not subject to Alcohol & Drug testing, because it was a waste of time and money, left a rigging pin in a flight control cable bellcrank for the elevator of an airplane you were a passenger in.

Of course you wouldn't know about it; but after the TSB investigation your survivors would, because the plane would more than likely get stuck in a high angle climb and stall out, causing a crash.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...h-row-inmates/1



Here's another one for the ACLU.

I've been doing em so long I could pass anything they through at me.

The Staminator is setting the bar high today.

However we had a very long thread on this topic not so long ago.

Sg

We have to agree to submit to random testing (construction industry).
I have seen it weed out knuckleheads on several occasions.

This is all about stigmatizing people, nothing more. If it was about public safety then Florida would require drug tests prior to renewing a drivers license. But we know that's not going to happen. So I side with the ACLU on this one.

I agree 100%.

Fish on...

Todd

Right wingers would never advocate for the Gubmint involving itself in anyone's private life...unless, of course, that hypothetical "anyone" out there just might be doing something that they themselves don't like, in which case they wholeheartedly embrace the expenditure of Gubmint resources to stop them, posthaste.

Fish on...

Todd

Not relevant...most every time the RWWJ's support Gubmint intrusion into our personal lives it costs more than it saves, and usually it saves absolutely nothing at all while costing money.

Fish on...

Todd

If the Goverment is going to drug test a citizen applying for monetary assistance then randomly drug test and apply the same consequences to ellected officials because the decisions and policy coming from these idiots is in my opinion so whacked they gotta be rrrrrrrrreeeealllly f**ckn high.

The Mexican Drug Cartels are going to have their lobbyist all over this one.

Drinking is legal. Drugs aren't. There's a difference between doing whatever you want on your "free time" vs. illegal substances. Just like criminal checks are commonplace to find housing or employment, drug tests should be too. If you haven't been breaking the law, you have nothing to hide.

Your welcome to do whatever the F you want on your own time, so long as its within the bounds of what's legal.

Get your head out of your @$$ if your going to ask me how alcohol is relevant when you talked about it in your prior post. I'm just following up on your comments...

It's relevant because you mentioned it being a similar issue to drugs, regarding that alcohol is legal and you brought up the point about having an alcohol device in cars being mandatory/or not. Your right, it isn't tested nor should be because it is legal.

Drugs = any illegal substance or illegal abuse of some type of drug, whether legal or illegal (prescription misuse comes to mind)... Not going to get into the whole pot legality thing. If you want to be paid by the government, you should have to follow their rules, simple as that. Don't like it? Don't sign up for it then.

If you want to be a stickler, than yes, you could saw we are paying them thru our taxes. But you know damn well what I meant when I said paid by the government. They appropriate our tax money, knock it off with your short man syndrome and step down from the ladder.

The alcohol versus pot and which is worse debate will rage on because different folks have different perspectives. That being said I do agree it is dangerous but since it is legal we have no right to control it nor prosecute anyone for it as long as people don't drive or commit crimes or anything else illegal while drunk. This is obviously a gray area for some folks. I have no problem with people getting shitcanned drunk as long as they stay away from the wheel. Nowhere did I say it was OK to drink and drive. My point this whole time has been whether activity is illegal.

When you assume, you make an ass out of u. I don't engage in any drug usage and keep my alcohol intake in check thanks to a bad history of alcohol problems within the family. I understand that tax paying citizens smoke the reefer and screw around with the bottle, and contrary to your belief of my views, I don't think the govt should dick around and poke their head into our private lives.

Where it crosses the line is when folks getting paid by tax money are abusing drugs. ILLEGAL is that line. If you want to be paid on taxpayers dollars, than keep a clean record in that respect. Don't like it? Don't sign up for it. You were forewarned. Just the same with private employers who require drug tests. If I owned my own company, I'd like to make sure I wasn't hiring or employing someone who used illegal drugs...

"If I have broken no laws I have nothing to hide nor fear."

I've heard those words many times, usually by those defending an intrusive government policy that seems at odds with our ideals of individual liberty and guaranteed rights. My queston is, when did nothing to hide become an American virtue? What became of the presumption of innocence?

Agreed. It's used to try to justify an "ends" to the "means".

Anti-American and disgusting on it's face.....not to mention a violation of the 4th Ammendment. Our founding Fathers would roll over in their graves knowing how our Republic has slid...

Really? That's news to me, because when I worked as one I was subject to random drug and alcohol testing on a regular basis, as part of the rules set forth by the FAA and the USDOT.


Do I want government intruding in my life? No more than you do, but you and I are not asking the government to support us, or at least I'm not. Getting a driver's license is not the same as asking for the government to pay for your livelihood, apples and oranges...apples and oranges.

Stigmatized? Really? I don't think they are asking anymore of someone on or applying for Welfare than they do of anyone else on the payroll of the state or federal government, except for the fact that the Welfare recipients are not WORKING for their money.

Try this on for size Chuck...

KING 5 Story

By the way Chuck...they check for alcohol just like the police do with a breathalyzer test, except the legal limit is much lower.


I am not a right-winger, I am not a left winger...I am a centrist. I think that both sides of the aisle have as many good ideas as they do bad. I think if you look at my past postings you could see that if you wouldn't get your t-backs in a twist so fast.

Medicinal marijuana is gray area as you know Marsha....

They're also making the assumption that the people on welfare are buying the drugs. How do they know the drugs weren't someone else's that were shared?

And what's next? The state monitors that you're not wasting your welfare check on gambling? Or buying unhealthy food? After all, if the state can control what food the recipient purchases, they could effectively reduce Medicaid costs.

More big gubmint.

If the laws allow for prescribed medicinal marijuana, then I would see that as an exception.

I don't understand why you think it is OK for someone that wants a job to be drug tested, but for someone that is not employed and wants/needs to apply for welfare the subject of drug testing is unapproachable and a risk to everyone's liberty.

Jobs that require drug testing are those that affect public safety.

I don't think you can make that case for welfare recipients. They might be a danger to themselves, but they're not really a threat to public safety.

Drug testing Companies

Ok...you win. I see the point now. Thank you

"I don't think you can make that case for welfare recipients. They might be a danger to themselves, but they're not really a threat to public safety."

Seriously?

Yeah - seriously.

Is your safety compromised by a weed-smoking welfare recipient?

Or are you just a bedwetter who percieves everything as a threat?

If that evil sticky icky was legalized not demonized there would be an opportunity to utilize a cash crop to generate all types of employment from blue collar to white collar occupations. I believe the creation of these jobs would make a huge subtracting dent in the number of people on welfare. While there at it bring home our troops and put them on herb security detail.

You did not specify weed you said drugs. You knew you could not defend the blanket drugs statement so you modified it in a chicken [censored] attempt to not look like a UW or WSU BA recipient. I suppose you are right I would feel just as safe at Yesler Terrace as I would in Broadmore.

not every job drug tests. usually the jobs that test due to safety or security concerns. neither of those concerns exist for people who are on public assistance.

should drug tests be required of social security recipients?
how about drug tests for upper management of any company doing federal projects?
how about farmers that get farm subsidies?

the fact is that these drug test policies are part of the new conservative game plan to blame and punish the least among us. there is no fiscal reason for doing it, and the rates of positive drug tests (1-2%) don't warrant the expense and invasiveness of drug tests. i would rather the recipients of assistance spend their time looking for work or taking care of their kids than waiting in line somewhere to piss in a cup.

i hear the ghost of saint ronnie crying "welfare queens...."

Drug testing of welfare applicants will not save money, nor will it make anyone more safe, or more healthy...kinda leaves the list of reasons why to do it pretty short.

Fish on...

Todd

So Joad is a bedwetter, then.

Thought so.

If you go light yourself on fire today, you won't have to worry about wetting the bed tonight.

You're just mad that you looked like such a doorknob in the health insurance thread, aren't you?

If someone paid for unsupportble claims you would be a gazillionaire.

And you'd still be a dope, and a bedwetter.

Todd,

I agree, it would save money both public and private. HUD spends a great deal every year in enforcement and mitigation of its housing policies. HUD guidelines are very specific about drug use for tenants and owner operators of public assisted housing. The real question is what would be the effect of creating a permanent class of homeless drug users. We are in the process of creating a homeless/jobless criminal class right now with other screening programs. All the new studies are showing it is cheaper to house these people in the long run that it is to deal with each individual issue that arises from their behavior over time. But make no mistake there is a correlation between poverty, drug use and violence.

where does the drug testing stop?

let's not forget that gov. scott of florida also wants the testing to be done on all public employees.

funny how they only go after "liberal" constituents that receive public funds.

How much ya wanna bet Rick Scott is somehow tied financially to the drug testing apparatus in Florida?

Jobs that require drug testing are those that affect public safety.


What? wrong. My company drug tests everybody but it supposedly random. I don't think they would hire Harley or Todd or Salmo....etc

Oh, I get it.

The exception is now the rule.

Gotcha.

Drug testing has nothing to do with safety just liability protection.

Drug testing is merely a function of risk abatement, specifically driven by the insurance industry. A company that has a testing program in place can get lower property and casualty insurance rates. Secondly there are some protections from civil and criminal cases offered by a testing program. A side benefit of a testing program is that it causes a self selection of sorts. People that routinely use drugs will not apply or want to work in an environment where they think they will get “outed’ there are exceptions and also a class of people that enjoy beating a system. So there is a net effect of a safer environment.

TJ - Is the state of Florida going to get a break on their insurance policy if they subject welfare recipients to drug testing?

No?

So it's just you waving a red herring around, huh?

Shocking.

And there's no correlation between safety and liability...


Wow.

The whole idea of drug testing is really nothing more than guilty until proven innocent.
Seems bassakwards to our form of justice system.
Drug testing should be for cause, and not used as a fishing tool.

"TJ - Is the state of Florida going to get a break on their insurance policy if they subject welfare recipients to drug testing?"

If the recipients live in state owned housing yes.




GH,

"And there's no correlation between safety and liability..."

Not what I said at all. I said the intent was to transfer liability ,safety was secondary. Risk abatemnet is additive and drug testing does not nessecarily eliminate risk. Insurance is defined as risk transfer. The risk still remains but the liability is transfered to muliple parties.

If you don't drug test you carry more liability a plain fact. An independant business owner can make that choice freely. In a publically held business a prudent person has a fudicary responsibility to protect his investors and in the case of government they have the fudicary responibility to protect the tax payers. What one wants and what one is required to do in those cases can be different.

It is clear that most of you are ideolouges with very limited if no practical expierence.

What was the question?

"not employers testing prospective employees which nobody is disputing the legality of"

I disagree with that one and hope to one day have a supreme court that isn't slanted towards the corporation. Myself I've never had to submit to a test but for those that do you are giving up your basic constitutional rights each time. Yeah the supreme court say's that's ok though. We are gradually approaching some perverse form of slavery where once you sign on you are owned. Your bodily fluids or hair are their's. Your credit is checked. Your background is checked. Your past online activity can be checked. Some, epecially the govt, interview your neighbors. You get paid for x number of hours but are owned 24/7. So, if a publicly owned corp can do all of that to you why can't you or shareholders expect to see the results of a quarterly drug test of all officers of the corp? Why not an annual background check to make sure an officer isn't in debt trouble and about to take the corp down? Who is more dangerous? As we've seen time and time again it's the officers who destroy a corp not an employee.

As usual TJ/TK is FOS. I've worked for plenty of large corps who don't test and would if it saved them a dime.

I'm willing to bet they have resumes that look far better than yours to any employer. ..........not likely Marsha....but it was a joke ya know...

Have you seen Toff's resume?

<== Would not have trouble passing a drug test...but doesn't think that's a good enough reason to not worry about them being given for unscrupulous reasons.

Fish on...

Todd

Geez I would think you dark side addicts would know a joke by now....pretty quick to freak out looking for a fight....try online Scrabble..

I think drug tests should be multiple choice.

I wish I could fail a drug test, but at this old I just can't hang anymore.

Welfair, in general, is in the form of aid to dependent children. In some ways, we are employing the parent or parents to raise the children. Do we really want to pay a bunch of druggies to raise children? The thought is that they are stealing from their children by cashing in the aid they get to buy drugs, thereforth putting the children at risk and defrauding the public in general.

So we're going to punish dependant children because their parents use drugs?

Not sure that's the right way to handle it.

That's only true if you assume that most people on welfare are drug addicts. But I don't believe the statistics will back you on that. If you'd check, I think you'd find that most people on welfare are sngle mothers who collect benefits on average of less than two years. They then enter the workforce like everyone else.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many Americans are willing to sacrifice the Bill of Rights.

Sg

They should remember that the next time some knucklehead from the other side goes after the 2nd amendment.

The way the right calls themselves conservative, and yet constantly attack the ACLU is pure comedy. All the ACLU does is protect YOUR constitutional rights. The right attacks the Constitution more than the bedwetters on the left ever thought of.

Why do you think they hate the U.S. Constitution so much?

Sacrificing the Bill of Rights is bad enough. But what I find especially appauling is those who call themselves conservatives that defended and even applauded the assault on our Bill of Rights during the Bush adminstration. When I saw that I had to ask myself: what is it exactly that these self-proclaimed conservatives are attempting to conserve? Whatever the answer to that question, it certainly doesn't include the Bill of Rights.

What is even more amazing is these same sheepeople vote against their own economic well being.

"Geez I would think you dark side addicts would know a joke by now....pretty quick to freak out looking for a fight..."


They suffer from belief dependant realism, this causes them to attack anything that even looks like it threatens their beliefs. You can see them group up which is another symptom of BDR, when they have little in the form of information or facts they believe a group of like minded people makes them stronger and they can force out dissenters. Typical and standard weak minded people right out of the book.


On top of this they have become constitutional scholars thumping the Constitution like a bible claiming to know more than the legal professionals who have dedicated their entire lives to the document. . The 4th and 5th amendment cases were decided back in the 80's and have been tested since with little to no success. BDR shows the cabal here believes it is just a matter of getting the right court lined up to overturn the legality of drug testing. Option one for BDR’s is a standard run of the mill conspiracy theory, in this case one of politicians and the corporate entity controlling the world. When logic and factual data fail the BDR suffers always pull the cord on this parachute.

The truth of the matter is that anyone proving housing and accepting HUD funds is required to screen applicants for drug, gun, violence and sex offenses today. If certain offenses are found they are prohibited from allowing those people to live in the subsidized housing and if they are found to be living in such housing and a qualifying offense is found they are evicted. The only place such crimes are allowed is in private housing not receiving HUD funds typically run by charitable organizations and some municipalities. This is a quid pro quo relationship between the recipients of the subsidized housing. Roughly 10% of the recipients of aid have been found to be drug users and they commit a inordinate amount of the violent crime. This reflects a slightly higher number the general population. The tenants in subsidized housing do not want to live with the 10% just like we do not want drugs and violence in our communities.

Wonder if the Florida conservatives view this any differently.

Medical Marijuana Card Holders Prohibited From Buying Guns, Ammunition

BDR1 doubles down on the conspiracy theory with Citizens United . Standard BDR

BDR2 Doubles down with a ad hoc assortment of cases to support her BDR.BTW HUD does not screen anyone they simply have a requirement that eliminates eligibility for certain offenses. feel free to keep arguing with yourself as you have failed to notice I have not taken a position on drug testing of welfare recipients merely noted some information surrounding drug testing. Your ASSumption is large and embarrassing as usual, however typical of someone suffering from BDR.

If you cared to ask. I don't care either way I would leave it up to those most affected to self determine.

That's not screening, huh?

You are RIR-guy. That's Reality-Independant Reality.

You wouldn't know reality if it was beating lumps into your skull.

Member of the cabal BDR#3 shows up.

The requirement is not on the individual but on the owner /manager of the asset. Unless you want to make the case that the business is an individual?


Anymore unsupportable conculsions?

BDR#2

"I've posted supportable facts and you have provided NADA."

No facts just ad hoc pieces of information. If you beleive you have made your case I suggest you get a law degree and make your case in a court. I am guessing but I would say there is millions of doallars at stake for the legal mind that can make such a case. All you did was support your BDR . The only place you have made your a case is in your mind .

Cmon Stlhd you are BDR#4

GH was smart enough to skirt the edges of this one.

RIR #1 open his hole three times in a row because he's too f'n stupid to make three points in one post

Solid showing............now go set yourself on fire.

"now go set yourself on fire."


That shtick is as old as always wearing all husky gear, all black or AC DC tee shirts. I noticed your hair style was also circa 1985. Its 2011 come up with something new, relevant or current. .

Can you really call something so useless a tool? How about a tool wanna be? TWB. Where's Rory?

Corp America gets around that by having you sign your rights away. Even your right to sue. So the RWWJ think tanks need to figure out how they can get all of those "freeloaders" to sign away their rights as citizens and have it stick.

Aunty,
You make a big jump when you say I agree with drug testing, rather I was trying to provide one of the reasons behind it. I am not sure how I feel about it. I have a problem when I see a parent smoking, then using public funds to feed their child, but.... I still want that child fed. (I had a freind who would smoke, take drugs and drink heavy, and then ask me to buy his kid gifts for christmas because he had no money -showing me what he felt was most important)

Since we are not willing to take a child away, then we do own it to the child to try to provide him or her with at least the basic care.

You claim to have no problem with drug tests to protect the public in other jobs, but in getting a check to raise a child you have a problem. Are they not worth being protected... Again, welfare is not for the adult, but for the child. No one is saying that the recipient is a user, just acknowledging that if they want the check they must prove they are capable of raising a child. I have heard of other programs making parents of aid attend parenting classess. Do you have a problem with that?

I have no problem with that. What I am unsure of how to resolve is that I know the parent will just go off the radar and any chance of helping that child will probably disappear. On the other side, I also know that many serious users just trade away the cards and use the money to further decline. Since the whole purpose of Aid to dependent Children is to provide for the welfare of the child, the best means used to do so should be used. Agian, I am not sure that drug testing accomplishes that, but if it does, then I have no problem for that.

Choad is worried about my hair style and choices of attire.



Hey homo - go pay attention to some other man. You're giving me the creeps.

Here's something new and relevant - you're as queer as a 3-dollar bill.

Last I checked smoking is legal and, tax wise, encouraged. It benefits you financially KR so don't be a hypocrite. If we want people to stop smoking then it should be illegal or at a minimum we wouldn't profit from their sale.

"I have heard of other programs making parents of aid attend parenting classess. Do you have a problem with that?"

Who pays for the classes? Is this eating up time that could be used looking for a job? Who babysits the kids?

Myself welfare should be more along the lines of unemployment where you report in every week or whatever. However, there's only so much you can do even with a known drug addict. You start cutting people off completely you will soon have a large crime wave or an expensive bill building more prisons.

I do find it ironic that the extreme right wants to ban abortion AND refuse to provide welfare. Oh I forgot the Amish will take care of them all.

Krijack,

You raise a separate but inter-related issue. Parental fitness, as in "fit to parent." Whenever the parent is unfit, the welfare of the child would be improved by removing him/her from the unfit parent and placing the kid elsewhere. But we only do that in extreme cases and generally permit people who are unfit to parent to freely breed and sorta' raise children. This gets at the "where do the rights of the parent (who is unfit) end and the rights of the child begin?" As a society we're still trying to figure out where to draw the line - Brave New World - style.

Sg

with this comment...

BDR#1

And that justifies your belief in the conspiracy theory that corporations rule the world?, See the definition of BDR. Only a moron would take something to a court when they think they will lose. I forgot I was talking to the Queen of Quilcene where plating a few plants by the highway and decorating a set for a play counts as "changing the world"

It IS TheKing, isn't it?



Different username, same f'n goat.

I won't tell anyone you dance in front of a mirror to "goodbye horses" DanS

He's trying to run up his post count again because it's quantity not quality to TK. Where's Rory? Did you two break up? Did the other board finally figure you out? Trying to get a seat back at the big kids table?

Hey whatever happened to your dillusions that GW knew more than he let on?

"Trying to get a seat back at the big kids table?"


Or in your case the stupid fat kids table, right?

Now a columnist has offered to pay for drug tests for the GOP legislators who voted for the bill:

(Story Link)

Or to his weekly marriage counseling session.