• Welfare Drug Test Law Ruled Unconstitutional
    103 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;33004412]Anyone that uses roads, buys food, has a house loan, has children in schools, etc. receives tax dollars indirectly. Why shouldn't they be required to show that they aren't on drugs?[/QUOTE]Because they also pay taxes? Come on guys, this line of thinking has absolutely no relevance to what we were talking about. [QUOTE=Zeke129;33004426]I don't see what's wrong with his argument. Should I be subject to drug tests because I got a tax credit cheque from the government of Saskatchewan last quarter?[/QUOTE] Even the American laws - which were kinda shit - covered this: students are exempt. For hopefully obvious reasons, so are regular tax payers. Again... this line of thinking has nothing to do with the subject of welfare.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;33004404]Education is a right in Canada, I wouldn't take that away from anyone. Seriously think about what I'm saying as opposed to spouting off lines like this that are irrelevant to the subject.[/QUOTE] what if i were to say that i feel that financial support for the poor is of equitable importance to public education? [editline]27th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=FlakAttack;33004433]Because they also pay taxes? Come on guys, this line of thinking has absolutely no relevance to what we were talking about.[/QUOTE] the poor pay sales taxes
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;33004433]Because they also pay taxes? Come on guys, this line of thinking has absolutely no relevance to what we were talking about.[/QUOTE] When I don't have a job I don't pay taxes, but I still use roads and send mail.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;33004245]because i'd rather the crackheads have some money than be completely, inescapably homeless[/QUOTE] Personally I would prefer [I]not [/I]to give my money to homeless crackheads who will likely go spend it on more drugs. But before I sound like a total asshole, I would rather see that money go to initiate free rehab services. To me its a "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" kind of thing.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;33004433]Because they also pay taxes? Come on guys, this line of thinking has absolutely no relevance to what we were talking about.[/QUOTE] Not everyone who uses roads, schools, etc. pays taxes. Many such people even receive money from the government in the form of a tax rebate every year. They aren't explicitly on welfare, so what about them? If receiving money from the government implies you should be drug tested, why isn't that [I]anyone[/I] that receives money from the government (i.e. about half of all Americans, and nearly everyone in America indirectly).
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;33004454]Personally I would prefer [I]not [/I]to give my money to homeless crackheads who will likely go spend it on more drugs. But before I sound like a total asshole, I would rather see that money go to initiate free rehab services. To me its a "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" kind of thing.[/QUOTE] I support both Give them money to survive AND make rehab easily available to them
Ok so reiterating that the subject is welfare specifically, why should tax payers be expected to fund the drug habits of people who have no intention of bettering themselves?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33004462]I support both Give them money to survive AND make rehab easily available to them[/QUOTE] Better idea, how about you give them the money to survive when they go to/do well with rehab? That way they will actually utilize it and get back on their feet and no money is totally wasted.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;33004480]Ok so reiterating that the subject is welfare specifically, why should tax payers be expected to fund the drug habits of people who have no intention of bettering themselves?[/QUOTE] There's so much conceptual baggage there that it's almost impossible to answer, but let me try: 1) It's not about 'funding the drug habits' of these people. It's about recognizing that we're all humans, and all deserve life. Being addicted to a drug doesn't mean you somehow deserve an exceptionally shitty life. 2) The low incidence of drug use in welfare populations makes this almost a non-issue economically. The recession we're suffering completely blows past the scale of this 'issue.' 3) Simply using drugs is such a major stigma in our society that it can be difficult to even find help. Many places have poor or no rehab facilities. For seriously addictive drugs, it's a major effort to get off the drug that goes way beyond whether or not you want to "better yourself." 4) The illegality of the drugs feeds into the general issue, as their prices are dramatically increased, going for help implies admitting to an illegal act, acquiring the drugs that you are addicted to is potentially dangerous, and various other black market implications.
[URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575324701356244886.html"]Found it[/URL] Here is a handy dandy graph that visualizes the data [IMG]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_leo5k68x9U1qb6vok.png[/IMG] Edit:wait shit this is unemployment benefits, nevermind.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;33004480]Ok so reiterating that the subject is welfare specifically, why should tax payers be expected to fund the drug habits of people who have no intention of bettering themselves?[/QUOTE] for the same reason tax payers are expected to keep the ER available to the guy who keeps accidentally hurting himself by doing stupid things [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Timebomb575;33004495]Better idea, how about you give them the money to survive when they go to/do well with rehab? That way they will actually utilize it and get back on their feet and no money is totally wasted.[/QUOTE] because rehab is only an inpatient thing if you're a rich celebrity and the person is going to have to eat something and sleep somewhere while in the program
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33004555] because rehab is only an inpatient thing if you're a rich celebrity and the person is going to have to eat something and sleep somewhere while in the program[/QUOTE] That's what I mean, instead of say, giving them money every month (or however often welfare is distributed) give them the money when they go to (the free, obviously) rehab. [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] The point here is that Im fine with them getting the money, I just dont want to see it go to furthering their problem.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;33004756]That's what I mean, instead of say, giving them money every month (or however often welfare is distributed) give them the money when they go to (the free, obviously) rehab.[/QUOTE] Even in this solution there'd obviously be drug testing happening to determine who should be going to rehab. And that's been found unconstitutional, rightly so So let's let people make their own choices while at the same time doing at the very least the minimum necessary to ensure they aren't dying in the streets
[QUOTE=Lambeth;33004533][URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575324701356244886.html"]Found it[/URL] Here is a handy dandy graph that visualizes the data [IMG]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_leo5k68x9U1qb6vok.png[/IMG] Edit:wait shit this is unemployment benefits, nevermind.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be surprised if the welfare numbers were similar. The debate about whether or not it's a good idea to drug test welfare applicants is kinda dead. Costs of the drug tests would probably run higher than the potential savings, defeating the point, and I admitted that quite a few posts ago. This is really a philosophical debate at this point. I guess what it amounts to is a measurement of the value of life and what exactly a human being should be guaranteed. [QUOTE=Zeke129;33004555]for the same reason tax payers are expected to keep the ER available to the guy who keeps accidentally hurting himself by doing stupid things[/QUOTE] This really doesn't compare. Addiction doesn't have the immediacy of actual physical wounds. A better analogy would be something like a man knowing he has a severe mental disorder but choosing not to get it treated despite being a danger to himself (and possibly those around him). Admittedly there is a difference: if his condition ever came to light, the man would be forcibly admitted to mental care whether he likes it or not. Drug addicts do not undergo the same treatment. But it's still a more fitting comparison I think
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;33004817] This really doesn't compare. Addiction doesn't have the immediacy of actual physical wounds. A better analogy would be something like a man knowing he has a severe mental disorder but choosing not to get it treated despite being a danger to himself (and possibly those around him). Admittedly there is a difference: if his condition ever came to light, the man would be forcibly admitted to mental care whether he likes it or not. Drug addicts do not undergo the same treatment. But it's still a more fitting comparison I think[/QUOTE] That person would only be admitted to mental care if they're a threat Drug addicts usually aren't [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=FlakAttack;33004817]and what exactly a human being should be guaranteed.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/]This is what all human beings should be guaranteed.[/url] Namely, for the purposes of this debate, [release]All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.[/release] [release]Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.[/release] [release]No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence[/release]
Its stupid because it would still fund people addicted to cigarettes and alcohol...
Called it [QUOTE=Contag;30275257] [code]In 1999, Michigan began drug-testing all welfare recipients, prompting the ACLU to sue. In 2003, a federal appeals court ruled that universal testing was unconstitutional, and the ACLU and the state reached an agreement that allowed drug tests of welfare recipients only if there was reasonable suspicion that the person was using drugs.[/code] So it's doubtful that the bill will survive a few months. Useless political stunt, by a useless governor. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MR-X;33004100]And taking a drug test as a term of your employment is not? If you're going to use the money i give to the government for your own needs you best be getting tested before you get that check or welfare put in place. I think it is nonsense to have a good amount of people wasting money on drugs when using welfare. The whole system is fucking broke too, the people that need it don't get it and the people who are on it are so lazy they don't bother getting a job. It is pretty sad that I can make more money on welfare then actually working and put in 40 hours a week. It isn't hard to piss in a cup and submit a test. If you're doing drugs while on benefits then it sucks to be you, better get them priorities straight. I can't go about smoking crack or doing weed (I'll lose security clearance if i do) then you shouldn't be while on welfare.[/QUOTE] Great job dumbass, because everyone on wellfare is doing drugs.
[QUOTE=DrBreen;33007868]Great job dumbass, because everyone on wellfare is doing drugs.[/QUOTE] No but if I have to take drug tests at my job, whats the problem with them having to? On average a family of four gets approximately $930.00 a month. Pissing in a cup takes less than five min. This equals out to $77.50+ an hour for pissing in a cup. If you can afford drugs buy your own damn capt. Crunch; when I worked in a grocery store the people who spent the most cash in food stamps where the ones buying alcohol and cigarettes I am sure the same applies to other drugs. Those who are clean should have no problem with this system.
i'm clean and i have a problem with that system [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] i have a problem with that system because, again, it will create thousands upon thousands of new homeless people [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] i have a problem with that system because the purpose of welfare to to help keep the poor from being homeless and starving, not as a means by which the government can exert social control over them
Here is what the National Poverty Center has to say: [release] "Our estimates using data from the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (NHSDA) indicate that 9 percent of welfare recipients in 1994 and 1995 were alcohol dependent and that 21 percent had used an illegal drug in the past year (mostly marijuana). (Figure 1) Excluding marijuana, 10 percent of recipients had used some other illegal drug during the past year, with 6 percent having used cocaine or crack.7 Only a small minority of recipients (about 4 percent) satisfied the diagnostic screening criteria for illicit drug dependence (i.e., their drug use impairs their functioning in significant ways).8 Our analyses also document that psychiatric disorders, especially major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, are more prevalent than drug and alcohol dependence among welfare recipients. About 19 percent of recipients had at least one of the four psychiatric disorders measured in the NHSDA." [/release] Here is Figure 1, a graphical representation of the previous information: "Substance Abuse, Mental Health, and Welfare Receipt (authors' estimates, from NHSDA data)" [img]http://www.npc.umich.edu/images/brief2.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief02/[/url] Basically, only 4%, according to the survey, fall under the "illicit drug dependence" category. For all intents and purposes, only 4% of welfare recipients are impaired by their drug use ("impaired" being relative). Be that as it may, I feel that the Urinalysis supporters have a very practical point. The drug test should be mandatory, but if they fail they should have the option of rehab/continued welfare. If a poor man is spending money on counterproductive substances like alcohol, he has distorted priorities. I'm not against a little benign entertainment, but drugs, for me, don't fall under that category. Or maybe there should be an appellate process, where you can attempt to justify your actions. Here is a related article from the LA Times titled "[B]Controlling how people spend their welfare money? Easier said than done.[/B]" The two issue are closely related. [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/13/local/me-banks13-20100713[/url] Summary: Should welfare recipients be able to gamble, etc, with taxpayer money? "[B]I think people whose taxes pay for these grants do not intend for the poor and destitute to purchase cigarettes and liquor, massages and gambling.[/B]" -Ron Haskins, Welfare expert at the Brookings Institution
What if the person on welfare is on a medical cannabis prescription?
It's like the judge said, the drug tests don't help anything; and if it does then there's no evidence supporting it (or at least none was given). And the "if I have to then you have to too" argument is not a good reason to do anything.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33004174]Drug tests as a term of employment should be illegal as well.[/QUOTE] If someone is taking drugs it may affect their business.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;33010415]If someone is taking drugs it may affect their business.[/QUOTE] Oh no, my bottom line! This is definitely a very good reason to violate people's privacy rights. By the way for anyone interested about my post saying that drug screening for employment is illegal in Canada, read this PDF: [url]http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/poldrgalceng.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;33010415]If someone is taking drugs it may affect their business.[/QUOTE] If someone is not doing their job properly as a result of drug use then you fire them because they're not doing their job properly. That's no excuse to invade people's privacy in order to deny them jobs based on how they spend their spare time.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33010459]Oh no, my bottom line! This is definitely a very good reason to violate people's privacy rights. By the way for anyone interested about my post saying that drug screening for employment is illegal in Canada, read this PDF: [url]http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/poldrgalceng.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] Oh no, I have to be sober and responsible on the job! When ever people come to work high, I have to work harder to pick up the slack. It is not a matter of privacy, when people do drugs and go to work I have to work harder, when they spend cash on drugs and use welfare I get to work to pay for their habit. People need to learn to be responsible; as hard as it is to get a job now we should not pay drug addicts to do a half-ass job while people who work harder are out of work.
[QUOTE=imptastick;33010664]Oh no, I have to be sober and responsible on the job! When ever people come to work high, I have to work harder to pick up the slack. [b]It is not a matter of privacy[/b], when people do drugs and go to work I have to work harder, when they spend cash on drugs and use welfare I get to work to pay for their habit. People need to learn to be responsible; as hard as it is to get a job now we should not pay drug addicts to do a half-ass job while people who work harder are out of work.[/QUOTE] It absolutely is. Drug tests show if you have used, for example, marijuana at any time in the past three to six WEEKS. A failed drug test is not indicative of being high.
I do agree that testing should only be done if they have poor work performance though, as I don't care if you are high at home just do not bring it to work with you The welfare thing I agree with because if you can buy drugs you can buy food without as much help.
[QUOTE=imptastick;33010718]I do agree that testing should only be done if they have poor work performance though, as I don't care if you are high at home just do not bring it to work with you[/QUOTE] You can also fail a drug test by being around someone else smoking marijuana. In addition, some drug tests are able to show which legal prescription drugs you're on which can reveal what disabilities you have and subjects you to discrimination on the basis of those.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.