convince me welfare recipients should take drug test...
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
Exactly.
The expense is what makes it an irrational policy. But it's also unconstitutional. Using a government service shouldn't be grounds for forfeiting your rights.
Well, welfare isn't a job. The reason some jobs test for drug use is that it relates to the performance of the duties of the jobs. I'm not sure what even could qualify as a parallel criterium for welfare benefits, but I'd note that even if a person is on drugs, as long as they meet the requirements for receiving assistance, it is in everyone's interests that they get those benefits.
Well, how about if we had free, privacy-respecting, voluntary, universally available drug treatment programs? Maybe throw in mental health for the hat trick? We don't really have that, so I don't see why we'd go around trying to coerce people into treatment who clearly don't have the money unless it's free anyway. Start with the low-hanging fruit before you go trying to shame people who need help, which is what these drug-testing programs really do. Drug testing follows from our general approach of treating public health problems as matters of personal choice and responsibility, but it's irrational and unproductive.
Should his child work to eat? Should they starve because of the parents?
Sometimes people will work, and cant get a job, what about them?
I dont think food stamps are actually considered welfare, to me welfare is cash payments and yes people should be drug tested for them imo.
One gives up the right to privacy when they want public funding.
You must be following a different constitution than I am.
You mean unlawful search and seizure? It isnt unlawful when its the law.
If the law says you can be drug tested for a job, or for a benefit, and you agree to it by receiving such or applying, there is nothing unlawful about it.
The phrase is "unreasonable searches and seizures". Otherwise what would be the point of having an amendment to protect the right when Congress or the states can just pass a law authorizing it?
Then why haven't employers been sued for it?
Because they aren't the government. Generally.
"Unreasonable" is a vague enough term to allow for reasonable minds to disagree, so you'd have to go back to the jurisprudence for a comprehensive understanding, but given that there is little rational basis for the government to test welfare recipients (it doesn't save money, doesn't help people on drugs or on welfare), it is unlikely that a court would find it reasonable.
If you apply for a job or a benefit and know up front that you can be subject to drug testing, then its reasonable because you consented when applying.
What are you going to do if Ted Curz favors it?
False, its because they knew up front and applied anyway and or received the benefit- which is consent.
Go back to your pro-abortion thread.
You are insane, i am not pro abortion. Sad diversion, since you dont want to answer the question, makes you look as weak as those you call out for the same thing.
You can certainly waive your rights. But the government's ability to force you to waive your rights is limited, lest the right be entirely meaningless. Most of us drive on a government road to leave our homes, but the government couldn't simply require us to foreswear our rights just to use the roads to leave home. I think that most courts would find that telling a person in need of food aid that they are required to give up their rights in exchange is unreasonable.
The government isn't allowed to coerce you into forfeiting your rights. And it isn't consent.
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
What if a man cannot work? Should he also not eat?
If you see someone in genuine need, YOU give to him if you are able.