drug testing welfare recipients violates 4th Amendment???

[88GT]

Well I wasn't going to the point of just saying 'legalize it' as I wasn't sure how that would be viewed here. I do know most are against government control but I would see government control over illicit substances as the lesser of two evils if it were what we haven now [black market + drug war] vs government controlled illicit substances.

In short - end the drug war - re-allocate those billions of dollars to something better and let those that wish to destroy their lives to do so.

Legalize it or not, as long as government is fixing supply and price through regulatory measures, there WILL be a black market for it because there is room for profiting by not playing by the rules.

 

[warthog]

Yet as a pain medicine user my rights are not violated when I am required to be tested to make sure I am actually taking the drugs rather tan selling them. This is actually something that happened five years into my disability right after Rush Limbaugh made a big deal about getting hooked on oxycontin. All of a sudden people said that prescription drugs like these needed better regulation because just having a prescription from a certified pain specialist wasn't proof enough that you were actually in pain. That and most parents who had the stuff left over in their medicine cabinets felt outraged that their children stole those drugs t get high so I was punished rather than the damn kids who deserved it.

I am not selling my meds, I need them to get by the pain I am in. I am not using recreation, non prescription drugs either but the idea I must pass a **** test to get refills galls me on principal alone. No probable cause, no past history of abuse yet I must prove, even alter ten years of proving my trustworthiness that I continue to be trustworthy enough to receive a refill on my pain meds every month.

But if I were a crack head on the dole I would have the right not to take a **** test to get the money I need to buy more crack.

Thank you Barrack for turning my world on its ear.

 

[MikeDVB]

Legalize it or not, as long as government is fixing supply and price through regulatory measures, there WILL be a black market for it because there is room for profiting by not playing by the rules.

I think you overlooked my point or I misunderstood your response.

My original idea was simply to decriminalize it - but I wasn't sure how that would be taken. My original idea did not include government regulation.

I adapted the idea to be more "INGO Friendly" as it were. Too many people around here jump to conclusions - I say we should legalize the drugs and end the 'drug war' and automatically people will assume I'm a druggie etc... I've no interest in illicit drugs but I do have an interest in ending a pointless war that hasn't really accomplished anything but burning money [in my opinion, you can disagree].

I really don't understand why we're telling people as a society what they can or cannot do to themselves and I definitely don't understand a multi-billion dollar war against it.

It's obviously a terribly complex subject and not something that can be discussed in just a couple of posts here on INGO. I just imagine, and I could be wrong, if it were decriminalized not only would we save billions by not fighting it but the 'black market' would become 'the market' and prices would likely go down as availability went up - resulting in those welfare people that choose to do said drugs spending less government issued funds on illicit substances. Yes - I realize you can't buy drugs with EBT - but you can buy food and sell/trade that food for money and/or drugs [this happens quite a bit].

Nothing, at the end of the day, is going to completely solve the drug problem or those on welfare that take advantage of the system and have no plans of actually working - but there are lots of things we can do to help reduce it.

All of this said - the more I think about it - my original idea would have less of an impact on welfare and more of an impact on our economy as a whole if the government spending did stop on the drug war but I think we all know that it would just get re-allocated to something else.

Meh - it's all one big slippery slope.

 

[88GT]

I think you overlooked my point or I misunderstood your response.


My original idea was simply to decriminalize it - but I wasn't sure how that would be taken. My original idea did not include government regulation.[/ b]

But you did, at least as I read it.

Wouldn't it be much better and more efficient to just control the drug market? Imean we spend billions fighting drugs - make them prescription only and tax them - destroy the 'private' market for the drugs as well as the multi-billion dollar waste that is the 'drug war' [it's a waste because it's a catastrophic failure].

Want you some legal drugs? Can't get them with an EBT - sorry.

Understand I'm not biased when it comes to drug use - if you choose to do it that's up to you and not me. I just think there's a lot of better ways to do this that don't involve involuntary drug testing that's likely to cost quite a bit and accomplish very little.

I've not put a lot of deep thought into this, just a minute or two of quick thought - so if there are flaws in my suggestion of a plan - sure - point them out if you want as I'm sure there are more than a few.

 

[MisterChester]

Waste of money. Maybe a random screening here and there if anything.

 

[MikeDVB]

But you did, at least as I read it.

Are you picking and choosing which parts of my posts you're going to read? The pertinent parts to my response that it seems you missed are:

My original idea was simply to decriminalize it - but I wasn't sure how that would be taken. My original idea did not include government regulation.

Meaning that my original idea, prior to making the post. It was adapted as per the next part of my post:

I adapted the idea to be more "INGO Friendly" as it were. Too many people around here jump to conclusions - I say we should legalize the drugs and end the 'drug war' and automatically people will assume I'm a druggie etc...

If you're going to respond to what I've said if you could please read the entire response and take the entire response in context rather than picking and choosing individual sentences or statements and then removing them from their context that would really help the discussion.

Don't misunderstand this as me telling you what to do - you can do what you want but it would be easier and result in a better discussion if you didn't take things out of context. I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but it does seem that you are doing it.

 

[1775usmarine]

Like others have said if they have to take a **** test in order to work these people should too. I've seen too many people on welfare yet can afford a brand new xbox one, have their van break down and instead of fixing their vehicle they are asking for a ride to go pick up a phone, or using their stamps for others who aren't related to them.

 

[Arthur Dent]

So let me get this straight. So long as my rights are violated it's okay to violate the rights of someone else. Got it!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So let me get this straight. So long as my rights are violated it's okay to violate the rights of someone else. Got it!

It's not a violation of your rights when you voluntarily agree to these tests. As an employee, if your employer makes those tests a condition of employment, you can tell him to blow it out his *** and quit. It's a mostly free country and you can decide not to take those tests, both parties must agree to those requirements. It's the same with welfare recipients. They don't have to accept the condition laden checks from the taxpayers. They are free to refuse the money for whatever reason and avoid being tested.

Life is full of decisions and their associated costs.

 

[Lex Concord]

I'm outraged at both. What is ridiculous is somehow thinking that there is a cost savings by doing the drug testing when it's proven to cost more than it saves. That is not a moot point. Claiming it to be moot is sticking your head in the sand. Spending $50 to save 10 cents doesn't mean you saved 10 cents, it means you just threw $49.90 out the window and THINK you saved 10 cents.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not being intentionally obtuse.

First, for clarity, the definition of moot I had in mind is ": not worth talking about : no longer important or worth discussing"

Yes, relative to the discussion of whether or not to drug test welfare recipients, ROI on such an activity is salient.

However, any discussion of how we might save money on wealth redistribution itself and, therefore, all related threads, points, arguments, etc. in support of, or against said actions are, in the grand scheme of things, moot.

Welfare programs are the icebergs to our ship of state. I'm not just talking about EBT/SNAP type welfare, but Social Security and Medicare too. They are the poster children for unsustainability. Each has the potential to sink us financially; we'll likely hit more than one.

The discussion we need to have, if we don't want to sink, is how to end welfare; how to steer the ship away from the inevitable doom.

Having discussions about how to save money distributing welfare are tantamount to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while the discussion should be on steering the ship to a different course or manning the lifeboats. While efficient deck chair arrangements might make some folks feel better, the impending doom still looms, unchanged and undelayed by the chair pattern on which you decide.

If we don't figure out how to end the various welfare plans we have, it won't matter how efficient we were or weren't in redistributing wealth. The end result will be the same. The point is moot.

 

[Kirkd]

There's nothing in th constitution that states we have to give welfare out either. Simply eliminate it. Thats the simple work around. Or they should handle it like checking for drunk drivers. You consent by being part of the program and refusal is the same thing as a positive result.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not being intentionally obtuse.

First, for clarity, the definition of moot I had in mind is ": not worth talking about : no longer important or worth discussing"

Yes, relative to the discussion of whether or not to drug test welfare recipients, ROI on such an activity is salient.

However, any discussion of how we might save money on wealth redistribution itself and, therefore, all related threads, points, arguments, etc. in support of, or against said actions are, in the grand scheme of things, moot.

Welfare programs are the icebergs to our ship of state. I'm not just talking about EBT/SNAP type welfare, but Social Security and Medicare too. They are the poster children for unsustainability. Each has the potential to sink us financially; we'll likely hit more than one.

The discussion we need to have, if we don't want to sink, is how to end welfare; how to steer the ship away from the inevitable doom.

Having discussions about how to save money distributing welfare are tantamount to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while the discussion should be on steering the ship to a different course or manning the lifeboats. While efficient deck chair arrangements might make some folks feel better, the impending doom still looms, unchanged and undelayed by the chair pattern on which you decide.

If we don't figure out how to end the various welfare plans we have, it won't matter how efficient we were or weren't in redistributing wealth. The end result will be the same. The point is moot.

To end welfare we need to figure out how to get people employed at a wage they can live on. Which means getting employers to hire. They aren't hiring because there is no demand, but there is no demand because people don't have the extra cash to spend. Catch 22. In the end there needs to be a redistribution of wealth, just not by taking it from one person and giving it to another.

My saying it is not a moot point is because it is an added cost to welfare, which really isn't needed. If there were an overall cost savings from the drug testing, then yes it is a moot point. Since it just adds to it I really wouldn't consider it moot.

 

[88GT]

Are you picking and choosing which parts of my posts you're going to read? The pertinent parts to my response that it seems you missed are:
Meaning that my original idea, prior to making the post. It was adapted as per the next part of my post:

If you're going to respond to what I've said if you could please read the entire response and take the entire response in context rather than picking and choosing individual sentences or statements and then removing them from their context that would really help the discussion.

Don't misunderstand this as me telling you what to do - you can do what you want but it would be easier and result in a better discussion if you didn't take things out of context. I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but it does seem that you are doing it.

Your first post was to suggest government control and regulation. Decriminalizing doesn't eliminate control and regulation. Those are two separate issues. Cocaine is a prohibited substance. Hydrocodone is not a prohibited substance, but it is illegal to possess without a prescription. Your original suggestion only served to make all currently illegal drugs move from one category of prohibited behavior to another. I'm thrilled you support decriminalization, but you still, by your own words, favor government control and regulation. And since you suggested a better and more efficient outcome would result under the umbrella of decriminalized-but-still-regulated, I chose to point out that this was not the case. Whatever else you wrote is unrelated to that single point I wished to address.

 

[Arthur Dent]

There's nothing in th constitution that states we have to give welfare out either. Simply eliminate it. Thats the simple work around. Or they should handle it like checking for drunk drivers. You consent by being part of the program and refusal is the same thing as a positive result.

So what happens to the millions of suddenly homeless and starving people ending welfare would create? You going to hire them?

 

[drillsgt]

So what exactly is this nebulous thing called 'welfare'? Any MSW's here that work in the system that can lay this out for us. I know about unemployment but that is a finite benefit and don't usually put that in the same category of what we usually speak of as welfare. I have heard of section 8 housing assistance, does that go on forever? What about 'food stamp' benefits? WIC? Do people in Indiana get these 'welfare checks' every month that we read about and what are they? Is it really impacted by the amount of children they have etc.? Is it mostly unmarried women that get these benefits? Aside from unemployment or if you're on disability I don't think say a 20 year old male qualifies for any 'welfare' correct? I think we throw around the term 'welfare' without really knowing what it is or the different kinds that are out there.

 

[Lex Concord]

To end welfare we need to figure out how to get people employed at a wage they can live on. Which means getting employers to hire. They aren't hiring because there is no demand, but there is no demand because people don't have the extra cash to spend. Catch 22. In the end there needs to be a redistribution of wealth, just not by taking it from one person and giving it to another.

My saying it is not a moot point is because it is an added cost to welfare, which really isn't needed. If there were an overall cost savings from the drug testing, then yes it is a moot point. Since it just adds to it I really wouldn't consider it moot.

I get your point. Mine is that no amount of added or reduced cost to the program matters, so long as the program exists.

Welfare programs will end. The question is whether they end with guidance and by choice, or whether they implode and drag everything else down with them while everyone (yourself included, apparently) stand around looking surprised that it happened.

 

[Lex Concord]

It's not a violation of your rights when you voluntarily agree to these tests. As an employee, if your employer makes those tests a condition of employment, you can tell him to blow it out his *** and quit. It's a mostly free country and you can decide not to take those tests, both parties must agree to those requirements. It's the same with welfare recipients. They don't have to accept the condition laden checks from the taxpayers. They are free to refuse the money for whatever reason and avoid being tested.

Life is full of decisions and their associated costs.

Choices have consequences?

Wait, WUT?

 

[GunnerDan]

Your first post was to suggest government control and regulation. Decriminalizing doesn't eliminate control and regulation. Those are two separate issues. Cocaine is a prohibited substance. Hydrocodone is not a prohibited substance, but it is illegal to possess without a prescription. Your original suggestion only served to make all currently illegal drugs move from one category of prohibited behavior to another. I'm thrilled you support decriminalization, but you still, by your own words, favor government control and regulation. And since you suggested a better and more efficient outcome would result under the umbrella of decriminalized-but-still-regulated, I chose to point out that this was not the case. Whatever else you wrote is unrelated to that single point I wished to address.

Actually Cocaine is legally used during some nose surgeries so it is the same as hydrocodone, illegal to possess without a prescription.

Gunner

 

[poisonspyder]

So what happens to the millions of suddenly homeless and starving people ending welfare would create? You going to hire them?

No I wouldn't want anyone to hire them unless they applied themselves. Those with intelligence and drive will live. It's very sad but I would let the rest die because it's for the greater good of man kind.

 

[poisonspyder]

To end welfare we need to figure out how to get people employed at a wage they can live on.

People need to learn needs verses wants. You need food and water, not cable tv and a phone or even running water. If people didn't get a check I bet a lot of them would find a way to make enough to live and not die.