Skip to main content

View Diary: Drug tests for welfare bills come to three more states (81 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No testing wihtout probable cause (8+ / 0-)

    The GOP cherrypicks the Constitution once again!
    Gun rights--oh yeah
    Any other rights--fuhgeddaboudit!

    •  "without" dammit nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hnichols, mungley
    •  There's no constitutional right to receive (0+ / 0-)

      welfare benefits.  The government can attach strings to their receipt.  

      •  Unconstitutional. (0+ / 0-)

        No self incrimination. No probable cause. Welfare administrators are not police. There is no need. It is counterproductive and costly. It punishes innocent children if the parents should be denied. Innocent till proven guilty. Et cetera.

      •  You Don't Give Up Your Basic Constitutional (6+ / 0-)

        rights because you get welfare.  People who think that it's  ok, to restrict the constitutional rights of welfare recipients are pretty hideous.

        Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

        by tikkun on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 08:45:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No one would be subject to these... (0+ / 0-)

          ...tests unless they apply for benefits and there is no Consitutional right to these benefits. There is NO Constitutional issue here.

          It's little different than having to submit to drug tests if you want a job with the Secret Service and receive your salary from the taxpayers.

          Personally, I suspect the tests are  a waste of time and money, but until data is collected on the failure rate (or a drop in applications), it's hard to tell.

          Obviously someone who can afford to buy drugs has spare money and it's hard to justify giving them "need based" public benefits.

          I used to live in an area where I saw people drive up in very expensive cars to buy food at the "WIC store". They were members of a religious group which didn't believe in women working and believed in having a LOT of children. I'm also pretty sure a lot of their business was "off the record" so it wasn't counted in their income. I must admit that made me pretty cynical. (And, no, it wasn't Kiryas Joel, but there was some relationship to that).

      •  It's coercive (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cartoon Messiah, laurnj

        People sign up to avoid starving, not because they want to.

        •  Not only that (0+ / 0-)

          but this short sighted pandering to the voters forgets to add one simple fact to the mix....

          Without money for food, people have two choices:

          1. Get a job to get money
          2. Steal money, steal products to sell for money, sell drugs.

          So, has anyone looked at the increase in petty crime in Florida?

          We've been spelling it wrong all these years. It's actually: PRO-GOP-ANDA

          by Patriot4peace on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 04:04:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  But...ther (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Batya the Toon, laurnj

        e is a constitutional right not to have your belongings, in this case a portion of your body, seized without at least reasonable suspicion you are violating the law.  The mere fact that you are receiving a government benefit (either a job or public assistance) does not supply the reasonable reasonable suspicion.  The Ohio law which will require drug testing if you report that you have used drugs in the past probably gets you closer but would still likely not get you there.

        This was the rationale for striking down the Florida law as unconstitutional under the 4th amendment.  Has nothing to do with having or not having a constitutionally protected  interest in a government job or public assistance.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site