Drug-testing of welfare applicants violates Constitution
Today, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals voted unanimously to bar the state of Florida from forcing welfare applicants to undergo drug testing.
“… the State failed to offer any factual support or to present any empirical evidence of a “concrete danger” of illegal drug use within Florida’s TANF population. The evidence in this record does not suggest that the population of TANF recipients engages in illegal drug use or that they misappropriate government funds for drugs at the expense of their own and their children’s basic subsistence. The State has presented no evidence that simply because an applicant for TANF benefits is having financial problems, he is also drug-addicted or prone to fraudulent and neglectful behavior.”
Exactly right. The state failed to offer “any factual support or to present any empirical evidence,” because no such evidence exists. As the judges went on to note, “there is nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a “concrete danger” that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use.”
Nothing, that is, except deeply cherished stereotypes and a penchant for bashing poor people.
The bill creating the mandatory drug-testing provision comes out of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. Last year, the Georgia General Assembly passed a similar bill, which Gov. Nathan Deal signed even though the Florida law had already been suspended by a federal district court judge. In fact, the Georgia law was so blatantly unconstitutional — and such a clear case of showboating and scapegoating — that Deal himself “suspended” its enforcement until the courts could rule on the matter.
Such laws are motivated by a cruel desire to bash and denigrate the poor, without regard to evidence or civil rights. If legislators had been truly concerned about the wise use of tax dollars, they could have mandated that HOPE scholarship recipients be drug-tested before receiving benefits, or that corporate CEOs be drug-tested before their companies could be eligible for major economic-development packages. The same logic would have applied.
But of course such thoughts never entered their minds.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
629 comments Add your comment
getalife
February 26th, 2013
2:04 pm
get
I’m with you. Amazing how these people always see others using EBT cards who are buying steaks and driving BMWs………
Some nosy ass folks I tell ya………
Not saying that people haven’t seen this or it never happens, but most of these “stories” are just that; stories. Yes, some have seen it once or twice and want to make it out as if they see it every week or someone else told them about a “story”, which they in turn make it their own TALL TALE.
Why not the story of the EBT user buying veggies, fruits and generic brand food? Guess that never happens or they just were not being nosy at the right time.
st simons - he-ne-ha
February 26th, 2013
2:04 pm
Spend a $mil+ to keep some poor kids from getting $60k worth of food.
Now THAT’s a typical con ‘bidness’ idea.
tbs
February 26th, 2013
2:05 pm
getalife
I name jacked you. My bad and apologies
st simons - he-ne-ha
February 26th, 2013
2:05 pm
and that’s why the Teapublicans are at 25% in Florida, and
why Flow-rida will BOOTAKOOK in 2014. Guaranteed.
Recon 0311 2533
February 26th, 2013
2:06 pm
Well the president is off campaigning in Virginia. I guess he’s now running from office.
getalife
February 26th, 2013
2:06 pm
getalife,
Please do not use my name but their stories are lies.
Aquagirl
February 26th, 2013
2:07 pm
How can one be legal and the other not be?
Bada, I don’t know how to break this to ya, but most men do not confuse their thumb with their pen!s.
Bill C
February 26th, 2013
2:07 pm
Look Before you Leap,
I don’t get the Rush Limbaugh comment because I have never really payed enough attention to him. My point with that comment was simply if you are on welfare and abuse drugs (aka are addicted) then I have to presume it is highly likely you spend your benefits on essential items and hoard the rest of your money to buy drugs. In my book that is abusing the system. Welfare is supposed to be enough money to provide essential items for the person on welfare and the children in their care. You aren’t supposed to have any money left over for drugs, however by being on welfare then you can do both – spend the money you are able to scrap together on drugs and the rest on essentials.
**for those who didn’t read my above comment please don’t take this out of context, I am only talking about people who truly abuse drugs and are on welfare. Not people on welfare who don’t do drugs, or are on welfare and like to roll the occasional blunt****
Devils Advocate, thanks for the love.
getalife
February 26th, 2013
2:07 pm
Both,
No problem.
I do talk to people in line but never watch to see how they pay.
It is none of my business.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 26th, 2013
2:07 pm
Theosophilus — “Anecdotal evidence may, in fact, be true.”
Possibly, but anecdotal evidence *on its own* is insufficient to establish categorical truth.
“It embodies some sort of truth assertions that are valid or invalid.”
And again, those assertions are insufficient, in and of themselves, to establish categorical truth.
“Just because you CHOOSE to disallow such evidence does not mean it is not true.”
Whether I allow or disallow it is logically irrelevant. If it’s insufficient to demonstrate categorical proof on its own and it is *all we have,* then categorical truth can’t be established either way.
Before you go any farther, you need to know that the ‘welfare person buying expensive food and leaving store in an expensive car’ is a longstanding conservative meme here — and that the conservatives bringing it up (who often claim to have witnessed it themselves) don’t ever seem to be able to provide details and don’t ever seem to report any welfare violations they claim to have seen. Therefore, without compelling evidence, you’re quite right that we’re rejecting the anecdotal evidence provided.
tbs
February 26th, 2013
2:08 pm
Bada
Agree with you on the unseen and unmentioned tales of drugs and the carnage.
But why put it in the terms of liberals? What study do you ahve that shows liberals are using more narcotics than professed conservatives?
Again, your overall take and commentary I do agree with, but the context you put it in is asinine. But I’m sure you were aware of that when you posted it.
getalife
February 26th, 2013
2:09 pm
“Bada, I don’t know how to break this to ya, but most men do not confuse their thumb with their pen!s”
That cracked me up
.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 26th, 2013
2:09 pm
Well, you got to admit that tho there’s no “evidence” of illegal drug use by
moochersfood stamp people they might could be coked to the gills on heroin or something. Besides, it’s good policy to make them pee in a cup just on general principles and because we don’t like paying for their food etc.And I bet you Kamchak could give all kind of testimony about how he saw this welfare queen buying a truck load of pot at Whole Foods and using her TANF card to pay for it just the other day.
Anyway, this is one more example of how the world is going to he]] in a handbasket these days. You can’t even give a
bumwelfare person a hard time without being hauled into court. I’m so disgusted.That Black Guy
February 26th, 2013
2:09 pm
except deeply cherished stereotypes
______________________________
And those who stereotype are everywhere.
Take the previous thread.
Some conservative politicians come out in FAVOR of same sex marriage. A “lib” comes out against SSM and barely a comment from the left. Then the thread turns into a “hate on/blame Christian conservative” thread.
Nary a word about the multitude of Black Christians (hardly conservative politically) that do not support same sex marriage.
Above all else, peoples gots ta fit in dem lil boxes.
Lil boxes for lil minds.
Now back to your regularly scheduled stereotyping from the left AND the right.
Rightwing Troll
February 26th, 2013
2:11 pm
How apropo for today… I’m going to pee in a cup this afternoon for the right to earn a paycheck, support my family, and pay my taxes… yet those who earn nothing are not subject to such inconvenience… why?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 26th, 2013
2:11 pm
Bill C — “I have to presume it is highly likely you spend your benefits on essential items and hoard the rest of your money to buy drugs. In my book that is abusing the system. Welfare is supposed to be enough money to provide essential items for the person on welfare and the children in their care. You aren’t supposed to have any money left over for drugs, however by being on welfare then you can do both – spend the money you are able to scrap together on drugs and the rest on essentials.”
How do you know that they’re using *money* to obtain drugs?
tbs
February 26th, 2013
2:12 pm
get
Exactly. When someone is watching to see how another pays, what they purchase then get through the line fast enough to run out the store to see what that person is driving; it is blatantly obvious that they are NOSY, busy bodies.
Ben
February 26th, 2013
2:13 pm
I’m against this in the same way I’m against drug testing for employment. What I do on my own time is none of your business. If I come to work drugged up and am unable to do my job, then it’s your business.
The corollary: It’s the height of hypocrisy to be ok with employers requiring drugs tests, but be against it for people getting free money from the government.
On a completely unrelated note, I saw an anecdote about a lady that was invited to NPR to debate voter ID laws as a proponent of requiring ID for voting. She wasn’t allowed into the building because she didn’t bring voter ID. If that ain’t irony, I don’t know what it. A public supported organization should not be supporting an agenda they themselves won’t comply with. I would have to say voting is a lot more important than access to the NPR studios. But when people are living and working off other peoples’ money, they don’t have to use logic. Just whine till they get more money, and refuse to vote for politicians who might take it away.
Rightwing Troll
February 26th, 2013
2:13 pm
I understand why conservatives push these issues… don’t get me wrong…
Fred
February 26th, 2013
2:13 pm
I hate and renounce this country. I am ashamed of this hell hole and would not fight for it. We deserve what we get here. I hate this country
Regnad Kcin
February 26th, 2013
2:13 pm
“It embodies some sort of truth assertions that are valid or invalid.”
You’re saying it has a sort of “truthiness.” But it can still be considered bearing false witness, which is a sin to some.
Ben
February 26th, 2013
2:14 pm
“Rightwing Troll”- Only the most dependent among us have the moral authority to make these decisions. The rest of us just have to deal with it.
Jefferson
February 26th, 2013
2:14 pm
The have bigger ones the the Rightwing Troll, that why.
stands for decibels - I got your "debt crisis" right here
February 26th, 2013
2:15 pm
If I understand the “logic”–and please correct me if I have this wrong–the argument for mandatory drug testing goes like this:
If you receive any benefits from the government, you are supposed to be squeaky clean in almost all you do, and if you aren’t, it somehow benefits us all to drop you and your family from the benefit rolls and encourage you to dive fully into the underground economy, dragging your family with you.
That about right?
st simons - he-ne-ha
February 26th, 2013
2:16 pm
putting unconstitutional requirements on receiving food money assistance
because a few people abuse them – hey,
that’s JUST like putting unconstitutional requirements on yore gunz
because a few people abuse them
glad to see you cons agree with us on gun regulation, good show.
although i don’t think anybody’s ever killed 20 children
with a food stamp.
mm
February 26th, 2013
2:16 pm
Drug test the politicians. And how many CEO’s do you think get drug tested at corporations? Or the owners of small companies?
getalife
February 26th, 2013
2:17 pm
Fred,
Why Fred why?
Let me be clear, peeing in a cup and giving it to government is not freedom.
So throw away those don’t tread on me flags and shut up about freedom cons.
You blew it on freedom.
Jay
February 26th, 2013
2:17 pm
Just for clarity’s sake, the Fred who posted at 2:13 is NOT the Fred now serving the second of his two-day ban.
Look before I leap...
February 26th, 2013
2:17 pm
@Bill C
My response was to this comment you made:
“” If you abuse drugs, you are likely abusing the system of welfare”
In your 2:07P:
“simply if you are on welfare and abuse drugs”
I don’t like to quibble, but there is a HUGE difference between the two statements.
As for the Rush reference, Google Rush Limbaugh and Oxycontin.
Bill C
February 26th, 2013
2:20 pm
Joe Hussein Mama,
I am assuming that was a joke? maybe a reference to sexual favors or something…?
To answer your question though I don’t know, that’s why I said I presume
Joe Hussein Mama
February 26th, 2013
2:20 pm
SfD — “If you receive any benefits from the government, you are supposed to be squeaky clean in almost all you do, and if you aren’t, it somehow benefits us all to drop you and your family from the benefit rolls and encourage you to dive fully into the underground economy, dragging your family with you.”
“That about right?”
‘Pears so.
I think there’s some sort of demand from some quarters that public aid recipients prove themselves somehow *morally deserving* of aid. This may be somehow related to the notion that one’s position and wealth are reflections of a deity’s favor and therefore, those who are of low station and wealth are particularly *disfavored.*
Perhaps the demand to demonstrate moral rectitude in exchange for public assistance is the methodology that that mindset demands in order to be comfortable in extending welfare to the poor.
Devil's Advocate
February 26th, 2013
2:20 pm
Doggone/GA,
Disarmament is in progress. Placing restrictions on law abiding citizens is simply an initial phase. If a citizen is law abiding, then by definition possession of any firearm is not an immediate threat to society. So restrictions on magazine size, reducing the types of firearm legally possessed, and suggestion of registration is part of the process of disarming. If disarming is not the goal, then why take any firearms away?
I bring this up because the reason given for finding drug testing for welfare unconstitutional was that there’s no proof that being on welfare means that a potential recipient is a drug abuser or engages in any fraud. If that is the case, what proof is there that a law abiding citizen with a pistol holding 11 rounds will lead to crime compared to a pistol holding 10 rounds?
Yes, some “legal” weapons have been used in crimes before and will be again (unless all weapons are made illegal). But some welfare recipients have abused drugs and committed fraud and will again too.
Why is it bad to test people for drug use before granting government assistance when we already check people for felonies before legally purchasing firearms?
Jefferson
February 26th, 2013
2:20 pm
I guess if folks won’t work for food and thing maybe we should make them steal them instead.
JamVet
February 26th, 2013
2:20 pm
Right on!
Another blow against American fascism!
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross. ~Sinclair Lewis
FrankLeeDarling
February 26th, 2013
2:21 pm
All of congress needs to be tested I want to know what kind of drugs
These guys are obviously on
stands for decibels - I got your "debt crisis" right here
February 26th, 2013
2:21 pm
Drug test the politicians.
I hear that a lot, but seriously, don’t the health insurance plans that Congrefsfolk (as opposed to cheezy penny-ante state legislators, who probably are on their own for the most part) likely require such a thing, already?
Look before I leap...
February 26th, 2013
2:21 pm
“Just for clarity’s sake, the Fred who posted at 2:13 is NOT the Fred now serving the second of his two-day ban.”
Jay, some of us multi-task and work while we work. You yanked Fred’s comment PDQ.
Sometimes I feel like I miss all the fun.
*stamps foot*
Theophilus
February 26th, 2013
2:22 pm
“Before you go any farther, you need to know that the ‘welfare person buying expensive food and leaving store in an expensive car’ is a longstanding conservative meme here — and that the conservatives bringing it up (who often claim to have witnessed it themselves) don’t ever seem to be able to provide details and don’t ever seem to report any welfare violations they claim to have seen. Therefore, without compelling evidence, you’re quite right that we’re rejecting the anecdotal evidence provided.”
It’s really not hard to find SOME documentary evidence for welfare fraud or abuse of one sort or another. You just have to look. It is an extremely naive person, IMO, who supposes that many people do not cheat (on their taxes, in professional sports, in how they present themselves as job applicants, on their spouses and with welfare). It is simply a denial of human nature. It seems like the same liberals who don’t want to trust human beings in corporations are all too ready to trust them with American tax dollars.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/24/local/la-me-welfare-casinos-20100624
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2012/08/24/kirsten-powers-complete-and-utter-myth-illegal-aliens-receive-welfare-
indigo
February 26th, 2013
2:23 pm
Scout – 1:33
I’ll bet they get to wear Malcom-X tee shirts.
MrLiberty
February 26th, 2013
2:24 pm
And yet somehow stealing from one group to give to another DOESN’T violation the constitution. We have degenerated SO FAR as a country. No doubt the same things contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire.
Let’s not even ask where in the constitution the federal government is given the authority to ban drugs. At least the prohibitionists respected the constitution enough to pass an amendment giving the federal government the authority. Not so with drugs. They just violated the constitution to get their way. What a disgrace.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 26th, 2013
2:24 pm
Just for clarity’s sake, the Fred who posted at 2:13 is NOT the Fred now serving the second of his two-day ban.
Dang! Old Fred seems to get banned the minute he pecks a key on his keyboard. The boy is bad to the bone. Looks like he needs the Death Penalty or a few years in prison or at least a good beating. And if he keeps this up I’m in favor of the ultimate penalty: being made to listen to Debbie Boone sing “You Light Up My Life” along with a whole bunch of old f@rts in a nursing home.
getalife
February 26th, 2013
2:24 pm
“All of congress needs to be tested I want to know what kind of drugs
These guys are obviously on”
Pols and talking heads in corporate media, actors, etc. use benzos like atavan, valium, xanex, etc….
Joe Hussein Mama
February 26th, 2013
2:24 pm
Bill C — “I am assuming that was a joke?”
No, it wasn’t.
How do you know that poor people are hoarding *money* in order to obtain drugs? How do you know that they’re using money at all?
“maybe a reference to sexual favors or something…?”
In the case of women, quite possibly. In the case of men, why not other sorts of ’services?’ Couldn’t a person serve as a lookout, courier or in some other capacity in order to ‘earn’ drugs if they didn’t have money?
You seem so certain that money’s changing hands, but I’d like to know how you know that money’s even involved at all.
JohnnyReb
February 26th, 2013
2:25 pm
The Home Page has a piece on a guy who started/has a soup kitchen for animals. Now, there’s a charity I can get behind without wondering if recipients should be drug tested.
Children and Animals, folks, that’s where to be concerned.
mm
February 26th, 2013
2:26 pm
“I hear that a lot, but seriously, don’t the health insurance plans that Congrefsfolk (as opposed to cheezy penny-ante state legislators, who probably are on their own for the most part) likely require such a thing, already?”
Do you really think they would do that to themselves? The same guys that legislated an automatic pay raise each year for themselves so that it wouldn’t make the news and piss everyone off (and that is exactly why they did it)?
Look before I leap...
February 26th, 2013
2:27 pm
“I am assuming that was a joke? maybe a reference to sexual favors or something…? ”
Sometimes a buddy just likes to share. I don’t smoke pot or do coke or smack or any illegal drugs. Hell I don’t like taking an aspirin. I think my bourbon and cigar habit is enough vice for me. But I can’t count the number of parties I’ve been to over the years where someone just up and offered me something illicit.
Aquagirl
February 26th, 2013
2:28 pm
Disarmament is in progress. Placing restrictions on law abiding citizens is simply an initial phase
Followed by the Black Helicopter phase, then the microchip implantation phase. And you know where that microchip is going, it ain’t your arm.
RB from Gwinnett
February 26th, 2013
2:28 pm
“Since Florida’s new law testing welfare recipients took effect July 1, 7,030 passed, 32 failed and 1,597 did not provide results,”
So the actual numbers are somewhere between zero and 19% using. Seems to me if the people paying the bills knew the number was 19%, they’d be pissed about this use of their tax dollars and would call it a good use of the state’s resources. At a minimum, the requirement kept 19% of their applicants from receiving benefits which in itself saved the taxpayers a heck of a lot of money. And if the 1,600 who failed to complete the test didn’t need benefits badly enough to pee in a cup to get them, well that’s their choice to make and good luck to them.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 26th, 2013
2:29 pm
Theophilus — “It’s really not hard to find SOME documentary evidence for welfare fraud or abuse of one sort or another.”
That begs the question of why our conservative friends and associates here don’t ever actually *bring* any documentary evidence into play.
“You just have to look.”
One hopes they’ll take your advice, then.
“It is an extremely naive person, IMO, who supposes that many people do not cheat (on their taxes, in professional sports, in how they present themselves as job applicants, on their spouses and with welfare).”
And it’s an extremely dishonest and disingenous person that misreads the liberal position here in that way. Nobody’s saying that it *doesn’t* happen. We’re saying that our participants here haven’t actually *demonstrated* any instances of it happening as broadly as they claim.
“It is simply a denial of human nature.”
It certainly would be, if that were actually our position.
“It seems like the same liberals who don’t want to trust human beings in corporations are all too ready to trust them with American tax dollars.”
It seems that the same conservatives who don’t trust poor people are absolutely agog that anyone could possibly mistrust them as much as they mistrust the poor.
tbs
February 26th, 2013
2:29 pm
And who stated that their was no fraud?
I know a sock puppet is implying that someone said it, but surely they can show where it was stated.
Peadawg
February 26th, 2013
2:31 pm
Hey Jay, I know you’re here since you posted. Do you mind deleting the nonsense about HOPE scholarship that I’ve called you out on multiple times?
Or are you just going to leave it there?
stands for decibels - I got your "triangulation" right here
February 26th, 2013
2:31 pm
I think there’s some sort of demand from some quarters that public aid recipients prove themselves somehow *morally deserving* of aid.
Thank you, Bill Clinton, for your peerless moral leadership on this bit of public rhetoric. That whole “welfare to work!/end
shiftless ni###rswelfare as we know it!” business really is the gift that goes on giving, isn’t it?(but hey, you got yourself another Sister Soldja moment, so it was worth it, right?)
tbs
February 26th, 2013
2:31 pm
JHM @ 2:29
Without me saying it, you do know who you are conversing with, right?
Look before I leap...
February 26th, 2013
2:31 pm
” At least the prohibitionists respected the constitution enough to pass an amendment giving the federal government the authority”
LOL
I guess the Carrie Nation crazies who barged into the saloons with axes were just a little ahead of their time, right?
alex
February 26th, 2013
2:32 pm
This has probably been talked about, but I tried to review some of this question and like all data there are differences of opinion and there may be data that women do use illegal grugs more often if on temporary assistance. Then you have to tease out addictive behavior,etc. Indiana has an interesting twist as they do use the data to help the person, initially..then…! Perhaps this can be an actual assistance to the receipient, not a “bashing”. anyway, my son will be drug tested for school and if HOPE wants to drug test-ok with me. Remember folks, 1 positive test may not mean expulsion from the program, so relax. Then again for multiple positive tests there should be disciplinary action. At Emory, everyone gets drug tested, top to bottom……as for stereotypes, a necessary function of evolution for survival..
BRING BACK FRED…he makes godzilla appear human…
Bill C
February 26th, 2013
2:33 pm
Oh lord I promised myself not to get too deep into this, but whatever.
So money isn’t exchanging hands, okay fine, lets go down that road.
Someone is acting as a lookout for someone, in return they are compensated with drugs. Seems like a good plan. Except why does the look out not ask for money? Doesn’t he need money to buy food or does he have another look out job that pays him food? If he has two jobs as a lookout, one where he is compensated food and the other drugs, well hot damn that’s an enterprising person isnt it. They now have food and drugs and don’t need to be on welfare, why? Because they are sustaining themselves, beautiful.
This however is not the case for many people who abuse drugs, they dont work two look out jobs. That is why I originally said I am only talking about addicts/abusers.
It is my presumption that addicts on welfare, use this pay for their essentials and use their look out job to obtain drugs. They should use their lookout job to obtain food and get off welfare. If not, that is abusing the system
st simons - he-ne-ha
February 26th, 2013
2:34 pm
if we’re gonna try to curtail welfare, the Rich should be the first to lose it
not poor kids who need food. This is why you’re getting creamed cons
Joe Hussein Mama
February 26th, 2013
2:34 pm
tbs — “JHM @ 2:29 Without me saying it, you do know who you are conversing with, right?”
Oh, yeah. The stink of TC is all over that guy.
Redcoat
February 26th, 2013
2:34 pm
What say you get a bonus for voluntarily submitting to random testing?………
indigo
February 26th, 2013
2:34 pm
I had to take a drug test once for employment.
A few weeks later, a doctor I didn’t know from out of state called and begin questioning me. A prescription drug I was taking showed up in the test. The doctor relentlessey questioned me about this. After I was able to persuade him it was a prescription, he demanded, in a loud, harsh voice, that I fax him a letter from my Pharmacy confirming this.
The Pharmacy said “we don’t do this”. So, on my computer, I had to make up a fake invoice and send it. Luckily, it was accepted.
If I, who will only take legal drugs, have to put up with this kind of s*it, then those on welfare can damn well submit to testing.
getalife
February 26th, 2013
2:34 pm
Go to tea parties with signs saying “They pee in a cup, give it to government and call that freedom.”
RB from Gwinnett
February 26th, 2013
2:35 pm
“Followed by the Black Helicopter phase, then the microchip implantation phase. And you know where that microchip is going, it ain’t your arm.”
Yea, we know, and after they take all the people’s weapons, they’ll never round up all the Jews, load them into rail cars and exterminate 6 million of them either, right Aquagirl? That could never happen, could it?
I swear for a political party just chock full of history majors (see pizza delivery…) you liberals sure don’t ever seem to learn anything from history.
yeahhi
February 26th, 2013
2:35 pm
I think all gov programs that give money or any type of living assistance should require drug test.. I am sick of my money going to people who are not willing to do better for themselves… Hell why don’t they call obama.. he is these types of people’s lord and savior let them see just how much he helps…
tbs
February 26th, 2013
2:35 pm
JHM
hahahahahahaha
He is going out puppets yapping at full throttle before the new system makes it more difficult.
Redcoat
February 26th, 2013
2:36 pm
Welfare money should be spent for what it is intended for, so what is the solution to not helping a drug habit and supporting crime?
Granny Godzilla
February 26th, 2013
2:36 pm
alex
snicker
BADA BING (imagine an umlaut above the i, I'm trying to class this place up a little)
February 26th, 2013
2:36 pm
Ban drugs……not Fred!
Tom( Viet Vet-USAF)
February 26th, 2013
2:37 pm
Pres Obama, Jay, and liberals are constantly saying the Constitution is old and out-dated for the modern times. This is not the 50’s or 60’s anymore, I seem to hear. Now all of a sudden, they respect the Constitution’s position in this case. Freebies from the govt(taxpayers money) apparently should have no restrictions on it? Moochers and parasites rejoice everywhere!!
tbs
February 26th, 2013
2:38 pm
JHM
He had more puppets going on the last thread then he has hands……….
Give him a little credit. He was putting on a show……. well in his own mind he was.
stands for decibels - I got your "triangulation" right here
February 26th, 2013
2:38 pm
Do you really think they would do that to themselves?
I would assume that such transgressions, i.e., a screening that shows some controlled substance, some non-prescription drugs, etc., gets quietly taken care of.
They’re not going to get canned from their jobs; probably referred (ZOMG, cray-cray stuff, be warned!) to treatment or suchlike.
But I wouldn’t know, all I know is that they do have to pay for a subsidized health insurance plan of some sort–the terms are good, but they do pay monthly premiums all the same. (they get treated in DC by an arm of the VA, if memory serves, but the insurance covers them when they’re back in their district or elsewhere.)
Theophilus
February 26th, 2013
2:38 pm
“So the actual numbers are somewhere between zero and 19% using. Seems to me if the people paying the bills knew the number was 19%, they’d be pissed about this use of their tax dollars and would call it a good use of the state’s resources. At a minimum, the requirement kept 19% of their applicants from receiving benefits which in itself saved the taxpayers a heck of a lot of money. And if the 1,600 who failed to complete the test didn’t need benefits badly enough to pee in a cup to get them, well that’s their choice to make and good luck to them.”
32/8659 is not zero (unless the results are all “false positives”). And it must be wondered why nearly 20% of the applicants “did not provide results”. The question for Mr. Bookman and those of his ilk is this: why are you willing to tolerate even 1-3% of welfare recipients (which is almost certainly a very likely low number) using drugs illegally?
stands for decibels - I got your "triangulation" right here
February 26th, 2013
2:39 pm
Yea, we know, and after they take all the people’s weapons, they’ll never round up all the Jews
ANOTHER guy who believes the fake Hitler gun-control quotes that rattle around in the wingnuttisphere, one presumes.
stands for decibels - I got your "triangulation" right here
February 26th, 2013
2:40 pm
Pres Obama, Jay, and liberals are constantly saying the Constitution is old and out-dated for the modern times.
cite please.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 26th, 2013
2:40 pm
Bill C — “So money isn’t exchanging hands, okay fine, lets go down that road.
Someone is acting as a lookout for someone, in return they are compensated with drugs. Seems like a good plan. Except why does the look out not ask for money?”
Maybe because he’s addicted. Ever think of that?
“Doesn’t he need money to buy food or does he have another look out job that pays him food?”
You mean like receiving welfare?
“If he has two jobs as a lookout, one where he is compensated food and the other drugs, well hot damn that’s an enterprising person isnt it. They now have food and drugs and don’t need to be on welfare, why? Because they are sustaining themselves, beautiful.”
Where are you getting this ‘two jobs’ notion?
“This however is not the case for many people who abuse drugs, they dont work two look out jobs.”
Who claimed that they did?
“That is why I originally said I am only talking about addicts/abusers. It is my presumption that addicts on welfare, use this pay for their essentials and use their look out job to obtain drugs.”
Actually, everything you’ve said up to this point is that they’re using money for drugs that they *should* be using for food, rent and the like. Now you seem to be changing your tune.
“They should use their lookout job to obtain food and get off welfare. If not, that is abusing the system.”
Yeah, um, maybe you should go downtown and explain that to the dealers. Be sure to fill us in on how that works out.
DownInAlbany
February 26th, 2013
2:40 pm
indigo
February 26th, 2013
1:08 pm
Does anyone here honestly believe that, if 1,000 people on welfare in Atlanta were tested today, with no warning, their percentage drug positives would be the same as the general population not on welfare?
No, and I’m willing to bet my pay check on it.
st simons - he-ne-ha
February 26th, 2013
2:40 pm
i’m going on a rum strike til fred returns, (as long as its tomorrow)
getalife
February 26th, 2013
2:41 pm
It was a fake Fred cons.
Try to keep up.
liberal hack
February 26th, 2013
2:42 pm
you civil liberation you, but you find it absolutely okay for a millionaire to pay a higher percentange in a tax rate and have the audacity to say it’s not enough
Partisay
February 26th, 2013
2:42 pm
From F. Sinkwich at 11:57am –
But seriously folks, in general, it should not be easy to obtain transfer payments from the government. It should require a certain amount of inconvenience and stigmatization to get taxpayer freebies.
inconvenience and stigmatization…..there’s your sign.
getalife
February 26th, 2013
2:43 pm
“Fred now serving the second of his two-day ban.”
Ooops my bad.
Free Fred.
stands for decibels - I got your "triangulation" right here
February 26th, 2013
2:43 pm
kept 19% of their applicants from receiving benefits which in itself saved the taxpayers a heck of a lot of money
yes, plunging poor, desperate people into the underground economy pays big ol’ dividends down the road. ’specially as their kids are coming up.
Drudge
February 26th, 2013
2:45 pm
Score one for people totally dependent on other people to feed, house, educate and clothe themselves! What a victory! I know we are all very excited that you have to do nothing – literally not a damn thing – to be taken care of by the hard work of other people.
While welfare looks like the right thing to do from the outside – there is in fact unlimited empirical evidence that illustrates how devastating welfare is to society. Ever heard the term “idle hands?” Well, there are a lot of idle hands on the South Side of Chicago, where 7/8 people is on public assistance. Just look what a paradise that is!
Joe Hussein Mama
February 26th, 2013
2:45 pm
Theophilus — “32/8659 is not zero (unless the results are all “false positives”). And it must be wondered why nearly 20% of the applicants “did not provide results”. The question for Mr. Bookman and those of his ilk is this: why are you willing to tolerate even 1-3% of welfare recipients (which is almost certainly a very likely low number) using drugs illegally?”
What is it, precisely, that makes drug use so overarchingly important to you and our other conservative friends?
If a welfare recipient is watching a ballgame on TV with some friends and partakes of a joint passed his way, what exactly about that is so repugnant? Is it that he might have *purchased* the dope or simply that he used it at all?
What, exactly, is the foundation of the moral obloquy you seem to want to pile on the guy?
ev
February 26th, 2013
2:46 pm
We could just eliminate every subsidy so we don’t have to argue about which ones are our favorites. What an idea.
stands for decibels - I got your "triangulation" right here
February 26th, 2013
2:46 pm
you civil liberation you, but you find it absolutely okay for a millionaire to pay a higher percentange in a tax rate and have the audacity to say it’s not enough
Drugs are bad, mmkay?
F. Sinkwich
February 26th, 2013
2:46 pm
How cool is this? From AP:
“Mexicali, Mexico — Police in the border city of Mexicali say they have recovered a powerful improvised cannon used to hurl packets of marijuana across a border fence into California. Police told the Televisa network that the device was made up of a plastic pipe and a crude metal tank that used compressed air from the engine of an old car. The apparatus fired cylinders packed with drugs that weighed as much as 30 pounds, police.”
Look out!
mm
February 26th, 2013
2:46 pm
“inconvenience and stigmatization…..there’s your sign.”
They just can’t help themselves. They think the entire country thinks like they do.
liberal hack
February 26th, 2013
2:47 pm
Democrats: the party who believes in individual freedoms like choosing your partner or religion but believe in economic slavery taxing “the rich” at higher rates and keeping all people at one economic level. Well except for the ruling political class. it’s all fine and dandy for Kerry to be worth 100’s of million and Pelosi to be worth almost that much but slam individuals like Bernie Marcus who earned those dollars honestly too.
Theophilus
February 26th, 2013
2:47 pm
“And it’s an extremely dishonest and disingenous person that misreads the liberal position here in that way. Nobody’s saying that it *doesn’t* happen. We’re saying that our participants here haven’t actually *demonstrated* any instances of it happening as broadly as they claim.”
Then why all of the uproar over drug testing of welfare recipients? Athletes are tested for drugs routinely now because it has been shown that SOME of them have cheated. How many “documented” instances of drug use by welfare recipients would be enough for you, Jay and other liberals to agree they should be tested?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 26th, 2013
2:48 pm
DIA — “Does anyone here honestly believe that, if 1,000 people on welfare in Atlanta were tested today, with no warning, their percentage drug positives would be the same as the general population not on welfare? No, and I’m willing to bet my pay check on it.”
I’d take that bet.
You go pull your thousand poor people off the street. I’m going to set up shop outside a bunch of clubs around the city and start drawing blood right after midnight.
I bet I’ll find a lot more drug use than you will. And a lot more *variety* in drugs than you will, too.
Partisay
February 26th, 2013
2:48 pm
Tom( Viet Vet-USAF) – Freebies from the govt(taxpayers money) apparently should have no restrictions on it? Moochers and parasites rejoice everywhere!!
Tom, who has said anywhere there should be no restrictions on receiving benefits? You just can’t be drug tested to get them.
That was a rather large leap you took there, wasn’t it?
Tom( Viet Vet-USAF)
February 26th, 2013
2:48 pm
Jay@2:17 – Is this “our” Fred’s 2nd time-out? Does the 3 strikes thing count here?
Redcoat
February 26th, 2013
2:48 pm
I’d like to talk with the President but I don’t have $500,000 handy right now, guess I’ll write a letter like he mentioned common folks do.
Granny Godzilla
February 26th, 2013
2:49 pm
Tom( Viet Vet-USAF)
February 26th, 2013
2:37 pm
Pres Obama, Jay, and liberals are constantly saying the Constitution is old and out-dated for the modern times.
,
.
.
.
.
All you libs who said that please raise your hands
.
.
.
.Just as I thought – Piffle
Joe Hussein Mama
February 26th, 2013
2:50 pm
Fishy — “Look out!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpoE6yzZrxo
liberal hack
February 26th, 2013
2:50 pm
sfd, yea, your right they are, but I don’t see to many Republicans pushing for drug legalization, that honor belongs to Democrats, though I admit it’s not a majority of them either, just where the legalization crowd is hanging out these days….
Granny Godzilla
February 26th, 2013
2:51 pm
liberal hack
February 26th, 2013
2:47 pm
Democrats: the party who believes in individual freedoms like choosing your partner or religion but believe in economic slavery taxing “the rich”
.
.
.
.
More piffle
In a piffle packed day
stands for decibels - I got your "triangulation" right here
February 26th, 2013
2:51 pm
All you libs who said that please raise your hands
The 18th Amendment was pretty stupid. I’ll cop to that.
Redcoat
February 26th, 2013
2:52 pm
Do Liberals/Democrats think it is a problem that drug abusers are using welfare funds for illegal drugs? What solutions do you have to offer?………..
Granny Godzilla
February 26th, 2013
2:52 pm
Redcoat
February 26th, 2013
2:48 pm
I’d like to talk with the President but I don’t have $500,000 handy right now, guess I’ll write a letter like he mentioned common folks do.
.
.
.
Then try the US Mail.
His address is 1600 Pennsyvania Avenue.