Drug-testing of welfare applicants violates Constitution

Yes,
Another example of Good Christian behavior…

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“THIRD!”

Not intended to be a factual statement. **

• Link
• Report this comment

But seriously folks, in general, it should not be easy to obtain transfer payments no bid contracts from the government. It should require a certain amount of inconvenience and stigmatization to get taxpayer freebies.

• Link
• Report this comment

I noticed the guv of Florida got off the dope.

• Link
• Report this comment

bu…bu…the ‘moral fibah!’ and the ‘faaaaabric of societeh!’

• Link
• Report this comment

“they could have mandated that HOPE scholarship recipients be drug-tested before receiving ”

I’ve explained to you before, Jay, that students don’t see the HOPE money. It’s applied DIRECTLY to their student accounts.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The state failed to offer “any factual support or to present any empirical evidence,” because no such evidence exists.”

Target and Ingles offered no evidence yet I still had to submit a drug test to be hired and work there.

• Link
• Report this comment

Liberal judges are doing nothing but taking us to hell…

yeah, that’s the ticket

• Link
• Report this comment

When most taxpayers are required to pass drug tests as conditions of employment thereby providing the funding for these programs and transfer payments, requiring beneficiaries of them to do so as well is a rational expectation.

I do not know if the legislation provided a mechanism for the person to re-apply which would be a reasonable comparison to the employee not being prevented from employment forever after failing a single drug screening. Likewise, providing similar mechanisms for appeal a false positive result would be reasonable (and something that most employees would not get).

TaxPAYERS on average would have little problem with this.

-SD

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay — “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.”

Sounds good to me. Somehow I expect that XYZ Corp would getting much more in ‘taxpayer freebies’ than Jasper Q. Poorfellow would.

• Link
• Report this comment

Another stupid con idea.

• Link
• Report this comment

Pea, private employers and completely different justification. A superficial similarity does not mean that they are the same.

• Link
• Report this comment

do it, but call it a tax.

• Link
• Report this comment

100% agree with this one.

So do I, but I think the benefit of the cost savings from prosecuting / incarcerating users of this particular recreational drug will far outweigh any modest revenue we might derive.

• Link
• Report this comment

IMAM

Boy! You’re on a roll today! Troublemaker…

getalife

“free the weed and tax it.”

Yep.

and as for the thread topic…

how could they have decided otherwise?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Good news!” — say the crack dealers of Miami-Dade

• Link
• Report this comment

“Who needs an editor when crowd-editing is so much cheaper?”

If only you would edit the false HOPE Scholarship statement, which I’ve called you out on multiple times.

• Link
• Report this comment

$omebody’$ got to $upport the drug te$ting companie$ that are $o friendly to the$e governor$ even if they mu$t do it with our tax $$$$$$.

• Link
• Report this comment

I can understand the judges ruling.I’m with Peadawg on this one.
If I have to pee in a cup to get a paycheck from an employer other folks should have to do the same to get a check.IMHO

• Link
• Report this comment

it’s a cruel desire to bash and denigrate me?

yeah, pretty much.

• Link
• Report this comment

In his second term, change has come to America.

Governments need a new revenue stream and weed is the solution.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bro – I was talking about it’s increased popularity and application in the private sector

• Link
• Report this comment

” Great news!!” — shout the meth-heads in Sanford

• Link
• Report this comment

Private employees that affect public safety are required to pass
drug tests before hiring and incrementally and randomly
thereafter. For others it is at the discretion of the employer.

• Link
• Report this comment

EC

Gotcha!!

• Link
• Report this comment

This is a sticky wicket, imeoiauo and I’m of mixed opinions. It IS an invasion of privacy, yes and requiring it of “welfare recipients” when not of state legislators is, well, somewhat hypocritic. However, I can see the logic with folks, say, in mine and Brosephus’ positions. The problem, there, though, is the cherry picking of which drugs show up…it’s not a test of “drugs” but a test of “illegal drugs.” That’s where I begin to have the problem. I know better than to smoke a doobie, but I can drink like a fish…

We wind up saying it’s okay to have the public security in hand if you’re a drunk, but not if you’re a pot head…

• Link
• Report this comment

Corbin Sharpe. I think, therefore I am…I think.

February 26th, 2013
11:55 am

Yes,
Another example of Good Christian behavior…

And the blog numpty appears!

• Link
• Report this comment

Chemical McCarthyism, give up your right to due process and you deserve none.

• Link
• Report this comment

SEQUESTERGATE !

What did Obama propose and when did he propose it !!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

If you think giving a bodily fluid to government is okay, you are a con that does not believe in our Constitution.

• Link
• Report this comment

Nothing, that is, except deeply cherished stereotypes and a penchant for bashing poor people.

And this:

Because substance use is a covert behavior, its true prevalence among the general and welfare population is unknown. Most studies have relied upon self-reports. Deceptive or inaccurate responses are therefore important concerns. Studies also differ in the thresholds used to characterize substance use problems. Some focus on simple use; others use more stringent thresholds such as abuse or dependence. Due to differing definitions and data sources, published prevalence estimates of use vary widely, from 6.6 to 37 percent of those receiving public aid.

– National Poverty Center, Policy Brief No.2

• Link
• Report this comment

It is my understanding that:

1) The “Sequester” involves reducing the budget by 1% or $15 billion.

2) The federal government will spend more this year than last year even with the reduction.

3) SO WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL ???

• Link
• Report this comment

Brosephus:

I can live with that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay,

This is not a warrantless search or seizure.

If you want the job then take the drug test.

If you want the free money, then take the drug test.

Only a liberal would conclude those sucking from the government teat have a right to money taken from a taxpayer rather than the right of the taxpayer to expect the money is distributed to those with a REAL need.

Every problem facing the United States today is the result of liberals and liberalism. 51% of the people stated in November 2012 they did not wish to have jobs or go back to work. KEEP THE FREE STUFF COMING they declared.

• Link
• Report this comment

Because the people who receive TANF never have had a job and paid into the system, right?

• Link
• Report this comment

1811
3) SO WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL ???
…………………………………………………………
Beats me. Just like seatbelts, it’s the law.

• Link
• Report this comment

Brosephus:

Although one could argue that “civil” rules should be applied in those cases for puproses of determining future eligibility.

In other words, preponderance of the evidence (for civil conviction purposes) vs. beyond reasonable doubt (for criminal conviction purposes).

I could live with that better !

P.S.

As you know, someone can lose their car for transporting counterfeit (civil seizure) even though they might beat the criminal rap ! Just sayin’ !

• Link
• Report this comment

barking frog:

I hear you. Much ado ………… CHICKEN LITTLE !

• Link
• Report this comment

Republicans sure are good at illegal stuff.

• Link
• Report this comment

Of course no one here in Jay’s chorus wants to be drug tested. They would lose all of the money that they are picking from my pocket.

• Link
• Report this comment

P.S. to getalife:

We are still spending more than last year !!!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Drug-testing of welfare applicants violates Constitution
11:50 am February 26, 2013, by Jay”

I didn’t know Jay was on the Supreme Court !

• Link
• Report this comment

Sometimes I am reminded of the movie “Demolition Man” from all of this…maybe it’s just me.
——————————–

“And the blog numpty appears!”

Willie, be kind…Where are your Christian values? Just turn the other cheek…you’ll be fine…

• Link
• Report this comment

I asked my State Senator who initiated this bill in Georgia last year if he would be willing to lead by example, and first require all members of the Georgia General Assembly to be tested first. You know, to work out the kinks in the system. He sidestepped by saying that HE gets tested regularly, an assertion I take with the grain of salt all his boasting merits. I then asked him how much it would cost the taxpayers to do this, and he said it would not cost US anything. (Right.) I then asked him if he had anyone — in mind — to DO all this testing. He started stammering a denial as his face grew BRIGHT red, beginning with his ears, then his nose, then his entire face. Uh-huh. He thinks we’re stupid.

• Link
• Report this comment

And you were at perfect liberty to withdraw your application if you didn’t like their testing requirements.

Never thought about it that way Doggone,good point! I never had a problem passing a drug test but I didn’t like having to take them though.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I never had a problem passing a drug test but I didn’t like having to take them though”

Same here.

• Link
• Report this comment

“ABC broadcast edits out Michelle Obama claim that Chicago teen was killed by an ‘automatic weapon’ …”

When you have the press in your back pocket you get those perks !

• Link
• Report this comment

“I never had a problem passing a drug test but I didn’t like having to take them though”

Same.

I was just using it as an example.

• Link
• Report this comment

JHM – In fact, there was a news story just lately that a NYT reporter slammed the Tesla Roadster after taking it for an extended road test up the Easter Seaboard — only to have Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk publicly claim that the black box installed in the car directly refutes a number of claims and statements the reporter made in his story

I read it too…the NYT reporter got owned!

• Link
• Report this comment

Once they have your urine, they can test it for anything they want. How would you even know, to challenge their right? Pregnant? Forget about that job. Require medication for a manageable condition? Um, no thanks. Keep looking.

• Link
• Report this comment

So Jay, is it ok to drug test for other government funds? (see below)

I was let go by a major company in Atlanta (part of a 2200 employee layoff of management level employees), and I have to take a drug test to get WIA (workforce investment act) funds to pay for a training class. Why do I have to take a drug test for federal funds that help me get a job, but I would not have to take a drug test for federal funds that do nothing to help me get a job (and then pay taxes).

I feel this is discrimination against people trying to get work.

• Link
• Report this comment

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

February 26th, 2013
12:42 pm
“ABC broadcast edits out Michelle Obama claim that Chicago teen was killed by an ‘automatic weapon’ …”

When you have the press in your back pocket you get those perks !
——————————————————————–
Quick! Quick! Call for Congressional hearings! No budget deal until we get to the bottom of this travesty! Its just as if Ms.Obama killed the girl herself by getting this wrong. Where was the President when she made this statement? Why wasn’t a drone strike called in? The American people deserve to know the answers to these important questions!!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Perhaps cons should focus their efforts on passing legal requirements rather than complain about their illegal ones getting tossed out by a court.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I read it too…the NYT reporter got owned!”

Reminds me of a “gotcha” report done years ago about the AKC (American Kennel Club). Smartass reporter sent in a fraudulent registration and when the registration certificate came back, he (she?) did a news story about how easy it was.

The AKC’s reply, in a nutshell, was that they don’t guarantee completed accuracy…they depend on the honesty of the public using their registration services. And then they bannd that reporter from registering any dog, for life, because the reporter proved to be dishonest on their own admission!

• Link
• Report this comment

It truly is a bizarro world when; people who are actually working might have to get drug tested, whilst those who are definitely not working and on welfare cannot be tested? Please adjust that dial…

• Link
• Report this comment

scout continues to display his jealousy of the Obama’s.

• Link
• Report this comment

These are the same cons that claim to be strict Constitutionalists but that is just another con lie.

• Link
• Report this comment

Matti – Once they have your urine, they can test it for anything they want. How would you even know, to challenge their right? Pregnant? Forget about that job. Require medication for a manageable condition? Um, no thanks. Keep looking.

That’s why it is contingent on employment. They have to (or should) make it part of the offer. The citizens with disabilities act kinda of corners them. If they asked for the test before they make an offer, they can get in some hot water because you are required to list your legal prescriptions…so they can’t screen out high blood pressure etc etc

• Link
• Report this comment

“‘Snapshot’ devices that Progressive Insurance is presently offering (put the black box on your car and get a discount) will be *mandatory* within ten years.”

The step after that will be sensors implanted into our heads that measure how many french fries we eat and how many cigars we smoke. Get the implant, get a discount.

Next stop, Borg Collective.

• Link
• Report this comment

B. Frog — “Someday the little black boxes will be downloaded by
others in police cars and catch
impaired driving violations before accidents happen.”

I suspect they would also eventually be used in routine accident investigations. If there was a way to sync up the two datastreams, you could construct a pretty accurate picture or animation of precisely how an accident occurred and who was at fault.

• Link
• Report this comment

Even when you post the results of actual testing in Florida, the cons fail to read it and to have an intelligent response. Drug use in the general population is higher than that in the welfare population. Perhaps we should have drug testing for driver’s licenses (after all you get to use the free roads) or school funds (especially if you are using a voucher).

• Link
• Report this comment

“Such laws are motivated by a cruel desire to bash and denigrate the poor, without regard to evidence or civil rights.”

No, that’s not it.

Such laws are motiviated by a desire that money taken from the had earned wages of producers is not being misused by recipients to purchase illegal drugs.

It’s that simple. Nothing to do with dinigrating the poor. And, just which law book, Jay, did you pull the thought that reciving government assistance is a civil right? Must have been the same one where gay marriage is a civil right. Is it from Mars or Venus?

• Link
• Report this comment

LB4IL — “Next stop, Borg Collective.”

HUNGER IS IRRELEVANT. SLEEP IS IRRELEVANT. URINATION IS IRRELEVANT. CONTINUE WORKING, DRONE.

• Link
• Report this comment

appleseed,

Do you go to a pain clinic?

• Link
• Report this comment

josef — “What’s the black box thingie? Fill me in…”

Sorry, it was an original thought my wife and I discussed, so I’m sure you won’t want to hear about it.

• Link
• Report this comment

JHM – So wouldn’t mandatory black boxes in our cars be an example of the same sort of enforced honesty as pre-employment pee tests?

It’s a slippery slope for sure…One of the automakers (i forget which) is developing a start push button that will read your BAC from your finger with a laser when you push to start ..the idea being that if it registers high it won’t start

• Link
• Report this comment

KUTGF — “JHM, generally as part of accident litigation, often information in existing black boxes in vehicles are already requested.”

What sorts of information is recorded on them? And how granular is it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Drug use in the general population is higher than that in the welfare population.

We know this because when asked, welfare recipients always give an honest answer to the question, “Do you use illegal drugs?”

• Link
• Report this comment

Hagel will be confirmed today.

If a con proposes an idea, it is usually a very bad idea.

getalife,
I think there may be a “catch 22″ there.Hagel is a con,if he has an idea,will it be a bad idea?
Jus sayin………

• Link
• Report this comment

saywhat?

“Quick! Quick! Call for Congressional hearings! No budget deal until we get to the bottom of this travesty! Its just as if Ms.Obama killed the girl herself by getting this wrong. Where was the President when she made this statement? Why wasn’t a drone strike called in? The American people deserve to know the answers to these important questions!!!!!”

Ooooo ! ……………. looks like I hit a nerve.

MISSON ACCOMPLISHED !!

• Link
• Report this comment

The black boxes are commonplace in commercial trucks
and are used for driver training, maintenance, accidents, etc.

• Link
• Report this comment

JHM, LB4L

New business opportunity, if you can take advantage of it–the manufacture of omicron radiation.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Regeneration_(episode)

• Link
• Report this comment

“Not that the State doesn’t have a right, just that they don’t have probable cause”

It’s unconstitutional (there is no right for the state) to test WITHOUT probably cause. Basically, you just said the same thing Jay did.

• Link
• Report this comment

JHM, see the link I gave josef, answers your questions I believe

• Link
• Report this comment

E. Cat — “the idea being that if it registers high it won’t start”

My thinking was that in a civil case, attorneys might demand access to the black boxes of all cars a defendant had access to in an attempt to demonstrate that he or she was routinely an unsafe driver. I’m guessing that there would have to be some sort of GPS map overlay to match against the driving record data, though — otherwise how could you show that a driver was a routine speeder or red-light runner?

Frankly, I think that’s where the black boxes are heading; to record that degree of granularity.

• Link
• Report this comment

So here is a thought:

How many of the folks here who are horrified and offended that some of their tax dollars are going to people who MIGHT be using illegal drugs, think about who they buy stuff from?

I mean, I think we all know that not all drug users are welfare queens, many are employed with great jobs – so if you buy something from the company that employes them, you are in fact subsidizing illegal drug use. So the question is, if one finds the idea of their money going to support drug use so patently offensive, do they conduct due diligence and only buy from corporations that regularly screen their employees for drug use?

• Link
• Report this comment

JohnnyReb @ 12:52

Careful now ……………….. you’re being analytical.

Liberals are emotional you know …………. and they function based on that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Forget the drug testing. How about if people on govt funding can only be a limited number of basic non-brand staples. Perhaps will encourage them to move on and up.

• Link
• Report this comment

SCOOTTER

He’s got a con record a mile long and watching the two stepping going on around that nomination has been, well, an education for me…and that’s all I’m going to say about that, except that it sure has caused me to reevaluate a number of posters herebouts…

GOOD FIGHT

Thanks.

• Link
• Report this comment

appleseed,

Thanks.

My regular doctor just takes blood not urine but did see a sign at the pain clinic that said they would test .

• Link
• Report this comment

josef — “You know, willing to admit I don’t know something. A novel concept for you, I’m sure…”

Gosh, and only five posts above your snark, I’m asking another poster a question. Imagine that.

Your predisposition to judge so quickly does neither of us any credit.

• Link
• Report this comment

“BAC from your finger with a laser when you push to start ”

And if you are wearing a glove…?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Drug-testing of welfare applicants violates Constitution”

Would it be “unconstitutional” (according to Jay) to make them WORK for these payments ?

• Link
• Report this comment

Look before I leap…

February 26th, 2013
And if you are wearing a glove…?
…………………………………………………………………………
the vehicle won’t start if the reading cannot be obtained.

• Link
• Report this comment

indigo:

Jay does.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m actually for legalization of recreational drugs, but this falls under the “my house, my rules” area. If you are going to depend on daddy government for support, then you have to be home every night by curfew time. If you want more freedom, move out and pay your own bills.

• Link
• Report this comment

indigo — “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?”

I believe that you don’t know what the results would be. And knowing the conservative predilection for shrieking about “skewed” polls, I suspect you wouldn’t be willing to believe the results if they didn’t agree with your preconception.

• Link
• Report this comment

JHM

You’re funny!

BROSEPHUS

Well, I realize it WAS a little out there, but…

• Link
• Report this comment

Headline: “Father wants school dress code changed after son asked to remove Marines T-shirt”

Did you ever think our country would sink this low?

I wonder if textbooks have taken out all of the photos of our veterans with guns ………. you know, like the flag raising on Iwo Jima ?

God help us …………………

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/26/father-wants-school-dress-code-changed-after-son-asked-to-remove-marines-t/

• Link
• Report this comment

doggone

**Well, which would you rather be doped up – someone driving an 18 wheeler…or someone not working?**

Who says the tractor trailer guy is being drug tested? Why should the unemployed get to sit around get doped up and be paid by us for the priviledge? Obviously, not all welfare recipients are doing it but no doubt many are…

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay is wrong when he says that “such laws are motivated by a cruel desire to bash and denigrate the poor.” The people who pass these laws couldn’t care less about the poor one way or another. They are motivated by the desire to get elected by pandering to the worst instincts of “the base.” If that requires the occasional beatdown on the poor, then so be it. They vote for the other guys anyway.

• Link
• Report this comment

He’s got a con record a mile long and watching the two stepping going on around that nomination has been, well, an education for me…and that’s all I’m going to say about that, except that it sure has caused me to reevaluate a number of posters herebouts…

Josef,

Not an education for me.I’m completely confused as usual!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s Tesla’s response to the NYT story (with lots of graphs and dataplots):

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive&

And here’s the most recent news story I can find about it:

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/02/tesla-roadster-trashed-by-new-york-times.html

FWIW, my wife and I wouldn’t mind having a Tesla Roadster, but it’s out of our price range, especially for a ‘fun’ car and we’re not interested in waiting two or three years for delivery.

• Link
• Report this comment

0311

In the great big scheme of things why do you always find this minutia that barely rates a mosquito bite on an elephants butt? I mean really, most schools are moving to uniforms anyways and that “problem” is solved…

• Link
• Report this comment

Mr Digits

I suspect a simple marines tee shirt may have passed muster…..the logo is rather spiffy

But the crossed assault weapons?

ah, does not belong in school

• Link
• Report this comment

BADA

Which is reason number one I am for legalization…didn’t we learn a d*mned thing from Prohibition?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Would it be “unconstitutional” (according to Jay) to make them WORK for these payments ?”

I doubt he will answer that question: it might unravel his foolish ideology.

• Link
• Report this comment

Of course, there’s zero/zip/zilch evidence that drug-testing these applicants makes any fiscal sense whatsoever, that I’ve seen anyway. That’s a good enough reason not to legislate this kind of requirement, constitutional rights aside.

• Link
• Report this comment

SCOOTTER

Yeah, me, too! Course, since I don’t drive no way, hit don’t make me no nevermind…

• Link
• Report this comment

Brosephus™ – Desktop but still Multitasking

So we submit to these tests because we need the jobs. I agree so what is the objection to having somebody who is applying for aid (they need it right?) submitting to these tests? Either they will be using the assistance they are receiving from us to pay for these, using hidden excess funds (if you have enough money to afford drugs, you don’t need assistance, you need medical attention) and you will fail the private company drug tests which will prevent you from getting a decent job and getting off of public assistance. I fail to see the perceived injustice in this requirement. Similarily, we don’t provide food stamps (or whatever their reincarnation is called now) for cigarettes or booze but that restriction does not leave it up to the “honor” system. It assumes the assistance could be abused and therefore it prevents (subject to abuse of course) the purchase of these items. Now if we made drug dealers legal enterprise, then we could prevent the use of taxpayer money for drugs in the same way we do cigarettes and alcohol.

• Link
• Report this comment

We can cut the war on drugs and try something different because that war was lost a long time ago.

Right Bada?

• Link
• Report this comment

Moreover:

Such laws are motivated by a cruel desire to bash and denigrate the poor, without regard to evidence or civil rights.

I’ve already said I agree with this, but to expand just a bit–it’s really motivated by this desire on the part of dumb proles like you and me, who think that if we have to suffer slings and arrows of outrageous peeing-in-a-cup, well dad-blast it, so should they!

Cynical politicians exploit this nastiness for their own personal/political gain, hilarity ensues, etc., yadda yadda.

• Link
• Report this comment

SCOUT

“..would have no problem with just an “arrest” being the line drawn for losing one’s welfare payments.”

Uh, what about that little sticky wicket of our judicial system, innocent until PROVEN guilty?

• Link
• Report this comment

“There is no such thing as “innocent until prove guilty” except in the minds of those who don’t know better”

So you ARE guilty of killing that little girl the other day! Must be, since you are guilty until you are proven innocent.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Uh, what about that little sticky wicket of our judicial system, innocent until PROVEN guilty?”

There is no such wicket.

• Link
• Report this comment

bada

**But it’s OK, as long as you keep getting your high.**

Such drama, ever heard of homegrown???

Also, for every drug test, there is a way to counter it or mask the drug. The only surefire way is a blood test, which is rarely required…

• Link
• Report this comment

Some of you folks stay mad all the time, why are you mad all the time ?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Drug-testing of welfare applicants violates Constitution”

Next thing you know, they will start asking for ID!

• Link
• Report this comment

hey Jay… where in the Constitution does it say the gov’t has to give money to individuals …

• Link
• Report this comment

Theo

“Would it be “unconstitutional” (according to Jay) to make them WORK for these payments ?””
.
.
.
.
May I suggest you update your information on the TANF program?

• Link
• Report this comment

“So what you are claiming is that no drug testing requirement will find the actual usage unless we do random stops. Thereby conceding its uselessness.”

I am not claiming anything. I adjusted the verb to illustrate that believing something and knowing something are two completely different things which is the core of the decision made by the FL court.

However, to your point, if you want to know the % comparisons, you will need to create a statistically valid pool of people both on and off welfare and test them.

You willing to pee into a cup if I knock at your door unannounced just because I want to know if you are on drugs or not?

• Link
• Report this comment

Because you foolishly ignored my prior post showing the actual results of FL drug testing before stopped by a judge showed a 98% pass rate.

Keep,

I have seen that info before and know you were not addressing me but…..
If folks know they are going to be tested it’s not hard for them to do what is required to pass it.
Jus sayin………

• Link
• Report this comment

Is TC in the house?

• Link
• Report this comment

Facebook says privacy is over. They may be right.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wonder when Jay Bookman is going to take a harder look at what austerity Obama-style will actually entail.

Notice the huge cuts ($400 bn) in health care services. Chained CPI. Creeping tax increases on the middle class. Good stuff.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/deficit_reduction_table_bucketed_r8.pdf

• Link
• Report this comment

“Out of pure common decency and good faith, welfare recipients should submit to drug tests. If you’re asking other people to finance your life, then there should be strings attached.”

It is politically incorrect to say such a thing. Jay, will you please ban this poster?

• Link
• Report this comment

Got to run ………… everyone be nice ……… even you libs.

• Link
• Report this comment

Our country’s thirst for drugs is carried on the backs of poor people looking for a better life. Tens of thousands of people have been ‘Disappeared’ while making the trek from Central America thru Mexico. El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala are the most dangerous places in the World right now. Not only drug smuggling, but human trafficing is commonplace by the Cartels, but the US is seen as the bad guy by the media. It is sickening.

• Link
• Report this comment

In case anyone’s interested, I looked up these three judges who sat on the bench for this case, to see which Administration had appointed them.

Turns out Barkett = Clinton, Hall = GW Bush, and Jordan = Obama.

So, who knows how the Roberts court will rule.

• Link
• Report this comment

So when will the attempted disarming of citizens be declared unconstitutional?

• Link
• Report this comment

President Obama is destroying the gop today.

Surrender and get out of the way gop.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef
everyone arrested is presumed guilty or they would not
be arrested and bail is required because it is presumed the
guilty will flee but the presumption of innocence before the
court sets the way the trial will be conducted by prosecution
and defense.

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife @12:36
Surrender or die.

getalife @12:57
The gop already surrendered yesterday…
————————————————————-
Why do you leave instructions for what’s already done?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Most employment applications say, “Have you ever been arrested?””

Been a while since I filled out an actual job application. But just for yucks I pulled out the last 3 I did fill out.

Two asked if I have ever been CONVICTED of a felony.
Once asked if I had ever been convicted of either a misdemeanor or felony.

I think the assumption there is if I was convicted, I was also arrested.

Given the availability of background information and its ease of access, the question on the application is a bit redundant. If they run a check, it will all show up at any rate.

• Link
• Report this comment

all this con assistance envy is so unattractive.

oh, you betcha ass little 25% rick down heah is quietly mumbling
thankya jaysus. At the time of the suit, they had stopped something
like $60k in payments against a program cost of $1mil plus, not
counting legal, and now they’re gonna have to pay out all of it.

Spend a mil to recover $60k, now THAT’s a typical con ‘bidness’ idea.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Why do you leave instructions for what’s already done?”

The house did not surrender yet.

• Link
• Report this comment

straitroad

They got Whole Foods out where you stays?

FROG

I understand what you are saying from the “logical” standpoint, i was thinking the “legal” standpoint.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scootter, you can make all the assertions you want but if a person is addicted to drugs, I doubt they can “clean up” in time for a test. But again, your assertion, if proven true, demonstrates the foolishness of standardized drug test at application requirement. The only thing that would likely be more “accurate” in your scenario would be random testing.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef

February 26th, 2013
1:41 pm

Not even close….I doubt I would be allowed to come in the door of a Whole Foods…

• Link
• Report this comment

Bill C,

Great post.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Such laws are motivated by a cruel desire to bash and denigrate the poor, without regard to evidence or civil rights.”

Agreed. I expect to be drug tested as do most others who make life and death decisions on a daily basis…but it is indeed, a humiliating and embarrassing experience. I strongly disagree that the poor should have to be humiliated in this manner just because they are given taxpayer’s dollars. National drug use surveys indicate the unemployed are twice as likely as people with jobs to use drugs, BUT the past two years of state and federal proposals to test people receiving unemployment insurance have yielded NO data to suggest that people receiving benefits do drugs more than anyone else.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/georgia-drug-testing-unemployed_n_1573358.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0

The cons should be screaming their heads off to stop this atrocity…certainly not out of any altruistic motives, mind you, but because they truly believe in not wasting taxpayer dollars.

• Link
• Report this comment

Did you ever think our country would sink this low?

Oh, save your fake outrage Senior Digits. The guy who filed this suit is a Navy Vet attending college while raising his kid and taking care of his disabled mom. You want him peeing in a cup and picking up trash just so he knows his place.

Good thing LIBERALS are standing up for this man’s rights while you try to trample them.

Go to his house and demand a urine sample, I hope he complies and waters your shoes. You’d never do that though as long as you can hide behind the govenment’s skirts, they’ll do the bullying for you.

• Link
• Report this comment

Countries like the U.S. have other things to worry about also, besides illicit drugs. Legal prescription painkillers are becoming the most abused substances in our country. Dr. Marc Galanter said, “It is important that we call attention to very serious drug abuse problems that still exist in the United States. For example, we are seeing recent increases in abuse of painkillers in the United States, as well as the abuse of MDMA [Ecstasy] by adolescents and young adults. Abuse of these particular drugs is not prevalent in less industrialized countries.” (2)

• Link
• Report this comment

stands: “Not sure where you get the “creeping tax increases,” though.”

Has to do with the way middle and lower incomes are gradually bumped into higher tax brackets over time. See this from cepr:

The Chained CPI would also effectively raise taxes on virtually all working Americans, especially
middle and lower income families. By applying it to all government programs, including the annual
adjustment in income tax brackets, the Chained CPI would cause those thresholds to rise more
slowly than they do now. That would lead to incomes jumping up to higher tax brackets faster, or in
other words, income tax increases.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/cpi-2012-12.pdf

• Link
• Report this comment

“Given the availability of background information and its ease of access, the question on the application is a bit redundant. If they run a check, it will all show up at any rate”

Did it ever occur to you that they ask because they want to know if you will be honest or not?

• Link
• Report this comment

Let them be cops for their welfare check if they have to work.

• Link
• Report this comment

” If you abuse drugs, you are likely abusing the system of welfare”

I think Rush Limbaugh might take issue with that statement.

• Link
• Report this comment

“What are you talking about, this IS blogspot”

No, no! this is A “blog spot” – not at all the same thing!

• Link
• Report this comment

“The legend lives.”

Think WORM

• Link
• Report this comment

“And *I* get accused of “picking nits”…well, welcome to the club”

There is an ocean of difference between “one is innocent until proven [sic] guilty” and “one is presumed to be innocent until proven [sic] guilty”. In fact, one is guilty the very moment he commits a crime. It never hurts to emphasize that guilt is not ultimately established by the legal system but rather by what actually happened (or did not happen) in reality.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ok, Welcome @ 1.49, thanks for that. Yet another reason to tell the President Middle-Man to eff right off with his stupid deficit reduction compromises.

• Link
• Report this comment

straitroad,

I went to the grocery store and minded my own business.

• Link
• Report this comment

Is welfare a Constitutional right.

I believe it is, actually, although one can take a principled position opposite mine, I guess.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The legend lives. No matter how many times it gets beaten down for lack of evidence, it claws its way back to the surface again.”

Anecdotal evidence may, in fact, be true. It embodies some sort of truth assertions that are valid or invalid. Just because you CHOOSE to disallow such evidence does not mean it is not true.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fred: “I hate this country. I am sorry to say it but I hate this country. I renounce any allegiance I ever had to it. It is gone.”

I know what you’re saying.

Well, I’m out for now, must go meet with comrades .

Catch up with you ilks later!

• Link
• Report this comment

“So when will the attempted disarming of citizens be declared unconstitutional?”

It already was in two recent SC decisions. Can you say Chicago?

• Link
• Report this comment

Did any of you let them take your thumb print for your driver’s license? I didn’t do anything. How can one be legal and the other not be?

• Link
• Report this comment

Spend a $mil+ to keep some poor kids from getting $60k worth of food.

Now THAT’s a typical con ‘bidness’ idea.

• Link
• Report this comment

and that’s why the Teapublicans are at 25% in Florida, and

why Flow-rida will BOOTAKOOK in 2014. Guaranteed.

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife,

Please do not use my name but their stories are lies.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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 .

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

Drug test the politicians. And how many CEO’s do you think get drug tested at corporations? Or the owners of small companies?

• Link
• Report this comment

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

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

“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-

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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….

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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###rs welfare 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?)

• Link
• Report this comment

” 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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

JHM

hahahahahahaha

He is going out puppets yapping at full throttle before the new system makes it more difficult.

• Link
• Report this comment

alex

snicker

• Link
• Report this comment

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!!

• Link
• Report this comment

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.)

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

i’m going on a rum strike til fred returns, (as long as its tomorrow)

• Link
• Report this comment

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

• Link
• Report this comment

“Fred now serving the second of his two-day ban.”

Ooops my bad.

Free Fred.

• Link
• Report this comment

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!

• Link
• Report this comment

We could just eliminate every subsidy so we don’t have to argue about which ones are our favorites. What an idea.

• Link
• Report this comment

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!

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay@2:17 – Is this “our” Fred’s 2nd time-out? Does the 3 strikes thing count here?

• Link
• Report this comment

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

• Link
• Report this comment

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….

• Link
• Report this comment

All you libs who said that please raise your hands

The 18th Amendment was pretty stupid. I’ll cop to that.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh, and so is the 22nd. That one ought to be repealed tootie sweet, as the frenchies like to say.

• Link
• Report this comment

“inconvenience and stigmatization” = deterrence

Got it?

because we need to deter people (and their kids) from benefits they’re legally entitled to.
Because freedom and liberty, or something.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny Godzilla ……..He said he was going to change all that when he was elected…..what happened?

• Link
• Report this comment

GG almost human. Now my imagination is corrupted.

• Link
• Report this comment

why are you willing to tolerate even 1-3% of welfare recipients (which is almost certainly a very likely low number) using drugs illegally?

For the same reason we’re not willing to tolerate wholesale search and seizure in any situation. Drug tests are searches, if you can’t show a compelling interest or reason to search people, then you can’t search them.

BTW, crying about parasites and your precious, precious wallet are not compelling interests, it’s just whining. If your world revolves around such dumb programmed into your head, that’s your fault.

You do not have a constitutional right to demand searches of others based on your pet obsession. Get over yourself.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sinkwich…just wondering if you still believe that a single mother with a kid that gets laid off her job, is drawing unemployment until she finds another job but discovers she can’t feed herself AND her kid on umemployment alone so she gets food stamps to temporarily help out….should she be “inconvenienced” and “stigmatized”?

If so…how much inconvenienced? Do you mean waiting in line for a few hours? Or how about stigmatized? How so? Do you mean people should wait outside and holler MOOCHER!! at her as she comes out the door? Or be made to put a sticker on her car that identifies her as a moocher? Or be made to wear a scarlette “M”? Tell us, what is your defintion of inconvenienced and stigmatized. Very curious.

• Link
• Report this comment

Redcoat

February 26th, 2013
2:54 pm

Granny Godzilla ……..He said he was going to change all that when he was elected…..what happened?
.
.
.
Perhaps you should include in your post exactly what he said….

I hate wasting time on y’all’s rabbit holes.

• Link
• Report this comment

sfd, yea, your right they are, but I don’t see to many Republicans pushing for drug legalization, that honor belongs to Democrats

That really so? Did elected Democrats spearhead the legalization efforts in WA and CO in 2012? I honestly don’t know; I figured it was more outside-the-political-mainstream than that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Democrats use the poor/ lower middle class as political pawns just like the Republicans use social issues on those who care about them as political pawns.

Democrats give a flying flip about the poor. it’s just another wedge issue to scalp the American people out of tax revenue

• Link
• Report this comment

liberal hack

February 26th, 2013
2:56 pm

Granny Godzilla,

If you honestly believe a tax code written by or influenced by those who are mega wealthy is going to take more money from their wallets and bank accounts then you have truly gone off the rocker.
.
.
.
first I use a glider not a rocker

second what does the above hot mess have to do with what you posted previously?

• Link
• Report this comment

Tom – I know you don’t feel you should earn what you obtain in life, just let the govt provide it for me.

Ummm..no you really don’t know what I feel and what I believe. Look at my post to Sinkwich at 2:57. So the mother and her child get nothing if you are in charge? Just too damn bad for her?

• Link
• Report this comment

Joe Hussein Mama

What on earth are you talking about? Please go back and read my original post on page 3. I don’t care about this whole flipping thing, I just wanted to point out that the writer, Joe, made some pretty bad comparisons in his original article.

I don’t think I ever once strayed from my original stance which at its simplest form is: that whether through money or barter, you can obtain drugs from someone else and you also receive welfare to cover the things you need, because you did not use your money/barter system to obtains your needs, then IMO you are abusing the system.

I’m also aware how addictions work and why someone would rather barter for drugs than food. There in lies the underlying issue in this whole mess, the powers and fall outs of addiction. I don’t want to get into the millions of problems about addiction or how as a society we can fix them, because I don’t care and there is not enough time in the day to debate that topic. I am also certainly not going down town to get a drug dealers opinion on the matter.

• Link
• Report this comment

@ Redcoat, the bonus idea IS interesting…creative!
@ Downinalbany, intuitively, I agree with you, but our intuition is frequently wrong and that is why we need data (if available), and the data ain’t great…
@ Joe, the return on investment of this testing was poor, furthermore it was not greater than the non-recepients , Have to worry about false positives and then confirmation testing, can you just imagine the cost od blood tests and f/u, excetera…

• Link
• Report this comment

I say, drug test all elected officials in the state government! There has to be some reason for the nonsense that these folks engage in every year!

• Link
• Report this comment

hack – is it also illegal and fattening.

• Link
• Report this comment

What a crock………..Free food so they can afford their drugs is just WRONG.

• Link
• Report this comment

The beatings will continue until the gop surrenders.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Under the U.S. Constitution, it is something else entirely when the government requires it. It is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures.”

Nice try. This argument would have much more merit if there were Constitutional guarantees of an EBT card.

• Link
• Report this comment

Redcoat

February 26th, 2013
3:02 pm

Granny Godzilla………..Why re-invent the wheel for poor folks? Use the same method they use for rich folks.

But they do and they still qualify for government assistance once they are out again……and the cycle continues……..same with the rich folks except they use their own money
.
.
.
.
So the poor and the rich both have folks who have drug issues.

Well there’s news.

• Link
• Report this comment

Spare me the liberal drivel Jay, I read what you said and totally disagree. I had to be drug tested to be employed and I am also subject to random screenings. Why should someone receiving free money not be subject to the same guidelines??

Evidence is not required for my pre-employment drug screening, it is required if I want to be employed; the same applies for the random checks……

• Link
• Report this comment

liberal hack

February 26th, 2013
3:06 pm

Granny, I’m also saying that the tax code is written in such a way that good tax lawyers and accountants find loop holes we don’t have access too, they will always be there, you’re crazy if you think all of them will be eliminated. Also you are also not thinking straight if you think a person who earns a million a year is willing going to allow 300,000 to go to the gov’t w/o finding some way to reduce that amount…
.
.
.
What happened to that slavery stuff from the first post?

Where’d that go?

• Link
• Report this comment

My imagination is not as acute as yours but really tell me? Where does it go?

I’m not going on imagination only….According to sworn testimony presented at our State Capitol, those microchips are placed in the “vaginal-rectum area.”

What a fine moment under the Gold Dome. Thanks, Republicans.

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/04/19/delusions-the-legislature-and-an-implanted-microchip/

• Link
• Report this comment

std, signed into law by Democrat governors.

erm, no, in WA and CO, the two states I inquired about, the laws were passed by referenda.

• Link
• Report this comment

Over and over and over they whine…

“Why should someone receiving free money not be subject to the same guidelines?? ”

.
.
.
.
Mostly because an appeals court has said so based on their judgement of the meaning of the
constitution.

Got democracy?

Do you like it?

• Link
• Report this comment

One more thing that legalizing the stuff would make things better. Why waste good money having to buy something only expensive because it has been outlawed by the government that pays for it. Why not legalize it and count the savings towards our cut backs?

• Link
• Report this comment

I can tell many of you have no idea what it takes to earn enough to be taxed at 39.6%.

• Link
• Report this comment

who announced his presidential run in Honest Abe’s hometown of Springfield, Ill., in early 2007

about three years before a certain case was decided that changed all that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Partisay – I have no problem with my hard-earned retired taxpayer’s money going to someone who needs help for a short period of time to get back on their feet. What I object to is establishing a way of life by getting undeserved “benefits” from the govt in what seems like forever. Then somehow they end up as a Democratic voter, wonder why? Perhaps just a thought, make it difficult or discourage by say(requiring job training, drug testing, being a citizen, things like that) to receive assistance not “benefits” from the govt. It seems like you libs somehow forget when you say govt money, you are not referring it as taxpayers money!

• Link
• Report this comment

Just set up free drug dispensaries next to soup kitchens. Maybe give vouchers for those who have kids to get their kids immunizations as a bonus. Throw in a TB test as well. CEO’s should buy their own stuff, though.

• Link
• Report this comment

stands – the smart ass award

• Link
• Report this comment

…oh, wait, Redcoat, I get it. Our side is supposed to unilaterally disarm and allow your side to create whatever kind of political funding mechanisms you can build under the law.

My apologies for this grievous error @ 3.17.

• Link
• Report this comment

Redcoat — “Joe Mama……do you think there is a problem or not? evidence?….”

*You* asserted that there *was* a problem, so I asked you for your evidence.

Please, by all means, proceed.

• Link
• Report this comment

stands for decibels ………….but what did he promise to do?

• Link
• Report this comment

Finn – you have conservatives mixed up with the latest round of WalMart shopper photos.

• Link
• Report this comment

stands

they don’t like the taste of their own medicine….surprise!

• Link
• Report this comment

but what did he promise to do?

Mostly? Fight like hell and win. And he did.

You can go on complaining about “he PROMISED to let us watch the PPACA Committee chair bathroom breaks live on TV, wahh, where is my TRANSPARENCY THAT I DID NOT VOTE FOR” if you like, but I’ll go on mocking it.

• Link
• Report this comment

In case you are curious the three judges rendering this decision were Hall>>BUSH; Barkett>>Clinton & Jordan>>Obama.

• Link
• Report this comment

oh Granny, you mean that, economic slavery. yes I do! when you have to give over 70% of earned income to the state, local, and federal gov’t, I’d say that is a form of economic slavery.

I also would call it economic slavery if you just earn a little of what the US considers poverty and you are not eligible to get any supplement from the federal gov’t. What I’m saying is that it’s easier to get a gov’t ebt card, a welfare card, and medicaid and subsidized housing than it is get out of that cycle of having to stay in that cycle of dependency. If the gov’t doesn’t allow you to exceed the income level to put you in a better place then you are an economic slave to the gov’t.

The system in place to “help” the poor is only a system designed to keep the poor in their current economic status, except to make it “easier for them” at that level. once they exceed earned income thresholds, they are dropped placing them no better than they were when they were getting max help from the gov’t. aka gov’t economic slaves!

• Link
• Report this comment

Just a thought here, since you libs believe in providing all those freebies to pretty much all that request them, and us conservatives do not. Why don’t you guys provide more taxpayer money to the govt than us cons. Of course you do it voluntarily, just think of it a new classification on our yearly federal tax form, Liberals or Conservatives. Wake up Tom, you are dreaming again.

• Link
• Report this comment

Aquagirl

February 26th, 2013
1:47 pm
Did you ever think our country would sink this low?

Oh, save your fake outrage Senior Digits. The guy who filed this suit is a Navy Vet attending college while raising his kid and taking care of his disabled mom. You want him peeing in a cup and picking up trash just so he knows his place.

Good thing LIBERALS are standing up for this man’s rights while you try to trample them.

Go to his house and demand a urine sample, I hope he complies and waters your shoes. You’d never do that though as long as you can hide behind the govenment’s skirts, they’ll do the bullying for you.
_________________________________________
You do know that Digits was talking about the school that sent the kid home for wearing a US Marines shirt, right?

Right?

• Link
• Report this comment

“deeply cherished stereotypes” : Jay, you are all about stereotypes, it’s what you and most of your syncophants do, it’s the only way you can think….just the way it is…It is difficult, in the words of Nisbett and Borgida,”Subjects’ unwillingness to deduce the particular form the general was matched only by their willingness to infer the general from the particular.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay@3:13. You have no problem with the “private commercial transaction”between Get Real and his employer, but where, pray tell, in out Constitution is the right to receive TANF? I’m afraid you are overextending the protections granted under the 4th Amendment to what is essentially nothing more than another private transaction. The 4th secures our rights to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, however out in WA and OR, the state gov’ts there are considering allowing police (i.e., agents of the state) to enter a private home to “inspect” that homes weapons. Talk about a violation of the 4th. But I stray. If you talk with anyone who works in retail, I’m sure they can tell stories about TANF recipients routinely showing up with iPhones, wearing the latest fashions (remember those $3-400 sneakers) and such, and just this morning the ajc ran a story about some merchant trading cash for these exact kind of benefits. The potential for abuse, and actual abuse, in this exact situation is there. Anyone who denies this is either blind or so biased that they wouldn’t admit it if a house fell on them. In reading the 11th Circuit’s opinion, and you pretty much hit it yourself, the problem here was FL did a poor job of producing evidence to support its claims. As with any other litigation, civil or criminal, lack of evidence/failure to produce is generally fatal to that side. I predict this issue will pop up again, and if properly supported, would pass constitutional muster. After all, although the gov’t provide TANF benies, such programs are neither a constitutional right nor a constitutional guarantee. Or maybe or SCOTUS will declare them a tax and dodge the issue (sorry, couldn’t resist). Comment on Bookie bloggers!

• Link
• Report this comment

Look before I leap…

February 26th, 2013
1:53 pm
” If you abuse drugs, you are likely abusing the system of welfare”

I think Rush Limbaugh might take issue with that statement.
_____________________________________
Obama to…

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay

February 26th, 2013
3:13 pm

Again, Jay, how do you and your following reconcile that with the fact that the feds are now requiring me to purchase h/c insurance?

• Link
• Report this comment

Such laws also keep the noise machine going – which I’d probably see if I scanned the above comments.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay: “Again, Get Real, what you and your employer agree upon in a private commercial transaction between the two of you is between the two of you.

But when government requires such a warrantless search of its citizens, it is a clear, blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. It’s odd how suddenly, on this issue, conservatives recognize no constitutional limit on what government can do.”

Liberal claptrap!

It’s an outrage that ANYONE has to take a drug test when there is not some legitimate material purpose for doing so and when there is no co-oversight exercised by the workers subject to it. Why draw a line at just the government being able to do it? Why do you allow for the right of private employers to intimidate and meddle in the privacy of their workers and potential workers?

• Link
• Report this comment

stands for decibels…..so who do you trust?

My family and close friends. With elected officials, I see what they manage to accomplish and rate them accordingly. Obama’s been an OK president on balance, compared to the previous 43, but I don’t have unrealistic expectations of what his Administration will manage to accomplish in the next four years.

• Link
• Report this comment

I can solve this drug/welfare issue in an instant. Make it mandatory to take drugs to be able to get welfare!

Then…legalize drugs and pass a law requiring piss tests to make sure you are taking your fair share….keeping the economy up and all that, don’t you know…

• Link
• Report this comment

Joe Hussein Mama

February 26th, 2013
3:30 pm

I’ll agree with one thing. I don’t have the time nor the inclination to follow you, but, you directed the challenge to me…just saying…

• Link
• Report this comment

alex

Oh, Big Daddy’s not real bad about stereotyping, but his sycophants, by which I suppose you mean the liberal lefties aboard? Whoo, whee…they got enough of their own dirty laundry there to outfit a klavern of the klan…

• Link
• Report this comment

Redcoat, I’ll add something else–I didn’t vote for Obama because I thought he’d be fabulously transparent, and never take money that was less than pristine. I don’t know anyone who did. I voted for him because he was a significant upgrade over the GOP offering.

That’s fairly easy to understand, even by those who didn’t vote for him, isn’t it?

• Link
• Report this comment

I stumbled on this column while looking for a news article about this court decision. Will not make that mistake again. Wow! What silly, repetitive guff.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s simply a classic case of “capitalism’s got’em all by the balls”.

My poor kid is getting a crash course in this, via a certain Steinbeck novel we’re reading at the moment.

• Link
• Report this comment