It's about time!!!!

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by TrapLine

I did not feel violated, which was unfortunate considering the attractive test administrator.

How rude of her to not at least offer to hold the cup.

Congrats on the new position !

[grog18b]

Edited... Nevermind, not worth it.

[Sigaba]

Will the call for drug testing expand to include all recipients of entitlements?

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Will the call for drug testing expand to include all recipients of entitlements?

IMHO, who really knows - your crystal ball is as good as mine.

Will the teeth gnashing about testing welfare recipients ever end?

In the meantime, many folks have pissed, will piss and are pissed - that I do know.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by tonyz

IMHO, who really knows - your crystal ball is as good as mine.

In which case, you're in trouble. In 1997, I augured that Tim Duncan would be the next Elden Campbell. In 2000, I predicted that pork rinds would replace croutons. In 2006, I predicted that Love Monkey would be the next great television show. (Notice the lack of pink.)

Originally Posted by tonyz

Will the teeth gnashing about testing welfare recipients ever end?

Like you, I don't know. But I think it--the gnashing--should either stop or undergo a drastic change of tone.

[Sten]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Will the call for drug testing expand to include all recipients of entitlements?

I for one would love to see the lords of wall street have to do "observed" drops once a month.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

In which case, you're in trouble. In 1997, I augured that Tim Duncan would be the next Elden Campbell. In 2000, I predicted that pork rinds would replace croutons. In 2006, I predicted that Love Monkey would be the next great television show. (Notice the lack of pink.)

Agreed - given your recent admissions above - your crystal ball may not be all that good (notice no pink here either).

While it is true that some courts may have opined on the matter of drug testing welfare recipients - the Supreme Court has yet to respond.

Until that time, there is time for reasonable folks to differ on the issue.

Hell some folks want to see Charlie Sheen test monthly - but those tests may be paternity, sanity, etc., still others just may want to watch.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by tonyz

In order to drive my truck on public roads - my consent to testing for DUI is an express condition of my getting a driver's license. I just looked at my license and it states: “operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law.”

And on the pink slip passed out by employers where exactly does it state: “applying for unemployment benifits to which you are entitled constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law.” BTW you are subject to sobriety testing to protect the public from you when you chose to get drunk without regard for your fellow citizens.

Originally Posted by tonyz

Because applying for and receiving welfare assistance is not mandatory, drug screening should simply be viewed as a reasonable condition of assistance, similar to the strings attached to obtaining a driver’s license – or like many - who are “forced” to agree to a drug test in exchange for a paycheck, job, grant, etc.

It is unreasonable because there is no reason to believe one is a criminal simply because they are unemployed or availing themselves of public assistance. Try not feeding your kids because you're too proud to accept public assistance which is not mandatory and see how long your starving (but proud) children stay out of the foster care system.

Originally Posted by tonyz

Moreover, a drug screening policy for welfare recipients should not be considered punitive. Rather, it should be considered benevolent - for if you truly care about the poor - you'll be concerned enough to assist them with their unhealthy dependence on illegal drugs. If, according to ACLU information, approximately X% of the welfare population is using illegal drugs then we can help that X%.

Any violation of anyone's fourth ammendment rights, any violation of due process is punitive.
That is a level of benevolence remminds me of the parabale (recently posted) of the collared dog and the hungry wolf. I'll go withthe wolf.

If MADD became MAWROD – mothers against welfare recipients on drugs - this concept would be considered a no-brainer.
But, what would an all caring - ACLU, NPR, Michael Moore, the Urban League and Ezra Klein do?[/QUOTE] When we have WAWROD we will have sunk to a new low.
You want to piss me? Fine, bbut you better have probably cause or the ACLU will sue your ass.

[tonyz]

Entire post #54

We do know that it is currently an open legal issue as to whether a test for illegal drug usage in exchange for welfare benefits is unreasonable or not.

Generally speaking, in order to be a violation of the 4th Amendment - a search must, in fact, be unreasonable.

We do know that drug tests can currently be required as a condition for some employment. That is, drug testing is currently considered reasonable under the law.

We do know that one need not be a criminal nor must there be that magic "probable cause" in order to be tested and considered for a job. But, yes, one must consent to the test in order to be considered for the job.

It does not seem to me that it is a giant leap in logic - to suggest that such tests might then be requested in exchange for public assistance.

I didn't like testing - but I did it in exchange for a job - pride aside.

If I have to drug test for a job - might it be considered a reasonable condition that a welfare recipient be asked to test for illegal drug usage in exchange for (our taxpayer) money.

Moreover, a drug addled parent (and those poor children) might benefit from someone caring enough to test. Treatment for a drug addicted parent is not always punitive. The fact is, the same example you use i.e., of the parent too proud to test and not feeding their kids - can be reversed and suggested that one might be too drug addled to feed their kids, too - both hyperbole - for purposes of this discussion.

And, if (in your example) a parent is not feeding a kid b/c they're too proud to test then they (parent and children) have more problems than pride. You can't eat pride - many would say - hey addict it ain't all about you. You are making my case for drug testing.

Bottom line, I don't want you to piss - I don't want to piss - I don't want anyone to piss - but given the world we live in - I do not think that it is an unreasonable request for welfare recipients to be tested for illegal drug use and such addicts should be provided treatment. In fact, I have argued that it (testing and treatment) may reduce long term costs and improve life for those addicts who seek treatment (and their children).

Reasonable people can differ - this is an important debate.

[Dozer523]

Any requirement to test for illegal substances or activities without a warrant thata will deny one something to which they are entitled to by law is unreasonable. I didn't say the parent was to proud to be tested for drugs I said they were to proud to apply for assistance. Oh that's different.

I cannot help but notice that many of the specific references to the drug using non-producing welfare cheats seem to reference citizens of minority. And that is a tad shameful.

I challenge you to substitute gun ownership for UE or PA and see what happens to your power of speech.

Anyway, good luck getting the law changed and getting it past SCOTUS.
I'm now gonna do my Forrest Gump impression, "An that's all I'm gonna say abut that."

[The Reaper]

If mandatory urinalysis is unconstitutional, then someone better tell the US military, because they have been testing employees and punishing them based on the results for 30 years without being successfully enjoined against doing so.

TR

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

Does the cost to the taxpayers of having to do all this drug testing bother anyone?

Hmm.

Does the cost of paying for thousands of people, some from generation to generation, on welfare bother anyone?

[Richard]

As a MAJ (read laptop PPT toter and keypad pounder) on the Civil-Mil Ops staff of the TrashCom for 2 years, I averaged 8 (must've been a 'lucky' 'random' SSAN) unannounced UAs per year - passed 'em all except for one after I'd been eating some of those AAFES poppy seed muffins for awhile - it felt a bit awkward going about business as usual pending the results of a more finite testing with gas chromatography mass spectroscopy at Landstuhl to make sure I wasn't doing opiates - don't know what that cost the govt but if they'd ever tested for caffeine, I'd have been toast.

I can only imagine the time, bureaucracy, and costs (equipment, staff, paperwork, facilities, legal assistance, etc) of running such a program x some big number and - based on the studies at post #23 - have to wonder at its cost-benefit ratio.

DOD FY 2011 Requested funding for their programs - $140.0 million (which is a reduction in the 2010 budget)

And so it goes...

Richard

[Dusty]

"I'll piss in 9 jars if that's what them shoe clerks wanna do this mornin', but PT's gonna get extended. I'll guarantee you that."

SGM Billy Lee, 1/7 SFG(A), upon learning of a BN urinalysis.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Dusty

"I'll piss in 9 jars if that's what them shoe clerks wanna do this mornin', but PT's gonna get extended. I'll guarantee you that."

SGM Billy Lee, 1/7 SFG(A), upon learning of a BN urinalysis.

C-1/7th SFG.

Richard