Welfare Drug Testing Ruled Unconstutional!

I'm with CC on this one. Drug tests are there for a reason. If you have a dangerous job, then you should be willing to fill a cup. That being said, if I can't smoke pot, then they shouldn't be able to get drunk. Figure out a way to test for weed by the day. When you're on the clock, it's their way or the high way. But, what I do on my off time is nobodies business but mine.

 

^^^^^ This. Saved me the trouble and saved you guys the wall of textI do agree with CC and Jugg though,there does have to be certain jobs where Drug Testing isnt a bad thing. Like Cops. Test them fuckers all day long. The guy who works the machine that prints out and mails me my Energy bills...drug test that fucker too. My kids school teacher,the taxi cab and bus drivers who ferry me around...they need to be piss tested. But more importantly i want them all breathalysed,i wanna know if they've been drinking that Government sponsored liquid poison all night and are at work under the influence. Too many times they test for drugs but dont breathalyse the worker. Its a charade. A trick the Govt uses to encourage people to spend their wages on legal toxification. To piss test people who need welfare though?The ultimate in humiliation and PERFECT to initiate the next phase of the process in where all our rights get gradually removed. No one should get piss tested unless they do a job where common sense dictates it. Res highlights a fair gripe?Why shouldnt the workers be pissed off? The Govt are banking on that pissed off-ness though. They need the middle classes to help dispose of the working and under classes. I dont think the old lady widow whose husband was a war hero and who is from the local church choir who volunteers at the local Cancer Hospice in some Florida town that has lived an honest hard working life while raising kids who are all serving soldiers or war veterns,should have to suffer the degradation and humiliation of being forced to see their previous lifetimes worth of taxdollars at work in the form of a program that makes her piss into a cup every week :sad4:.Ok thats a slight exaggeration but its that kind of honest decent person thats gonna get screwed by such programs as the one put forward .Granted such a program would get rid of a lot of crackhead welfare recipients or what have you. But at what price to the genuine folks out there in life? Are we suddenly at a point now where it ok to fuck the good guys up the ass on the daily just to weed out the bad guys? Its a murky area.When it comes to human rights i always find it best to adopt a "Be Careful What You Wish For Approach". Seriously:bongin:



/monthly_2014_01/mm.jpg.849cf999248cc2b9be599101be2311ab.jpg

/monthly_2014_01/mmm.jpg.95910f382be1fc9395622832b3637a92.jpg

 

The problem with piss tests is they largely catch only MJ use since it leaves the longest lingering metabolites. Use Coke on Friday? Monday you'll pee clean. Drink every night of the week and go to work with the fatigue that brings on, but you're good for a piss test though. Toke a joint once a week and odds are that you'll never pass a test.


It's my privacy in my person that's being traded away. We aren't supposed to be able to be forced to trade away our Civil Rights. The courts have allowed this because it's interpreted not as force since you don't have to work at any particular establishment. Until of course everyplace requires it....then yer screwed and the only place left is the gov system of entitlements or flipping burgers (maybe).


Test away if some cat seems impaired. That's part of a supervisor's job, to assess and evaluate the condition of their staff daily. But if they are at work on time, clean, apparently sober and ready to do the job then we need to leave them alone. Higher risk jobs that directly impact the safety of persons may need closer scrutiny or field sobriety tests to evaluate the need for some form of further sobriety testing.


It's the old good with the bad trade off. You want privacy in your person? You need to give up some level of imagined absolute safety.

 

I'm against only for one reason, it creates protected classes within the government tit. You wanna test, then test all. ALL politicians, ALL state/fed employees....


I personally agree that people should be tested to get on welfare, just don't think it;s legal because it creates a "protected class" ...but you can afford your drug of choice, then I don't need to supply you with food.


CC, I agree with your line of thinking. I don't test here unless I have a reason, but if you get hurt or hurt someone you better piss clean or else you're not getting workers comp and any kind of comp because people have the right to work and not get injured.


I have our policy written that even if you are taking legal drugs and you get hurt your ass is out the door. Oxy and vicodin are just as dangerous in the workplace, hell even heart medications are in my opinion. If you are taking anything, you better not get hurt here....because I will fight tooth and nail against you. That's just because I have seen it happen years ago, some guy hit another and crushed his foot with forklift. Nothing could be done because he was on vic from his doctor. When I assumed the reins, I changed that real quick.

 

I totally disagree...I don't know anyone that thinks it's morally wrong. Actually the opposite, most I know think it's morally right, but wrong legally.


Welfare is not an entitlement, it should never be considered one. No one has the right to live off others for life, we should have a strong social safety net, but at the same time people shouldn't feel entitled not to work and make others pay for their lifestyle. Thats just wrong

 

I think everyone is bitching about the military budget, but I don't see how that fits in to the current conversation.


If someone can afford their drug of choice, then why not have them pay for their own lifestyle? That's the question. Your throwing up strawman arguments.


No one is demonizing the poor, just stating the obvious. How can you have money for drugs but not for food? I guess you think it's ok to have children starve if mom gets her fix? Because drugs are more important than her child??


Like I said, I disagree with testing on legal grounds, but for the life of me I don't see how anyone can be against this morally. Because you are in fact saying that a child should starve so mom/dad whomever can get high.


Same as those who work and can't make ends meet, who do they get to turn to? Should they get something also, like a alcohol allowance from the Feds? Most people cut entertainment/fun shit when they need they need money, but I guess if you choose not to, you shouldn't be punished for that....lets reward people for making bad decisions.


So once again with the strawman instead of debating the actual topic......because noone should actually have to accountable for their actions

 

What would you call it when someone changes the position you have to make it seem like you have an absurd one.....in this case, thinking it's illegal to test welfare rec and changing that to fuck the poor, lets give more money to the military?? Would that fit your definition of straw man? Because I don't think one could come up with a better example if they searched the entire internet.


And yes, if you can't feed your kids then how do you have money for drugs??? Pretty much common sense on that one. Lets see, I can't clothe and feed my young, but I have money for drugs.....how is that demonizing anyone Hank??? Because anyone that fits that mold is a piece of shit. We have social safety nets to help make sure children don't go hungry, that doesnt mean it's ok for people to take the money meant to clothe, feed and shelter their child and spend it on drugs.....in what world is that ok?


And once again, what are you talking about drugie hysteria....I said test all or none. Plain and simple. Test everyone receiving Government dollars or none of them.

 

You quote me, then bring up a bloated military budget but you are likening my position to that? I guess I misread because thats what it looks like


And I was speaking on moral grounds, yes if someone can afford drugs they don't deserve welfare....because they have money to waste. That's the moral issue I was speaking of...I thought I made this clear when I said morally vs legally

How the hell did I avoid this question!?!?!?!


I said plain as day

I don't know how I could possibly be clearer on the issue. You cannot assume one group of people are on drugs and choose to test them because that creates a "protected class" (everyone else) that doesn't have to be tested to receive government dollars.


Really I don't understand how I can be more clear on that issue or how I avoided a question