News Should government benefits be conditionally granted?

[WhoWee]

Does the fact that an action is voluntary in and of itself negate the protection against searches?

IMO -it would be reasonable and very easy to make benefits conditional to abiding by the law - wouldn't it?

Perhaps we can break this discussion of Government benefits being conditional of abiding by the law into a new thread - as discussion has gone beyond the scope of the Romney thread?

OP continued from - https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3759836&postcount=465

 

[WhoWee]

Let's call this info IMO - but it shows a trend that should be acknowledged.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_chart_40.html

 

[Office_Shredder]

That welfare spending increased during a recession but is predicted to go down when the economy recovers?

 

[WhoWee]

That welfare spending increased during a recession but is predicted to go down when the economy recovers?

Hasn't our total workforce shrunk by 4-5% - what if welfare spending levels off as it has in the past - how does Government police the system?

 

[ThomasT]

IMO -it would be reasonable and very easy to make benefits conditional to abiding by the law - wouldn't it?

It already is for the most part. Isn't it? If you're referring to drug testing for potential recipients of temporary cash benefits, then it seems that the numbers from the Florida experiment have shown this to be an unimportant consideration.

We already have several unnecessary, imo, federal bureaucracies. One of which is the DEA.

 

[WhoWee]

It already is for the most part. Isn't it? If you're referring to drug testing for potential recipients of temporary cash benefits, then it seems that the numbers from the Florida experiment have shown this to be an unimportant consideration.

We already have several unnecessary, imo, federal bureaucracies. One of which is the DEA.

I think the DEA could be combined with ATF - they often work together and seem a good fit.

 

[ThomasT]

I think the DEA could be combined with ATF - they often work together and seem a good fit.

I'd like to see the DEA just abolished. (But of course this could only be done in conjunction with some other big changes/actions that aren't currently too popular.)

Back to your OP. What programs, specifically, are you proposing additional conditions for? And what might those additional conditions entail in terms of increased bureauocracy, increased or decreased government expenditures, etc.?

 

[WhoWee]

I'd like to see the DEA just abolished. (But of course this could only be done in conjunction with some other big changes/actions that aren't currently too popular.)

Back to your OP. What programs, specifically, are you proposing additional conditions for? And what might those additional conditions entail in terms of increased bureauocracy, increased or decreased government expenditures, etc.?

I think personal responsibility is important. If someone needs assistance from the Government with housing, medical, food, education, transportation, utilities, communications, and cash in their pocket - shouldn't they be expected not to break the law?

 

[ThomasT]

I think personal responsibility is important. If someone needs assistance from the Government with housing, medical, food, education, transportation, utilities, communications, and cash in their pocket - shouldn't they be expected not to break the law?

Yes, of course I agree with you. My question is: doesn't the government already require that welfare recipients be law-abiding citizens? And if you think that additional conditions should apply, then what conditions and wrt what aid programs?

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, of course I agree with you. My question is: doesn't the government already require that welfare recipients be law-abiding citizens? And if you think that additional conditions should apply, then what conditions and wrt what aid programs?

I don't know of any assistance programs that end because someone is arrested or tests positive for drugs (outside of the FL program) - do you?

Even when sentenced to jail - members of a household can still collect. We even have hiring incentives for ex-convicts.

 

[ThomasT]

I don't know of any assistance programs that end because someone is arrested or tests positive for drugs (outside of the FL program) - do you?

Even when sentenced to jail - members of a household can still collect. We even have hiring incentives for ex-convicts.

I'm not sure what the rules are. You started the thread.

My current opinion is that it's not an important consideration. Like foreign aid, it's negligible wrt the national budget. So what if a small percentage of cash welfare recipients spend that money on drugs?

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not sure what the rules are. You started the thread.

My current opinion is that it's not an important consideration. Like foreign aid, it's negligible wrt the national budget. So what if a small percentage of cash welfare recipients spend that money on drugs?

Let's label this IMO. I don't know if anyone else has experience in this area? I've personally loaned money to people promising they'll buy food for their families - then spent it on drugs or gambling. Some people are beyond help until they hit rock bottom. Unfortunately, the welfare system prevents that from happening - instead, it allows them to continue.

Another problem with welfare is idle time. Productive people have less time to get into trouble. Perhaps another element should be some type of a mandatory job training program in exchange for the benefits?

 

[Jack21222]

I don't know of any assistance programs that end because someone is arrested or tests positive for drugs (outside of the FL program) - do you?

Even when sentenced to jail - members of a household can still collect. We even have hiring incentives for ex-convicts.

Most assistance programs I'm aware of are directed towards children. I don't think I can advocate taking money away from children based on their parents misdeeds.

 

[SixNein]

IMO -it would be reasonable and very easy to make benefits conditional to abiding by the law - wouldn't it?

Perhaps we can break this discussion of Government benefits being conditional of abiding by the law into a new thread - as discussion has gone beyond the scope of the Romney thread?

OP continued from - https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3759836&postcount=465

Aren't they already required to abide by the law? At any rate, would corporations also be subject to this requirement?

 

[SixNein]

Most assistance programs I'm aware of are directed towards children. I don't think I can advocate taking money away from children based on their parents misdeeds.

Well, single mothers with children make up a great deal of our welfare assistance programs. Personally, I think it would be better to find ways to elevate those people instead of trying to increase the bureaucracy that they have to go through.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This twists my words into an amazing contortion. I asked whether the fact that an action was voluntary could be considered the sole reason to negate a person's protection against searches by the government and somehow my question has been married to the question in the title of this thread.

As for this thread, are we talking about all government benefits, or just welfare? Are we talking about enforcing all laws, or just drug laws? Are we talking about searches with a warrant or without? If you deny someone welfare benefits because they had a poppy seed bagel in the morning before a random drug test, you could save thousands of dollars. But if you did a thorough examination of the financial records of the executives who get bailouts and found out that they forgot to report a poppy seed bagel in their tax return you could save trillions. Which do you propose?

 

[BobG]

Another problem with welfare is idle time. Productive people have less time to get into trouble. Perhaps another element should be some type of a mandatory job training program in exchange for the benefits?

I agree 100%! I would support a bill like that and would even call it the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 .

For the actual law (instead of a summary): http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/law-reg/law_index.html

 

[russ_watters]

Jimmy: a prospective employer requires you to take a drug test before hiring you: voluntary or invasion of privacy?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jimmy: a prospective employer requires you to take a drug test before hiring you: voluntary or invasion of privacy?

That's the other thread. This thread is different. However, a private company is different from the govt. You made that distinction yourself in that other thread.

 

[WhoWee]

This twists my words into an amazing contortion. I asked whether the fact that an action was voluntary could be considered the sole reason to negate a person's protection against searches by the government and somehow my question has been married to the question in the title of this thread.

As for this thread, are we talking about all government benefits, or just welfare? Are we talking about enforcing all laws, or just drug laws? Are we talking about searches with a warrant or without? If you deny someone welfare benefits because they had a poppy seed bagel in the morning before a random drug test, you could save thousands of dollars. But if you did a thorough examination of the financial records of the executives who get bailouts and found out that they forgot to report a poppy seed bagel in their tax return you could save trillions. Which do you propose?

I don't think we're talking about second hand smoke or a random poppy seed - and 3 strikes is probably the end compromise in the real world.

 

[SixNein]

That's the other thread. This thread is different. However, a private company is different from the govt. You made that distinction yourself in that other thread.

I think there is also a bias here since he is targeting a very specific group.

I don't hear him moaning about how CEO's got bailouts; therefore, they should piss in a cup.

 

[Galteeth]

I think so much of this depends on the circumstances. There are some pretty broad things being discussed here.
I think part of the issue has to do with the reason for the government assistance. Is it because someone is out of work? Or is it more of a disability thing? I think there should be different standards based on the circumstances.
Also, when you say law-abiding, what do you really mean? There's hardly anyone who is completely law abiding (and this is due to the insane number of laws.)
This has probably been mentioned, by the florida testing program actually lost money for the state.
I also think it's relevant what drugs they're testing for and how the test is done. Specifically, as many of you know, marijuana can remain in your system for months after you've smoked. Now someone who is applying for welfare benefits, just because they may have smoked marijuana in the past three months I don't think is a good reason to disqualify them.

EDIT: And of course in my perfect world, i wouldn't have government benefits at all, but considering the total budgetary impact of welfare, it's not high on my list of priorities. I mean I recognize there are negative consequences to the system, but I think there's a lot of bad stuff to get rid of first.

 

[WhoWee]

I think there is also a bias here since he is targeting a very specific group.

I don't hear him moaning about how CEO's got bailouts; therefore, they should piss in a cup.

Did CEO's get bailouts - personally - can you name them please? Perhaps you'd like all of the shareholders of the public companies and their union employees to "P" in a cup?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Why the employees? That's like drug testing the guy at seven eleven because someone spent welfare money there. But all the share holders? Still no, the minority holders didn't actually get a say in the bailout, so it doesn't apply. But the people who asked the government for money and received it are certainly valid targets under your proposed scenario

 

[daveb]

I don't know of any assistance programs that end because someone is arrested or tests positive for drugs (outside of the FL program) - do you?

Yes - federal subsidized and unsubsidized loans for college. You can't get any (well at least you couldn't several years ago when I was in college and needed the loans) if you've been convicted of drug possession.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO - if a system doesn't have checks and balances - that is accountability - it will be abused more than if the controls were in place.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Did CEO's get bailouts - personally - can you name them please? Perhaps you'd like all of the shareholders of the public companies and their union employees to "P" in a cup?

No. If the company gets govt. money, then let's see the books. I don't want tax cheating companies to get the money.

 

[WhoWee]

No. If the company gets govt. money, then let's see the books. I don't want tax cheating companies to get the money.

I don't want any corporate welfare.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't want any corporate welfare.

And your first line of attack is social welfare? I'm not talking about corporate welfare. The govt also signs contracts with these companies. I want to know that there is no child porn on company computers. I want a thorough investigation to see that all laws are being obeyed and I don't want to be troubled getting a warrant.

 

[WhoWee]

And your first line of attack is social welfare? I'm not talking about corporate welfare. The govt also signs contracts with these companies. I want to know that there is no child porn on company computers. I want a thorough investigation to see that all laws are being obeyed and I don't want to be troubled getting a warrant.

Are we certain there's no child porn on Government computers - would a federal (union) employee lose their job and/or pension over child porn? I'm for accountability at EVERY level!

 

[MarcoD]

Are we certain there's no child porn on Government computers - would a federal (union) employee lose their job and/or pension over child porn? I'm for accountability at EVERY level!

Hmm. I am pretty liberal, but I think it is pretty normal people can lose their job watching (normal) porn at work.

 

[WhoWee]

Hmm. I am pretty liberal, but I think it is pretty normal people can lose their job watching (normal) porn at work.

Are we certain the federal employees lost their jobs last year when caught - what was effect on their pensions or benefits - maybe they owe compensation for the time they were paid to watch porn - does anyone know?

Here's a case we can follow.
http://www.ajc.com/news/federal-worker-held-on-1200439.html

Here's the one I remember.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/04/eye_opener_porn_and_federal_wo.html

"Several of employees held senior positions, earning between $99,300 and $222,418 per year, the inspector general's summary said. Three of the incidents occurred this year, ten in 2009, 16 in 2008, two in 2007 and one each in 2006 and 2005.

In one instance, a regional office staff account admitted viewing pornography on his office computer and on his SEC-issued laptop while on official government travel. Another staff account received nearly 1,800 access denials for pornography Web sites in a two-week period and had more than 600 images saved on her laptop’s hard drive, the report said.

A senior attorney at SEC headquarters in Washington admitted he sometimes spent as much as eight hours viewing pornography from his office computer, according to the report. The attorney’s computer ran out of space for the downloaded images, so he started storing them on CDs and DVDs that he stored in his office. "

A quick follow up story.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Porn-Watching-Workers-Punished-117729298.html
"Federal employees in Chicago and six other cities are being reprimanded for watching porn on the job."

 

[MarcoD]

Yeah well. It's all a bit silly too somehow. I know lots of people, mostly young, who had sex on their work, often just for fun or for imagined kicks. And now people are contemplating what to do with men who masturbated at work. Normally, I guess one could just call that healthy behavior.

Watching porn for eight hours when you should be working is a bit over the top -the guy is ill,- and porn at work does offend women often, so I am not against banning it.

(I used to teach at an IT college. Then porn is a problem. But it would be a bigger problem if it wouldn't be a problem. Of course, nearly all the male students watch porn, what else?)

Uhm, before everybody thinks we're all depraved individuals in the Netherlands, it usually boils down to incidents. An indecent wallpaper or some students finding something 'hilarious' on the Internet and watching 'that' in the cantina to the dismay of others. Students...

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah well. It's all a bit silly too somehow. I know lots of people, mostly young, who had sex on their work, often just for fun or for imagined kicks. And now people are contemplating what to do with men who masturbated at work. Normally, I guess one could just call that healthy behavior.

Watching porn for eight hours when you should be working is a bit over the top -the guy is ill,- and porn at work does offend women often, so I am not against banning it.

Some of these fellows worked at the Securities and Exchage Commission - the Wall St watchdog agency.

 

[MarcoD]

Some of these fellows worked at the Securities and Exchage Commission - the Wall St watchdog agency.

Yeah well, we're all dumb, drunk, and horny. (Okay, occasionally.) I don't get upset about sex.

The SEC, huh? Guess they had it coming.

 

[BobG]

There's two issues.

1) Is requiring drug tests an unreasonable search on innocent people? The number of guilty people (in this case, people poor because of their own poor life decisions) denied benefits is part of the equation on reasonableness. Or in other words, the benefits can justify some invasion of privacy (the US Supreme Court upholding random sobriety checks, for example).

Given some of the downside of drugs (especially a few highly addictive drugs such as meth, crack cocaine, heroin that are almost impossible to use in moderation), you'd expect more drug users to wind up needing financial assistance and the statistics do bear that out to a certain extent according to the http://www.samhsa.gov/data/nhsda/1997main/nhsda1997mfWeb-119.htm#Table13.1. (If broken out, marijuana use shows almost no difference in use between incomes.)

A. Any Illicit Drug Use in the Past Year

Age Group      12-17 18-25 26-34 35+  Total
Do receive     20.4  21.4  16.9  15.5 18.0  
Do not receive 18.6  25.7  14.1  5.8  10.9

So, requiring drug testing would theoretically cut welfare rolls quite drastically if the behavior of welfare recipients didn't change. That's probably unrealistic, though. The more likely result is that almost all welfare recipients would stop using illegal drugs. The only savings would come from those too addicted to change their behavior.

The majority of welfare recipients would be imposed on for no reason at all. The monetary benefit would be small. A small percentage of welfare recipients would make healthier life choices (which is almost always a good thing).

2) Is it fair to require a person to give up some freedoms in order to receive benefits from other taxpayers? This is equivalent to requiring a person to earn their rights by proving they're able to be independent adults.

Theoretically, the monetary impact should be positive. Earning the right to be a full citizen protected by the Constitution would increase the motivation of welfare recipients to support themselves and get off welfare. But that benefit relies on the assumption that welfare recipients are on welfare because they're lazy and would rather get money for nothing.

I don't think the idea would provide more motivation than the current federal program which limits the duration of welfare benefits (granted, those limitations tend to be diluted at least a little by the states and even federal regulations provide some exceptions to the limit on how long a person can receive benefits).

I also think setting some requirement for earning the right to Constitutional protection would run afoul of the Constitution.

Welfare benefits aren't the only benefit received by low income people. Earned income credit is part of the modern version of welfare benefits and that has no limits except the probability of a working person to eventually push their income above the poverty level. If the requirement for drug testing is going to expand to all that receive earned income credit, then I think there's going to be some drastic problems that go beyond just violating the rights of a few individuals. If we consider special tax deductions (child care credit, educational expenses, extra exemptions for each child, etc) and all the other things that result in nearly half the population paying no net income tax, then I think the problems of that proposal rise to the point where an entire political party could be driven out of existence.

I think the intent is clearly to limit drug testing to a group small enough that there will be almost no impact at all other than rhetorical.

 

[WhoWee]

Is the use of crack, crank and heroin a freedom that must be protected - or should we ask more from the people we choose to help?

 

[BobG]

Is the use of crack, crank and heroin a freedom that must be protected - or should we ask more from the people we choose to help?

Actually, I'd be in favor of a felony conviction making a person ineligible for government benefits for some period of time (maybe not for life, since there's the assumption that a person should be able to serve their time and then return to society as a productive member, even if the assumption seems to fail in many instances, but for some reasonable amount of time).

I think drug testing for people that haven't been convicted or even charged with any crime is overkill. And, for any preventative law (such as random roadside sobriety checks), I think you have to make darn sure the law isn't harrassing more innocent law abiding citizens than the few guilty parties you're catching.

 

[WhoWee]

Actually, I'd be in favor of a felony conviction making a person ineligible for government benefits for some period of time (maybe not for life, since there's the assumption that a person should be able to serve their time and then return to society as a productive member, even if the assumption seems to fail in many instances, but for some reasonable amount of time).

I think drug testing for people that haven't been convicted or even charged with any crime is overkill. And, for any preventative law (such as random roadside sobriety checks), I think you have to make darn sure the law isn't harrassing more innocent law abiding citizens than the few guilty parties you're catching.

I think the threat of random checks might be enough of a wake up call for a small percentage of people - my guess is the same percentage wouldn't care if the death penalty was the consequence of their actions (NOT suggesting the death penalty).

In the real world - hard drugs destroy lives of the addict and anyone that depends on them. IMO - Government programs can be enablers. If we REALLY want to help people let's tackle the problems in a way we can have an impact.

 

[BobG]

I think the threat of random checks might be enough of a wake up call for a small percentage of people - my guess is the same percentage wouldn't care if the death penalty was the consequence of their actions (NOT suggesting the death penalty).

In the real world - hard drugs destroy lives of the addict and anyone that depends on them. IMO - Government programs can be enablers. If we REALLY want to help people let's tackle the problems in a way we can have an impact.

This is the same justification for random roadside sobriety checks. The check points catch almost no one, but alcohol related traffic fatalities drop significantly on those weekends provided the check points receive enough publicity ahead of time on the local news.

But the other half of that equation is the limitations put on the officers conducting the check points. They can't do more than just ask you if you've been drinking or perhaps some other benign questions. The stops do no more than provide an opportunity for probable cause (the driver's breath reeks of alcohol, the driver can't put together a coherent sentence, etc.) The only drivers that actually receive a sobriety test are the drivers that gave the officers a probable cause just by uttering a few sentences. The key is that the "search" has to be reasonable even given the fact that most drivers stopped won't be drunk and may not have even drunk any alcohol at all. (Personally, I don't think random sobriety check points meet that standard, even with the limitations, but the US Supreme Court would disagree with me.)

A drug test requires a lot more. The person is going to have to report to some valid testing center, taking up an hour or more. For that type of inconvenience, it's going to be hard to meet the standard of a reasonable "search" when 80% or more of the people you're harrassing will be innocent.

 

[edward]

The drug test plan didn't work out as expected in Florida.

Gov. Rick Scott’s crusade to drug-test cash welfare applicants is turning out to be another thick-headed scheme that’s backfiring on Florida taxpayers.

The biggest beneficiaries are the testing companies that collect $10 to $25 for urine, blood or hair screening, a fee being paid by the state (you and me) whenever the applicant tests clean — currently about 97 percent of the cases.

The law, which easily passed the Legislature this year, was based on the misinformed and condescending premise that welfare recipients are more prone to use illegal drugs than people who are fortunate enough to have jobs.

Statistically, the opposite is true, despite the claims of Scott and Republican legislators who cheered this unnecessary and intrusive law.

The Department of Children and Families reports that since July, when the drug-testing program started, only 2.5 percent of welfare applicants have failed.

By contrast, about 8.9 percent of the general population illegally uses some kind of drug, according to the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/30/v-print/125268/commentary-drug-testing-welfare.html

I have mixed feelings on this one. I can't see withholding benefits for an entire family because one adult failed the drug test.

On the other hand we shouldn't have to support druggies.

It is kind of ironic that most employers now require drug testing for new hires.

 

[WhoWee]

It is kind of ironic that most employers now require drug testing for new hires.

That is a very good point edward - if you're unemployed and using illegal drugs - how are you going to pass a drug test?

 

[SixNein]

That is a very good point edward - if you're unemployed and using illegal drugs - how are you going to pass a drug test?

There are a lot of jobs that don't require drugs tests. Construction would be one example...

 

[WhoWee]

There are a lot of jobs that don't require drugs tests. Construction would be one example...

Depends upon the employer - also in the event of an accident - OSHA might disagree?

 

[Jasongreat]

I think drug testing for people that haven't been convicted or even charged with any crime is overkill. And, for any preventative law (such as random roadside sobriety checks), I think you have to make darn sure the law isn't harrassing more innocent law abiding citizens than the few guilty parties you're catching.

BobG, you said in your earlier post: 1) Is requiring drug tests an unreasonable search on innocent people? The number of guilty people (in this case, people poor because of their own poor life decisions) denied benefits is part of the equation on reasonableness. Or in other words, the benefits can justify some invasion of privacy (the US Supreme Court upholding random sobriety checks, for example).

You have made the most reasoned arguments yet in this thread, if we look at the sobriety checkpoints isssue, we will find that in the precedent setting case allowing sobriety checkpoints, that the majority opinion stated that those checkpoints were unconstitutional, but that they felt the founders and the majority would agree that they were needed( after I was stopped in one, was when my reading of the founders and american history as well as USC court cases began), I disagree on both counts( the founders did not make laws anywhere close to this invasion, and if the majority of the public agree, an ammendment would be not a hard thing to get, making it constitutional), but even then they put conditions, IIRC, it is a five point plan. They have to warn the public, they have to have an administrative order in place the public can see, it has to be put in a place that would have a higher percentage of risky people than non risky, they have to be held at times that will produce a higher number of convictions than free citizens, And most of all it has to be convenient, meaning they can't close down a freeway with thousands of people being inconvenienced for a few arrests.

Even with all these conditions, far more people are stopped, without probable cause, than are arrested for crimes. Just this last holiday season in Utah they had a checkpoint, 1000's stopped, 0 arrests. It doesn't seem to me a valid inconvenience.

To WhoWee: We know how you feel with the fourth and fifth ammendments, how about the rest. Should we take the right to free speech? The right to own guns? the right to a jury trial and due process? Or is it just the rights where you see as producing a drug and alcohol free society?

 

[SixNein]

Depends upon the employer - also in the event of an accident - OSHA might disagree?

Does OSHA even review construction? Maybe the largest jobs. There is also a lot of handy man stuff people can do.

 

[Jasongreat]

As far as the employer drug testing, isn't it convenient that the US government cant, constitutionaly, restrict personal choices, but then congress puts in place OSHA and MSHA among others, which mandate drug testing? I believe this is one of the biggest problems in the US. Congress knows they have no authority, so they put in place a regulatory agency, which goes out and does things congress would never have the guts to say aloud and which the american people would never allow. We can look at what the EPA, the DEA, the DOE, what ever agency does and one would have a hard time justifying their actions against the constitution if they were making law, as long as they are making regulations who cares? I would say I do, don't you?

Drug testing like a whiz quiz, does not test if one is high, it tests if one has used. If workplace safety is the issue, wouldn't they want to know if one was high? All it does is reduce the liability of insurance companies and corporate interests. He has used therefore he was at fault, therefore we don't have to pay anything. If one was serious about reducing workplace injuries, would the users at work be the ones you want to single out, or the ones that have used in the last week, or two weeks, or more? The down side I see is that those who smoke MJ are liable for a month or more, those who do tweek, coke, heroin, and about every other drug including prescriptions, except for valium which reacts similar to weed as in fat soluable and long lasting metabolites, are liable for less than one week, would you rather have someone smoking weed working with you or someone using alchohol or heroin or meth or cocaine? As someone who has used most all of it at one point or other in my life, and has worked with those using, most all of it, for most of my life, it is not those that use that worries me, it is those that are using while they are working which does. Let's pass mandatory blood tests, let's see how far that gets when you feel you have the right to stick a needle in everyones arm, it would never happen, that's why wiz quizzes are the way today. They reduce liabiility of the monied interests, while being unintrusive enough to allow them to go forth. At least that is the way the empirical evidence I have seen, leads me to believe.

 

[WhoWee]

BobG, you said in your earlier post: 1) Is requiring drug tests an unreasonable search on innocent people? The number of guilty people (in this case, people poor because of their own poor life decisions) denied benefits is part of the equation on reasonableness. Or in other words, the benefits can justify some invasion of privacy (the US Supreme Court upholding random sobriety checks, for example).

You have made the most reasoned arguments yet in this thread, if we look at the sobriety checkpoints isssue, we will find that in the precedent setting case allowing sobriety checkpoints, that the majority opinion stated that those checkpoints were unconstitutional, but that they felt the founders and the majority would agree that they were needed( after I was stopped in one, was when my reading of the founders and american history as well as USC court cases began), I disagree on both counts( the founders did not make laws anywhere close to this invasion, and if the majority of the public agree, an ammendment would be not a hard thing to get, making it constitutional), but even then they put conditions, IIRC, it is a five point plan. They have to warn the public, they have to have an administrative order in place the public can see, it has to be put in a place that would have a higher percentage of risky people than non risky, they have to be held at times that will produce a higher number of convictions than free citizens, And most of all it has to be convenient, meaning they can't close down a freeway with thousands of people being inconvenienced for a few arrests.

Even with all these conditions, far more people are stopped, without probable cause, than are arrested for crimes. Just this last holiday season in Utah they had a checkpoint, 1000's stopped, 0 arrests. It doesn't seem to me a valid inconvenience.

To WhoWee: We know how you feel with the fourth and fifth ammendments, how about the rest. Should we take the right to free speech? The right to own guns? the right to a jury trial and due process? Or is it just the rights where you see as producing a drug and alcohol free society?

In the context of this thread - what is wrong with a social contract whereby if you need our help - you agree to not break the law?

 

[Jasongreat]

In the context of this thread - what is wrong with a social contract whereby if you need our help - you agree to not break the law?

You are making the assumption that the drug laws are lawful. Which, IMO, takes quite a strech of the imagination if one reads the constitution. Unless one reads into it that document what they want to see, and not that which is seen. Why is it that those at the first of the century thought inorder to ban something an ammendment was needed? And then why was that ammendmend overturned? Why has government never again tried to ammend the constitution to ban things, but decides only to get a USC decision agreeing with them, means it is law? Last I heard legislation(laws) was the job of congress, not the USC.

And you still didnt answer, How about the rest of the bill of rights? How far are you willing to go with this disenfranchisement of rights?

 

[Jasongreat]

That is a very good point edward - if you're unemployed and using illegal drugs - how are you going to pass a drug test?

This assumes, drug tests are unbeatable. Let me tell you I know plenty of people who's mission in life it is to pass piss tests, and they have made a living doing it. On the other side, as I have said before, todays drug tests test to see if one has used, not if they are using.