We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Random drug testing for government assistance?

Smallville

Smallville

#ICanHitADraw
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Messages
98,737
Reaction score
531
Location
Kansas City, Kansas
Handicap
In Flux
I believe they should do it as well.

Glad to hear that it's being considered there, hopefully it'll set a precedent for the rest of the nation.
 
Agree 100%
 
Totally agree. This should be state and federal government wide!
 
I also think it's a great idea & should be a federal requirement.
 
At the risk of sounding like the bleeding heart liberal I used to be--Mom tests positive. What happens to the kids? The state can't just swoop in and take them; there are long, protracted procedures for removing kids from their parents.

This is not saying don't do it. It's saying you have to think through the collateral consequences and make sure you have them dealt with as well. The unforeseen unintended consequences will be messy enough--take care of the foreseen ones.
 
CG congrats on:

500.jpg
 
I have no problem with testing those folks on goverment assistance. But it should not stop there. They should also be testing all goverment workers. That would include city, county, state, and federal workers. And since they are living off tax payers's dollars, all retired goverment workers should be tested. Everyone living on tax payers' money should be tested on a regular basis, and not randomly. If non tested relatives are affected, then they too can partake in their own goverment assistance policy. Anyone testing positive a second time after completing a rehab program can no longer recieve money in any form from tax payers. A simple scenario that would save millions of tax payer dollars, that the goverment could waste some where else. Yeah, I have a problem with how some :arrogant: goverment agencies waste money. :bicker:
 
totally disagree.5th amendment has been circumvented IMO
 
Last edited:
jefffann said:
totally disagree.5th amendment has been circumvented IMO
Click to expand...

That's interesting, I don't see how it applies here though
FIFTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'
Click to expand...

If they don't want to take the drug test they could just refuse to accept government assistance. If they really want the assistance they would have to stay clean, totally their choice.
 
I'm thinking the same thing MO, I don't see where it applies either.
 
In a way I agree, but Claire has a good point. I also feel that alcohol is far more dangerous than some recreational drugs.
 
LBlack14 said:
In a way I agree, but Claire has a good point. I also feel that alcohol is far more dangerous than some recreational drugs.
Click to expand...

While that maybe true, the major difference is the fact that "recreational drugs" are still illegal drugs. Whether or not they should be illegal is another debate.
 
I'm seriously in favor of this, but I'd also like to see it applied to every elected official.
 
The 5th amendment will not come into play but 4th amendment search and seizure law will. I am not in favor of testing government employees like Police officers and Firemen, I don't think they fall into the same category in this situation...not that I'm worried about that our associations always crush those type of regulations.
 
I'm not convinced that the 4th would come into play in this circumstance either, the participants in the government assistance would voluntarily submit to the drug test. If they weren't willing to be tested they would simply not request the assistance.
 
MO_Hacker said:
I'm not convinced that the 4th would come into play in this circumstance either, the participants in the government assistance would voluntarily submit to the drug test. If they weren't willing to be tested they would simply not request the assistance.
Click to expand...

It will trust me, I've been dealing with the search and seizure law long enough to know that it will come into play, if it comes into play with probation and perolee's who should technically have given up that right it will come into play here as well. It's a nice thought but it won't last.
 
Search and Seizure has not come into play in any labor agreements with unions when it comes to drug testing. Many issues can come into play. But search and seizure has not been one of them.

We need WSE here to weigh in on this.
 
JB said:
Search and Seizure has not come into play in any labor agreements with unions when it comes to drug testing. Many issues can come into play. But search and seizure has not been one of them.

We need WSE here to weigh in on this.
Click to expand...

I don't mean with the unions I mean obtaining test samples from the people on assistance. Our association agreed to drug testing but only if we were paid for it, the city refused so we didn't have to test.

I think testing government employees and those on government assistance are two completely different things and I find it almost insulting to compare a Police Officer to someone on welfare.
 
Yeah I'd be interested to hear WSE's take on this one.

AJ, you might be right on the S&S concerning parolees, I was basing my view on this
Acton, 1995 WL 373274, at *8. In Acton, the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a school district's practice of conducting random, suspicionless urine testing of school athletes for drug use. The Court rejected the proposition that the school district could conduct such testing only if school officials had suspicion that a specific athlete was using drugs, holding that this alternative 'entails substantial difficulties -- if it is indeed practicable at all.' Id. Accusatory drug testing would 'transform[] the process into a badge of shame' and would increase the risk that school officials would impose testing arbitrarily upon disfavored, but not drug-using, students. Id.
Click to expand...
If it was known by all applicants that they could be tested randomly, much like the student athletes.
 
ActionJackson8 said:
I don't mean with the unions I mean obtaining test samples from the people on assistance. Our association agreed to drug testing but only if we were paid for it, the city refused so we didn't have to test.

I think testing government employees and those on government assistance are two completely different things and I find it almost insulting to compare a Police Officer to someone on welfare.
Click to expand...

Nobody is comparing them, other than the way that our tax dollars pay both salaries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top