- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 28,659
- Reaction score
- 18,803
- Location
- Charleston, South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
It is flawed because it makes an asssumption, and constitutes an illegal and unconstitutional search of a person based on no evidence of a crime.
Most every reputable company I know has this drug test before they even employ you anymore, why Not welfare recipients, IF they have nothing to hide, I'm jus sayin
As far as I'm concerned, the state should have the "right" to refuse service to whomever it damn well pleases,
What about blacks and women? If the government doesn't want to offer blacks and women the service it provides by issuing drivers licenses (which is not a right), should it be allowed?
If they had probable cause (which they don't),
What probable cause do you have to state that someone who is on welfare is using it for drugs?
The glee with which some people will sacrifice their rights (privacy in this case) frightens me. The eagerness to deny them to others is even worse.
Potential waste of public funds, for one.
That's not probable cause. Much in the same way that black people being more likely to be involved in drive-bys is not probably cause to deny them a driver's license.
Sure it is. If the state can withhold unemployment benefits if one refuses to look for a job,
And I agree with this decision. There is no evidence to suggest that, because somebody is poor, he or she is automatically a drug addict, anymore than, if someone were a banker, he or she is automatically a crook. :mrgreen: But, seriously, the law was based on stereotyping, and I believe that SCOTUS will uphold the ruling.
Article is here.
Actually, there is evidence to suggest that lower-income people are more likely to do drugs.
And black people are more likely to be involved in drive-by shootings. Let's ban black people from driving and we'll solve the issue. Yes?
people should be subjected to drug tests if they want to receive welfare money because there is no such thing as a free lunch.
This guy begs to differ:
Well, welfare is an entitlement, charity... isn't. So I don't think that's a fair comparison.This guy begs to differ:
Charity and welfare: Two entirely different concepts.
Then again, he wasn't really doing it out of charity. He was doing what he thought humanity should do for itself. However, that's beside the point: The point is that your argument is ridiculous. You've done absolutely nothing to reap the benefits of dozens of everyday things which you take for granted and yet there you are having a free lunch at its expense. For example, you do not pay for Facebook, and yet its services are free of charge to everyone who signs up for it. Another example, you don't pay into funding the USPS, yet the cost of sending a letter is less than a dollar. You pay less than a dollar to use a service which costs millions to run. In essence, you're getting a free lunch.
Can someone tell me what rights are being violated when the tax-payer (the people providing assistance) are interested in what the recipient of said assistance is doing with the money?
If a friend said: "Hey, can I borrow $500?", would you just split with the cash without being the wiser of what the money was for?
Actually, there is evidence to suggest that lower-income people are more likely to do drugs.
However, that isn't even the point, so let's get it straight. It's not about who is more or less "likely" to do drugs. The issue is one of principle: there is no such thing as free money without any strings attached.
If you want other taxpayers to give you money, the least you can do for it is to prove that you're a good citizen by peeing in a cup.
Good, then bankers and congressmen can also prove that they are good citizens by peeing in a cup.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?