By: Whatsamattausa
Americans on welfare should not be spending taxpayer money
for drugs!
Alas, a statement I think we can all agree upon. It sure
sounds like, on the surface, a sensible law and one benefitting ALL of the
citizens of the United States.
But is it? Who does this law benefit?
Many states (http://news.yahoo.com/36-states-mulling-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-213452929.html),
most notably Florida, either have laws on the
books or are considering laws to implement such an approach to welfare – just
to be clear, it appears as though Florida
is the only state with this law being actively implemented, until the courts
shut it down that is. This is a hot topic and one that is the poster child for
laws that sound good but are actually horrendous miscalculations based on
stereotype. Let me start by recognizing this as another ‘don’t hate the player,
hate the game’ situation. I believe in the welfare system (a point on which I
am likely a minority) but believe it is, as many government handouts are, being
abused and corrupted. I believe it needs to be reformed. However, that is not
the discussion here. What we are discussing is the war on welfare recipients
because they, not the system, have been stereotyped into being lazy, drug
addicted criminals. Most people either don’t care to separate the two or don’t
understand the difference between the two. I will not try to explain the
difference other than to say that you can’t hate the Giants for the call in the
past weekends game against the 49ers that nullified what appeared to be a
fumble. You can hate the rules but not the team or the player… The same applies
as it relates to welfare.
First, I’ll start with the constitutionality of the idea
though I won’t dwell on it. It is unconstitutional! It was, in my opinion, when
Michigan passed the law in 1999 (and it
continues, as a matter of fact, to be today – which begs the question of why
would Florida
even try this? --- (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/282/michiganruling.shtml).
The law in Florida
has been put on hold while the courts review the matter (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/25/judge-blocks-floridas-new-welfare-drug-testing-law/).
Though somewhat unrelated to the discussion here, I think that Florida Gov.
Rick Scott’s apparent conflict of interest in this regard is alarming - http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume the law isn’t
unconstitutional… Is the program cost prohibitive? To administer such a program
would require additional government employees and oversight. The cost of
litigation (be it for false positives or to fight for the constitutionality of
the law or whatever else) must be significant. It is difficult to tell what the
costs are as I was unable to find an ‘apples to apples’ comparison between the
states that have the program or are considering it (in which case it would be
estimated costs – obviously). However, common sense would tell you there is a
significant cost in the administration of the law. If you disagree with me,
please tell me why. When considering this, also consider that, if the father
and/or mother of the family receiving welfare tests positive, do they take the
kids away? If a family needs welfare and can’t get it because of a positive
drug test then leaving the kids in that situation would be putting the children’s
health and livelihood in jeopardy. So, it could be that there is also an
increase in spending for youth and family services.
Let’s also recognize the myriad of ways that exist to beat a
drug test while we look at who it is the law is trying to catch… If it is
simply a drug test, then being a raging alcoholic who would spend welfare money
on alcohol is completely acceptable (in fact, this law in some ways advocates
for it). Many other drugs can’t be tested for (in urine) or are out of your
system so quickly you’d have to have a real drug problem or you’d have to be a
moron to get caught – lsd, mushrooms, cocaine, ecstasy, etc are all out of your
system in about a day. The only drug that really stays in your system for more
than a day or two (a timing that allows one to plan ahead) is really marijuana…
THAT’S IT!!! I think most would agree that, in the grand scheme of things,
marijuana is one of the least harmful drugs there is (including caffeine,
nicotine, alcohol, and a number of other legal drugs)! I’m not saying it isn’t
harmful, I’m saying that it isn’t all that bad when you put it in a line-up
with other drugs of legal and illegal status.
Now, let’s look at the rates of positive testing… While Florida had the testing
in place, a mere 2% tested positive while another 2% refused to relinquish
their constitutional right (http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/).
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say all of that 2% would have tested
positive. The ceiling number is 4%. In Michigan,
when they had the law, it was 8% (http://www.aclumich.org/issues/privacy-and-technology/2002-10/987).
The Michigan
article does a lot to make my point that the system catches mainly marijuana
users – 268 tests, 21 positive, all but 3 for marijuana).
What you are left with is a system that essentially
discriminates against marijuana users while tipping a cap to alcoholics and
users of ‘hard’ drugs… So, I ask… Do you agree with the law(s)? Do you believe
the law is constitutional or not? Is it ok to spend the sums of money the
government is willing to expend and to infringe on the constitution in an
effort to catch somewhere between 2% and 8% of welfare recipients testing
positive for drugs (recognizing you are catching, almost exclusively, marijuana
users)? How do you justify that within your desire for small government?
Disclaimer from The Elephant in the Room: The article posted above is the work of a blog reader, not an owner of the blog. In promoting an open forum blog, and believing that the passing of information is the reason we exist, we happily post most readers' work with little editing. While the article does appear on our blog, the owners of The Elephant in the Room did not write this article, and posting this article on our blog does not imply endorsement of the ideas and opinions expressed in the article. If you would like us to post your work, please submit it to loudmouthelephant@gmail.com
Disclaimer from The Elephant in the Room: The article posted above is the work of a blog reader, not an owner of the blog. In promoting an open forum blog, and believing that the passing of information is the reason we exist, we happily post most readers' work with little editing. While the article does appear on our blog, the owners of The Elephant in the Room did not write this article, and posting this article on our blog does not imply endorsement of the ideas and opinions expressed in the article. If you would like us to post your work, please submit it to loudmouthelephant@gmail.com
Many thanks to Whatsamattausa for this well-written article!
ReplyDeleteFor me, I respectfully disagree with most of it. I, personally, do not agree with welfare in any way (well, except for helping handicapped people). I don't believe in a government program that provides people sustenance when they should be getting it for themselves. We are all capable; we should all be able to provide for ourselves. I believe that while welfare helps people in the short term, it hurts them in the long term by killing their incentive to work for themselves. In addition, I don't believe in government discrimination. Why should someone receive $XXX yearly in money from the government while some don't. These are just my personal views about welfare.
As for requiring drugs tests, I do believe this is a great idea, and I also believe it is constitutional. Why? Because first, no one is entitled to receive welfare benefits. It is no one's right. If you want to receive a benefit, you should have to do something for it. Secondly, no one is forced to submit to it. It is a requirement, not a force requisite. If the government made you do it or else face imprisonment, fine, etc, it would be unconstitutional. The fact that the government is asking people for their willing consent before giving them a service, to me, is not unconstitutional. As far as stereotyping, that part doesn't worry me as much. To me, it's simply making sure the taxpayer's money is protected, and it also ensures people have an incentive to abstain from illegal behavior. When welfare was reformed, it was attached to work. The more one worked the better they would be. It was used as an incentive and people started realizing the value of work. This system could potentially do the same; giving people an incentive to do something positive for themselves and society.
I hope that explains my view. I know, not in agreement, but, of course, I appreciate the civil debate. Great post, Whatsamattausa, and looking forward to the
Totally disagree. It's only a violation of the Constitution if you're FORCED to do so. You may opt to not receive benefits, and therefore not be tested. Furthermore, the costs of administration will more than be recouped by the benefits that won't be paid out. And to compare it to alcohol is an apples and oranges argument. Alcohol is legal.
ReplyDeleteLME - We'll agree to respectfully disagree on the existence and/or implementation of welfare. I believe it is a tremendous benefit for the elderly, handicapped, and for those who've just plain old fell on hard times. I agree the administration of it is tremendously flawed. There should be program requirements to improve employability for those on it. I think the greatest government is that which can take care of citizenry in its greatest time of need. That too is just a disagreement on basic philosophy of what responsibility government has to its citizens. As an example, I recently saw an article (if I can find it again, I'll post a link) that for every job there are 10 people for it. For easy math, let's say there are 100,000 jobs. That makes 900,000 people with no employment opportunity. I would suggest the government certainly has a primary hand in those statistics. This, though, is for another debate.
ReplyDeleteYou and Jim McKee have a similar position on the drug testing. Surely you recognize such a policy as unreasonable search? What if, instead of a drug test, they wanted to go into the homes of these citizens and search for any contraband (unregistered/illegal guns, child pornography, suspicious bank statements, etc.)? Once you open the pandora's box into allowing the government to qualify, beyond that which is necessary to establish probably cause, people for certain entitlements (they are not rights, rights are something different), you have no idea where that ends. What if they want drug tests to qualify for certain tax rebates (also an entitlement), still cool? We live in a society where a reasonable search is done with established probable cause. The results from Michigan (where I notice Jim is from) and Florida (8% and 4$ (max), respectively) actually makes the case against testing as those percentages could NEVER be extrapolated to present probable cause. I know you both have personal opinions about the system but to begin to forgo the constitution because you both feel you need to police morality (I don't mean that disrespectfully or harshly but it does seem to be the case). As far as the 'don't accept it' argument, that is really blowing smoke. A citizen with a right to an entitlement and who needs said entitlement shouldn't be given a choice of "waive your constitutional rights or don't take it". That sounds like something you'd hear in some sort of repressive government. When government administers a program, it is bound, in all ways, by the constitution and many other laws. If Home Depot were administering Welfare, they could do what they want and require whatever they want as a private enterprise. The government, for better or worse, cannot.
{continued}
LME - Do you see the problem with this line if you start applying it in different ways? Ways you would not be a fan of? "This system could potentially do the same; giving people an incentive to do something positive for themselves and society."
ReplyDeleteJim - I totally disagree with you on the cost. From what I've seen, the maximum monthly welfare allowance for someone taking welfare and food stamps is a combined $1,400 or $16,800/yr. In your state, MI, the state saved $352,800 (that's assuming each 'dirty' party was a family of 4). It was litigated for 4 years and came out on the losing end. Though I don't know the number, I can almost guarantee you that the cost to litigate was at least 5-fold. Also, with the state losing, fee shifting applies so MI ended up paying both legal parties.
LME - You avoided the alcohol aspect and Jim, it's apples to apples. In the real world, they are both drugs that alter your state of mind. I assume, Jim, that one who spends all of their welfare money on alcohol is ok? How does that fix anything? Supposedly, the point of testing is make sure those on welfare are using their money wisely... in that capacity, legal or illegal is the same thing.
And both of you avoided what I find to be one of the most interesting aspects of the article. How do you justify your position on this topic with your desire for not only less government, but less government interference in to personal lives (two things I understood conservatism to be about).
I hope my response hasn't come off as abrasive in any way, that would most certainly not be my intention.
Whatsamattausa - Definitely didn't see this as abrasive. We can have contentious yet differing opinions here, that's what it's all about.
DeleteYes, the fundamental argument of welfare and programs of the like is a different argument, and you I both know we have different views on it. It is a debate for a different day.
I don't really have a position of the government policing morality. My view for drugs specifically is that the government has a duty to employ citizens to protect its citizens from threats foreign and domestic. We have a military to protect us from the foreign ones, and police and fire protection against domestic ones. While yes, some people say that we should be allowed to put in our bodies what we wish, I think drugs is a special case that falls under protecting citizens. When someone injects heroine or snorts coke, they can put themselves in a state where they are now a danger to society. It's not like they can become high on heroine and then still make rational, coherent decisions. They have gone past that point and are no longer able to think clearly on their own. To me, it's not about policing morality, but the laws exist for safety purposes (again, you're talking to someone who doesn't drink or believe in alcohol and who thinks it should be treated the same as all hard drugs, but I have to concede my opinion on that one).
I still do not see the constitutional issue with this, however. I very much agree with Jim, that no one is forced to undergo drug testing. That's what the constitution is meant to protect against: the government violating the free will and free choice of its citizens. We elect representatives to make our laws that we collectively agree on as a citizenry, and those representatives' main guideline for making the laws of this country is the constitution. It merely protects citizens from the government infringing on their rights without their consent. If the citizens voted for candidates who said cocaine, for example, should be 100% legal, then so be it. With this, the government is not forcing anyone to do anything. Just as when a police officer pulls someone over and asks them if he can search their car. Probably cause is not needed. If he gets consent, he can search all day. If he doesn't, he can't. If he has probably cause (say as he was pulling the vehicle over he saw the driver throw a bag out the window) he can search. If the driver feels his rights have been violated he takes it up in the court of law. With this overall issue, it's about consent. I definitely don't agree with a citizen's right to an entitlement. That is not a right granted by the constitution in any way. And I don't agree with the comparison that this is like saying if you submit to this drug test you can get a tax rebate. Drugs are illegal (determined by the voters, laws made by the elected representatives); tax rebates are not. To request consent to ensure a citizen is law abiding does not violate the constitution. Felons are not permitted to vote once they've been convicted. This is a similar example of "if you behave in a legal way, you get this certain thing." If you behave legally (no drugs) you get this welfare benefit.
To me, it all comes down to the forcing or not forcing. I can't get around that part. But that's fine. We have respectfully disagreed before. I hope that answers most of the questions, but it probably doesn't. This is a multi-faceted issue, and, the best part is, your article and the expression of your views has opened up a great debate. No abrasiveness at all; I'm really glad that people can share their views openly. It's not about always getting someone to agree, but it, to me, is really about allowing people to see why others view things the way they do. If it's done this way, I think that eliminates some of the vitriol we see in politics today. I might agree with your views, but I know why you have them.
Hope to hear back from you!
LME - Thanks. Wasn't too worried about you ;) but I haven't corresponded with Jim and people can interpret things in different ways so I wanted to make sure I qualified my statement.
DeleteHow do you come to drugs being a danger to society while alcohol and over the counter medicines achieve the same thing? People have been getting 'high' since the beginning of time. I don't think anyone has the appetite to make all mind altering substances illegal. And, in my opinion, it should be all or none. I know (from your prior statements and the one above) that you don't use, personally, drugs or alcohol but I can't imagine you want to force your personal decision on the balance of the population. The whole idea of freedom is for you to make your decision not to drink but to not interfere with my desire to have a glass of wine when I get home. This is where, in my opinion, one has to overcome their personal beliefs for the greater good. This is not a convoluted issues like the welfare system but rather a cut and dry decision on personal freedoms to live the way you want to live without preventing others from living the way they want to live (so long as public safety is always the top priority).
You are not living in a utopian society. What you say is correct in a vacuum but the reality is that the government really doesn't care about the constitution (an amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman?). The constitution's job is also to protect equality. Another job of the constitution is to protect the people against government making law out of fear or other factors the would infringe on peoples' rights (Patriot Act). What if, when you applied for a driver license, the government wanted a DNA sample, urine test, and fingerprints? It too is an entitlement and all of that information in a database would certainly be a benefit to society, no? Are you 'ok' with a law like that? As the tax rebate goes, it too is an entitlement. Why shouldn't the government have the ability to ensure that you are not on drugs to take advantage of such an entitlement? Again, why not let the government search your house to take advantage of any entitlement (be it tax rebate, driver license, welfare, school, etc.)? Let them look for illegal guns, illegal banking activity, illegal gambling, etc.? These, given your position, are all agreeable concepts?
It really has nothing to do with forcing or not forcing. It has to do with entitlement. Citizen A is entitled, by law, to take welfare based on the basic financial requirements (since it is a financial system). Citizen A, by law, cannot be forced into an unreasonable search. I hear alot of conservatives hating on Obama accusing him of Socialism. Your position here is one of an authoritarian society. We are not that but rather a society of laws and due process. This is an issue we could agree on as it is about liberty and constitutional rights. Allowing this is opening a pandora's box of governmental inspection at their will. Seriously, what do you think about my driver license theory above or the tax theory (in your post, you campared taxes to drugs which is not the comparison.. the comparison is taxes to welfare to driver license to {insert givernement entitlement program here}). Once that first domino falls, it won't be long before the next political quack raises the ante. What if Santorum were president? What if, in order for states to recognize marriage, you had to be tested to make sure you were a virgin and, if not, you could not get married? Sounds far fetched but, is it? We'll get closer to finding out if your position rules the day and we'll NEVER find out if mine does!
Whatsamattausa – Thanks for the open debate!
DeleteFirst, I don’t distinguish. I have said this before, but perhaps it isn’t clear: I don’t think alcohol should be legal. I don’t think any substance that changes the final, decision-making state of mind should be legal. Alcohol is in that group, and yes, I think it should be illegal, but, as I’ve said, I lose that battle :-) The fact that I don’t push for alcohol prohibition shows that I don’t let my personal feelings override the beliefs of others. In fact, I have a TON of alcohol in my house. The fact that I believe that most Americans want to see drugs remain illegal also means I’m not pushing my views on others.
This might be a case to agree to disagree (though yes, you make valid points, I think mine are valid as well, to that makes agreement tough) because we both are learning very valid cases for both sides of the argument. It’s great! I just interpret the constitution as having the duty and the means to protect rights, and I don’t think the right to receive entitlements from the government is protected. Personally, I think having drugs tests passes two clear constitutional tests:
1.It is not discriminately applied. All potential welfare recipients must do it.
2.Consent is obtained. Just as you a potential government worker must submit to a drug test for employment, welfare recipients must submit to this to receive benefits from the government.
I really do see how this impedes on the individual’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This is not, in my opinion, unreasonable to have the receivers of tax dollars submit, voluntarily, to a test that determines if they are using and/or abusing a potentially addictive substance. Those are my tax dollars. They are being given out for free. I think (this is not on the constitutionality side, it’s on the efficacy side) that it would be grossly wrong of the government to potentially give my money to people who have a higher propensity to spend that money on illegal activities. I don’t condone illegal activities, and I don’t want my money funding them. Having a blanket, non-discriminatory testing policy, to me, ensures this does not happen. Also, again, I don’t see how Citizen A is being forced. They are being asked. Similarly with unemployment benefits, you must submit to the government that you’re applying for jobs. With this, you’re voluntarily submitting that you’ve applied… if you don’t, you don’t get unemployment benefits.
If the government made it a policy that I had to give DNA to get a driver’s license, I would first, certainly hope that this is a state’s issue (as welfare should be) because if I didn’t like it, I could move. But, if that was the case, I would choose to do it or no, it’s up to me… but, driving is a privilege, not a right, and I don’t have to drive. The government stipulates I must drive at its set speed; that could be seen as infringing on my right to freely move and express myself… but, it is applied equally, and I don’t have to drive, just as welfare recipients don’t have to be on welfare. If I want to drive, I must play by the gov’t’s rules. Welfare recipients are under a government funded subsidy; they should do as the government directs to get
that subsidy.
:-)
LME - Very disheartening to see that you (and I assume there are many others like you) are willing to roll over and let the government run over you in any way they please. That is precisely why we have a constitution.. So that you can choose to relinquish your rights but I am not forced to. You seem to be missing the point of government administration. Adding that rule as a contingency to receive welfare is, in itself, unconstitutional. It is the ideals contained in the constitution that our soldiers die for (supposedly) and I too would lay my life down to keep people from government tyranny (which is what it is when the government can force itself upon a citizen for any reason it deems plausible). We live in a country that requires government to have justifiable cause for taking an action. 'Just because' is not a justifiable cause!
DeleteAgain, thanks for the forum to discuss this issue. I do appreciate it and the opinions expressed herein. Though, I clearly disagree with just about everything that's been said. I truly wish I could convince you that your position is one which jeopardizes freedom.
I wish someone would answer the question of how they reconcile this belief with the conservative tenet of smaller government.
Whatsamattausa - Definitely a huge disagreement here, but that's fine. I don't view it as a violation of the constitution at all. My two reasons, as stated above were:
Delete1.It is not discriminately applied. All potential welfare recipients must do it.
2.Consent is obtained. Just as you a potential government worker must submit to a drug test for employment, welfare recipients must submit to this to receive benefits from the government.
Aren't those the two things the government uses as a "test" to hold to the constitution? What about having a drug test to get a government job? How is this different?
Either way, I'm definitely glad you wrote about this; it seems like something you're very passionate about, and that's great. We can disagree all we like, but this is what it's all about: civil disagreement. To me, the fact that we have you, me slim and many others in here discussing this peacefully and learning from each other deems this a success. I would love to keep discussing it, and I'm also okay with agreeing to disagree and burying the hatchet. Either way, with your passion for your views, and respect though opposition to mine and people that think like me, I sincerely hope you write more.
You know I will... I too appreciate the discussion, just wish I could move you on this one. And, btw, no, the test is the constitution itself. The law has to be held up and I believe this law doesn't pass the test. I agree with Publius (below) that the stipulations should have something to do with the intent of the program. I'm not against limitations but this is absurd.
DeleteThanks again for the forum and the discussion!
Forgot... Where I got the welfare info:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.welfareinfo.org/payments/
Hey there WhatsamattaUSA, nice article, but I fail to see the UN-Constitutional part. I see that more as a States Rights issue.
ReplyDeleteTruck drivers are required by DOT regulations to submit to pre-employment, random, post accident, and reasonable suspicion drug testing. Not only that they could be required to take a test at a scale house if the DOT felt like it.
You spoke of a 2% to 8% rate of positive tests for the welfare recipients, that's nothing. The trucking industry has to perform random drug screens on a certain percentage (50% drugs, 10% alcohol) of their fleet every year to find a LESS THAN 1% positive test rate. They also have to submit to alcohol testing too.
Here is something for you to consider too whatsamattausa, a lot of people SELL their food stamps. I have been offered to use their card and pay them 50 cents for every dollar I spend. When I declined, they informed me that I would save the state sales tax too. I still declined, neither me nor my wife will pull out one of those cards in the store to pay for our groceries.
I live in Tennessee, to qualify for food stamps here you just have to have less than $2,000 in the bank and have low enough income (on a scale for family size). About $24,000 or less for a family of 3 would qualify for food stamps. You could literally live in a million dollar home (they don't count the home you live in), own rental property (they don't count that either), drive a Ferrari as your main transportation (they don't count that either) and have $10,000,000 in your IRA/401k (because they don't count that either) and still get food stamps. I am sorry whatsamattausa, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with that. I checked a few other states too. Pretty much the same thing.
In fact, here is the exact wording:
Resource Test. The asset limit is $2,000 for most households and $3,250 for households containing a member who is disabled or 60 years of age. Assets not counted are the home the applicant is presently living in and its lot, household goods, income producing property, real estate that is up for sale, cash value of life insurance, personal property, retirement accounts such as IRA and 401k plans, and vehicles with equity value under $1,500. Other vehicles not counted are those used for family transportation, to go to and from work, to produce income, for subsistence hunting and fishing, as the household’s home, to transport a disabled household member, and to carry the household’s primary source of heating fuel or water. Countable assets include cash on hand, money in checking, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, stocks, bonds, property not up for sale, and lump-sum payments.
http://tn.gov/humanserv/adfam/fs_1.html
You said, "I believe it is a tremendous benefit for the elderly, handicapped, and for those who've just plain old fell on hard times." You know whatsamattausa, I, like most conservatives (I believe--I could be wrong) don't mind helping someone who "fell on hard times" for a little while. The problem is, they never seem to get over their "hard times" once they start getting something for nothing.
You are kidding yourself if you think there aren't people drawing welfare, disability, or unemployment and making cash on the side. Let me be clear, I am not saying every one of them, but yes, a good percentage. I am including prostitution, drug dealing, off the book cash jobs, even self employed.
I think for the able bodied there needs to be some sort of diminishing benefit system. For instance whatever the benefit rate is (you used $1,400 per month above), pay that for 3 months, then the amount should slowly begin to diminish each month, about 10% each month until their benefit is $0. That's just my opinion, feel free to make it yours.
Slim -
DeleteThe unconstitutional part falls under the Fourth Amendment which frees us from unreasonable search and seizure. There would be no probable cause for a urine test, in most cases. With regard to your trucking scenario, though I am not 100% certain, I believe USDOT or FTA issues licenses to operate an interstate transport business, such as trucking. The businesses that accept those licenses agree to have their drivers to consent to such searches (drug tests) as a matter of public safety. If an accident occurs, that could be viewed as probably cause but, generally, I would imagine the agreement is two-fold - 1 agreement between the government and the company and the other between the company and the employee. Same applies with the FAA and testing of pilots. With welfare, there are no public safety concerns, per se. Most of your other points are with regard to the welfare system which, I agree is flawed but, in my opinion necessary. As I stated above, I believe, if you are going to have such a system, that the government should be proactive in getting people off of it. In today's world, where there are 10 people for every job, it would NOT be in the best interest of this country to cut all of those people off with no funds. That would be a disaster for this country - increase in crime rate, over-extended DYFS, etc. I believe in the system as it is intended, not as it is implemented. Why can't these people work for the money picking up litter along highways, etc.? That is the question I have. Why not make welfare recipients work for the money doing things nobody else is doing. I'd love to walk along the Schuykill River here in Philadelphia and not have to look at garbage. Again, that's all for another debate.
So, Slim, it appears that we both agree welfare needs reform (though we probably will disagree on how those reforms should be done). You did not touch on how you reconcile your approval of this law with small government. Nor did you tackle the alcohol aspect. Nor has anyone touched on the fact that these tests catch almost excluively marijuana users (as if it's ok for someone on welfare to be on heroin).
It is not the government's job to police morality (especially since it is the government who makes up every day to do just that, act immorally!).
Thanks for the reply! How to hear more from you on this.
WhatsamattaUSA,
DeleteNo, it is not an AGREEMENT between business and the Government, it is a LAW. There are no exceptions. If you choose to earn your living flying an airplane or driving a truck you WILL be subject to drug and alcohol testing.
I see no reason the welfare recipients can't abide by the same laws. Furthermore, I do not see a drug screen as an unreasonable search. If you don't want to piss in the cup, get your a$$ out of the welfare office and make it on your own. (Not YOU personally whatsamatta, you know what I mean)
As far as your obsession with pot smokers being unfairly targeted, I would think that might have more to do with more people smoke weed than do heroin.
I don't think it is the governments job to police morality either. I also do not think it is the governments job to feed the millions of people on welfare, or provide them with housing assistance.
The main reason that we can't just make welfare recipients work picking up trash is because some bleeding heart liberal may consider that as slavery or racist since a good percentage of welfare recipients are African-American.
As far as the smaller government issue you raise, which I perceive as more of a "Gotcha" kind of issue you are trying to raise, the elimination of the program would achieve a smaller government.
Slim -
DeletePlease provide the law. I can tell you that, if I went to work for Home Depot delivering things locally, on a truck, I wouldn't be subjected to such testing unless it was a Home Depot rule as a private company, which they, as a private company, are entitled to do.
You, and others, make it sound like people choose to be on welfare. I won't argue that some are that way but the bulk are not. Again, you are attacking the system and I won't disagree with you there as I too believe it needs reform in its administration.
There is no doubt a drug screen is unreasonable. It's the same as a police offier asking you to piss in a cup in order to use governmental roads, sidewalks, etc. Would you be ok if you were walking down the street and were subjected to a drug test (or any other search the government, in its sole discretion, decided to subject you to?)
I am not obsessed with pot smokers, simply stating the reality that the urine testing is geared to catch them almost exclusively as almost every other drug is out of the body within a short time. So, in that regard, the testing itself is discriminatory. Why not do a hair test? I'll tell you why.. COST! Urine testing is cheap and it's something people can rally around because they don't think of the cost (not necessarily financial cost) of doing this. I'd prefer to preserve freedom in its entirety and let a few drug users go than to inflate government so that some people can feel morally superior to those tested.
The point of welfare, we, like LME and me, will agree to disagree. The government is largely responsible for the economy of today. There are 10 job seekers for every job. As I stated above, to leave those people without a way to feed a family would cause havok in this country and might send us to depression. It's easy to make the statement you made but I can't believe you've thought it through. When the government fails its people, they have an obligation to provide a safety net (not perpetually). Again though, this is attacking the system.
If someone feels it is slavery then they don't understand. Slavery was without pay whereas this would be pay for services rendered, the way it is done in the free market. The reason is because D's want to leave things as is (or make it easier to qualify) and the R's want to get rid of the program altogether. Nobody is focused on fixing the problem.
I agree with you about the elimination (don't agree with the elimination but rather your position that it would make for smaller gov't.). However, that is not the debate we are having. We are debating why the government thinks it is ok to expect people to waive constitutional rights simply for being poor. The point of the constitution is to ensure we ALL have the same rights or that we share EQUALITY.
As I mentioned to LME, allowing this opens the door for government intrusion anywhere it wants.. Want a driver license, please submit your DNA sample, fingerprints, and urine sample to the desk on the left. Want to take advantage of that juicy new tax rebate, please provide the same to the desk on the right... Where does it end???
This is why it is incumbent, in my opinion, upon Americans to be able to cast aside their personal ideas and issues and do what is best for the country as a whole in keeping government out of our day to day lives.
Well, whatsamattausa, the law is 49 CFR Parts 40 and 382. Pay particular attention to 49 CFR 382.103, 382.301, 382.303, 382.305, and 382.307.
DeleteIf the Home Depot requires you to have a Commercial Drivers License (CDL) to drive their truck, then guess what, you are subject to 49CFR Parts 40 and 382. In fact ANY JOB that requires you to have a CDL, requires that you adhere to 49 CFR Part 382 and be in a drug screening program. It is the LAW. It may be Home Depot's company policy too, but, that's because it's the damn law.
You said, "I'd prefer to preserve freedom in its entirety and let a few drug users go than to inflate government so that some people can feel morally superior to those tested." There in lies your whole problem whatsamattausa. We don't feel morally superior, we feel if you can afford a couple hundred bucks for an ounce of weed, then we shouldn't have to buy your groceries. Is that really too hard for you to comprehend? How is it they can't get a job to pay their rent, utilities and groceries but can afford beer, weed, cocaine, or heroin. I'm sorry, if you can afford that you obviously do not need the assistance of hard working tax payers-- especially since only 53% of us are paying the bill.
Were you worried about the Constitution being pissed on when your Democrat pals passed 0bamacare MANDATING we buy health insurance and 0bama signed it? Were you worried about the Constitution being pissed on the other day when 0bama made a recess appointment even though there was not a recess?
Interesting about the law, thanks for informing me, I stand corrected.
DeleteYour 2nd paragraph makes no sense. I do get your point but you want all this government oversight to catch a few pot smokers while the cokeheads, heroin users, ecstasy users, lsd users, etc., etc., etc. can go free. Not to mention, spending every last dine of welfare money on alcohol is 'ok'. So your theory of 'if they can pay whatever for whatever while i pay for their groceries' seems moot. I assume you stand for smaller, less intrusive government yet you advocate for bigger, more intrusive government in this regard. You only want to catch the potheads that spend a couple hundred bucks. You don't seem to care about stopping everyone. If you did, you'd be against this law and for a more stringent one.
I don't understand your growing hostility but don't label me a Democrat, I am not. I like the idea of Obamacare but feel it could be administered better. A healthy society is a productive and strong society, in my opinion. And the answer about the recess appointment is yes, I was worried. Just as I was worried when tha Patriot Act was passed and when Bush signed off on torture in defiance of the Geneva Conventions, etc. You see, I am independent minded and make up my own decisions. I understand that we are a nation of laws that are there for our protection. I believe those laws should be rigid and interpreted liberally. Once you start chipping away at the foundation of law, you're not far from being left with tyranny. I don't play party lines, that's one of the biggest problems in this country, in my opinion.
Whatsamattausa, I don't know how you don't understand my 2nd paragraph. I'll try to summarize it for you. If you want to drive a commercial vehicle for pay, you must have a CDL and your company, by law, has to perform pre-employment drug screens, random drug and alcohol tests, post-accident drug and alcohol testing, and reasonable suspicion testing. That is the law and has been the law for many years.
DeleteYou are the one that claimed you get a job at Home Depot driving a truck and that THEY require you to get a drug screen. True, they do require it, but, they require it because it is the law. Commercial motor vehicles have different laws.
My growing hostility? LOL. What are you.....six? C'mon man, get real.
Your reasoning skills need some serious work whatsamattausa. I just love how you are able to put words in my mouth (that I never even thought). Jeezus, where did I EVER say spending all their money on alcohol is OK?
Firstly, the urine testing attached to welfare issue may be marginally Constitutional but nonetheless it is an arbitrary idea. Under Robinson v. California (1962), a man was punished for merely being addicted to heroin. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction because the government can only punish someone because of an act, not mere status of being addicted to a controlled and dangerous substance. Even in immigration law, one is punished because they did some act with a particular status. As for commercial drivers, they cannot drive, while having a controlled substance or enumerated substance in their body. While, it is true that the government is not punishing (in the criminal sense) someone for being addicted or having drugs in their body while receiving housing or welfare, the fact that the law has tinges of both deterrence and retributivist support (they should lose there housing because the use of drugs makes them undeserving) is analogous to a criminal sanction. This is so because if we believe that drug use is an addiction, then those who test positive should receive treatment but if we believe it stems from conscious and defiant behavior, we seek to control behavior through sanctions. Since Florida has taken the latter approach, I believe this form of drug testing is a criminal sanction based on status alone, especially since the actual criminal act is possession and it is impossible to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt by a mere urine test.
ReplyDeleteWhile one could make the argument that we are talking about incentives, that clean urine is merely a prerequisite, we cannot say that that urine testing is rationally related to the getting people off welfare. The welfare and housing construct acts as a safety net for American's who need temporary assistance so that they are equipped to get reemployed at a quicker rate than not. After all, it is hard to apply for a job without an address and time that would otherwise not be available for job seeking without welfare. I am vehemently opposed to a welfare state, but so long as entitlements act towards fixing a problem and not creating one then they can be palatable.
Back to conditions related to achieving the goals of welfare, urine testing does little to further this. Firstly, urine testing is overwhelmingly geared towards discovering marijuana use. Marijuana has been used by the President, Gold Medalist Michael Phelps, and in virtually every strata of society from the artist to the scientist. To link a positive marijuana test with employability is too attenuated because a urine test cannot distinguish between those who are indeed hindered by the drug and those who are not. Furthermore, marijuana is becoming more and more acceptable as treatment for AIDS wasting disease, glaucoma, and other debilitating diseases. Moreover, multiple states are adopting this point of view in defiance of federal law. Indeed, there is much controversy surrounding that particular drug as to its merits and detriments. While pop-culture has painted a picture of the lazy stoner (mostly teenage) who squanders their future, this is a mere caricature.
Since urine testing will likely not discover the use of any other drugs and marijuana's link to employment is attenuated, I think the law is a horrible idea. If the law required enrollment in education classes, or incentivized any other activity that would promote, yet not unduly burden a job search, I would probably be in support of such conditions. The fact that marijuana has not been tied to welfare for the vast majority of the programs existence, I am critical as to why this condition has appeared in recent years. Is it because too many people are on welfare right now? Are those people on welfare substantially or significantly because of drug use? I think not. This law is merely the result of demagoguery and conflict of interest which expands the government further into the realm of privacy.
But wait, I thought that criminal behavior deserves no privacy. That is true, but again mere status is not the crime so unless you are driving or performing some act, your addictions or chemicals in your body are of no concern to the government. Also, to think of entitlements as being completely voluntary and such any condition can be put upon them is also problematic. Can the government condition welfare on the trade of Constitutional rights? Can they say, we will give you benefits and housing but we can come into your housing anytime we want without a warrant, or that you waive your right to due process, jury trials, self incrimination, counsel, free speech, the right to vote, practice religion, confront your accuser, or allow billeting and quartering of troops? Conditions upon welfare must be rationally related to the goal of the program, otherwise the government can make welfare a social engineering program based on the experiences that the recipients will endure and be transformed by in meeting those conditions. What if the government said you can not eat red meat on welfare because that is unhealthy for you? The government must be closely scrutinized for any conditions it puts on entitlements because otherwise that system will become a cruel laboratory for Ivy League sociologists to practice social engineering. I personally do not want the government to dictate my morality, thoughts, or self destructive behaviors so long as I am not hurting anyone else.
ReplyDeleteIf we think there are those who are abusing welfare, audit them. If we do not have enough money to fund it, vastly restrict the amount of time one is able to collect. If we think that recipients preferred it to work, lower the living standards. If we think that there are those who will justifiably need it for the rest of their lives, spare them from negative actions taken towards those who do not. If we think that drugs do cause laziness, target those age groups which are most vulnerable or better yet those who have a history of drug that is already linked to their need for welfare. After all, when the government prohibits something it almost always backfires and notions of civil liberties and privacy are always diminished. Since I happen to think that this opprobrium is overly broad and not directly linked to employment, I think its diminishing of liberty is not justified. While a case could be made for the truck driver or any other future employee who cannot have drugs in their system to perform their task, the government has no business testing the 55 year old who is trying to get a job as a grocery bagger or landscaper. When drug use status is not directly related to the safety of public roads or other public functions, it ceases to be a concern of the public in a welfare construct where getting people reemployed is the goal.
Lastly, welfare is not a solution (absent disability or social security) but a temporary safety net. The problem with placing burdensome conditions upon people not related to unemployment is that they may be pushed off welfare with not source of income. When people are pushed out of welfare, as opposed to being pulled into employment, they have no place to go. With no place to go, crime because the only alternative. To some, committing a myriad of minor crimes only exacerbates the problem. If I am kicked off welfare I can: Starve or commit some minor thefts to get income and if I get caught, I am just looking at a minimum security prison (filled with other truly non-violent offenders who are doing the same) where I will get meals and shelter for time enough to the economy rebounds. Welfare recipients will merely be transplanted from housing to prison which costs the taxpayers much much more. This problem is huge because it can only play out three different ways: 1. Stay on welfare 2. If welfare cannot provide for me, prison can (Min Security is better than Max) 3. The public drops welfare and prison at great savings, but has to deal with increased crime.
I think the best way to handle the situation is to create education incentives and job growth in the U.S.A. Instead of giving Iran the power to terrorize our wallets at the pump because they know they can with empty threats of closing the straight of Hormuz, we should have a massive energy program in the U.S. to insulate ourselves from the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteNatural Gas, Pipelines, Offshore drilling all need to be explored because they will create jobs and exports for the U.S. This in turn will pull a lot of people off welfare because there will be more money in the U.S. from production jobs flowing to goods and services jobs. Without driving environmentalists crazy I say that the EPA should back off and allow personal injury and property lawsuits to act as primary regulators. Would BP rather deal with the EPA or a New Orleans Jury who could award billions? Either way jobs need to be created and the U.S. has energy and technology to facilitate that growth. We need to stop slacking on both because once we embrace our productivity, welfare will become a thing of the past for most.
Plublius - Thank you for your in-depth post. It sounds like you very much agree with the author Whatsamattausa, and that's fine. I might have missed it... and I think I have an idea, but, you do think the drug testing is unconstitutional? I just wanted to make sure I captured that specific part from you take.
DeleteHope to hear more! Thanks!
LME - Firstly, I agree that the law is a bad one because it misbalances benefits with harm. As for the Constitutionality, I am not certain but I am suspicious.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I am suspicious about the conflict of interest the governor has with drug test manufacturer. Gross and actual conflict of interests have been held to violate due process in CAPERTON v. A. T. MASSEY COAL CO.(2009). However, that case was about a W.V. Supreme Court who donated heavily to a litigant and refused to recuse himself from the tribunal. While it does stand for the general proposition that conflict of interests can makes the governments action unreasonable, we were talking about a panel of judges not a single executive which cannot propose law under separation of powers. True, the veto power gives the executive power a de facto say in legislation, I do not know that it is right to say that a governor cannot pass a bill because of conflict. The Fourteenth Amendment due process should be inherently stronger than that required of the federal government (See Federalist 10) but the Tenth Amendment also stands for the proposition that the federal government should not usurp the power of the state executive (See Printz v. U.S.) Needless to say, I cannot say that due process can overcome the Tenth Amendment, so I find this constitutional analysis slightly favoring Florida, absent a showing of that the governor and legislators worked together to financially benefit from a law as their primary motive.
Under a rational basis review of due process, Florida wins hands down unless one can show that the law was motivated by animus, race, ethnicity, or political affiliation. If the lawmakers planned to hurt a specific group because they did not want minorities on welfare, or because they wanted to force an overwhelmingly democratic populous into a life of crime, prison, and loss of voting rights, then the law is unconstitutional. If they acted because they don't like the type of people on welfare, that will also not fly under due process or equal protection. If the state merely wanted to put such conditions to incentivize moving welfare recipients out of state because they are burdensome or problematic that would also be unconstitutional. So motivation plays a huge role in deciding whether a law was arbitrary and unconstitutional or rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
The law could also be unconstitutional if the law conflicts with some federal scheme. It will be preempted and a judge will find it unconstitutional under the Supremacy clause.
Lastly, all entitlements cannot unduly burden the exercise of some protected freedom. For instance, you cannot force someone to recite the pledge of allegiance before receiving V.A. benefits.
ReplyDeleteI think that the right to privacy in this case might be the linchpin of constitutionality. Under the Fourth Amendment (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.) As we all know, or will know, the Fourteenth Amendment confers this obligation to the states, as opposed to just the federal government. I would say that requiring a person to take a urine test infringed upon their privacy because they are forced to hand over bodily fluids that contain information about their private life. Just the color and smell of the urine alone gives the government information about the functioning of your liver, kidneys, and diet. Without a warrant, I think the right of the government to gather information about one must subside to the right of privacy. I think we could all agree that if the condition to welfare was that the police would search your house once a month, that we be an unconstitutional condition, but we view a urine test as less intrusive. As true as that might be, the U.S. has long recognized a right to medical privacy via Hipaa and cases like Roe v. Wade. Since we are talking about merely receiving benefits, there is no action, such as driving, operating machinery, working for law enforcement, which justifies such an intrusion. I think it the law is unconstitutional because it unduly burdens the exercise of the right to privacy with no overriding justification. Even though the infringement is low to moderate, the justification is even weaker.
While one could conceivably make it a crime to search for a job with drugs in ones system, that opprobrium is related to an act rather than mere existence. It is one thing for the government to ask for all of your health records at the V.A. where one seeks treatment, its another for the T.S.A. to ask for your health records before
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf enacted, this Pennsylavania law will be struck down by the federal courts. The federal courts have made it very clear such drug testing - as a condition to receive government benefits - violates the Fourth Amendent ... See Marchwinski v. Howard, 113 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (ED Mich, 2000) affirmed 60 Fed. Appx. 601 (CA6, 2003).
ReplyDeleteIndeed, these Pennsylvania state officials openly admit this drug testing is solely meant cut budget costs; it has NOTHING to do with suspected criminal activity.
I looked that case up, it's not the only one... Others have found it constitutional.
DeleteBut I want to know one thing. No one seems to answer this: For a program from the government that DOES NOT force people to do something against their will, how is that unconstitutional? Explain it.
You Lie! - t is unconstitutional because the 4th Amendment protects the people from ynlawful search without probable cause. Does applying for welfare suggest probable cause that someone is doing illegal drugs?
DeletePlease provide the rulings that allow this type of testing (please provide only the ones that have not been overturned by a superior court).
I fully agree with drug testing those who receive welfare benefits! If you are collecting welfare (especially with children) you should not be spending what money you do have on drugs! A lot of welfare benefits cover AOD treatment for substance abuse. If you have a problem all you have to do is be honest and get some treatment for it. The one part of this proposal is only testing people convicted of drug charges or on probation for such offenses. First off, anybody who is on probation or parole should already be getting drug testing. It kind of seems like a waste of time to test people like that. They should simply have the person on probation or parole sign a consent sheet to allow the case manager to get the results of drug screening. Also, I can think of probably 5 people that I know personally that are getting benefits, have never committed any type of drug related offense, and abuse substances on a daily basis! I think it should be more of a random testing for everybody. Maybe a test when you apply, and then randomly after that. I do not feel it is unconstitutional given they have an option. If they don't want to get tested they don't have to receive the benefits.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - With respect, the argument of choice is a tired one. If people need to support of welfare, they do not have a choice. Further, an American should NEVER, in my opinion, be forced to give up constitutional rights. It opens the door for initial testing and random testing for anything as I've stated above - driver license, social security card, tax rebates, schooling, etc.
DeleteAlso, I agree that those on welfare shouldn't be spending their money on drugs. However, why is it ok to spend it on alcohol and cigarettes (and the 'because they're legal' argument doesn't hold water)? Are they not just as damaging to health and finance?
Since you mentioned children, should the government punish the children because of a decision made by their parents? Do the children get placed into foster care?