| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
As I said, welfare is a kind of property which the government cannot deprive without first going through an evidentiary hearing (Due Process Clause). It is permissible for gov't agencies to first screen applicants to assure compliance. |
A welfare candidate's application for aid is based on financial need. How does what drugs they have or haven't taken determine ones financial need? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
As I said, welfare is a kind of property which the government cannot deprive without first going through an evidentiary hearing (Due Process Clause). It is permissible for gov't agencies to first screen applicants to assure compliance. |
A welfare candidate's application for aid is based on financial need. How does what drugs they have or haven't taken determine ones financial need? |
Because if they're spending all their money on smack (or booze for that matter), then they won't have any left over for food etc., hence the need for welfare.
Regardless, welfare is certainly not a "right". No more than I have the right to stick my hand in your pocket and help myself to your money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
The right to privacy is the issue. Furthermore when Michigan tried the same thing back in '99 it was ruled unconstitutional so you're wrong in that its not a civil liberties issue. |
Do you have a case citation or not? I will not do your homework for you. I'll even take a net article.
| sirius black wrote: |
RICO statutes were set up specifically to combat organized crime of the Italian mafia families but were extended to Wall Street firms to fight insider trading and such in the '1980s...slippery slope. It may be something that people wanted but its still within the slippery slope paradigm I alluded to. |
No, this is not a case where Gov. Scott's decision will bleed into the financial aid decision, at least not without a legislature passing a different law first.
You keep abusing the slippery slope fallacy. Its a bad sign for your argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
The right to privacy is the issue. Furthermore when Michigan tried the same thing back in '99 it was ruled unconstitutional so you're wrong in that its not a civil liberties issue. |
Do you have a case citation or not? I will not do your homework for you. I'll even take a net article.
| sirius black wrote: |
RICO statutes were set up specifically to combat organized crime of the Italian mafia families but were extended to Wall Street firms to fight insider trading and such in the '1980s...slippery slope. It may be something that people wanted but its still within the slippery slope paradigm I alluded to. |
No, this is not a case where Gov. Scott's decision will bleed into the financial aid decision, at least not without a legislature passing a different law first.
You keep abusing the slippery slope fallacy. Its a bad sign for your argument. |
Here is a sign that your position is wrong and the evidence. Two links (one provided already if you would taken the time to read it) says its unconstitional and I'd be surprised if the court agrees your position.
http://www.examiner.com/hernando-county-political-buzz-in-tampa-bay/gov-rick-scott-forces-drug-testing-for-public-aid-hernando-co-florida
�A Michigan law that required welfare recipients to receive random drug testing was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2003,�
or this
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/01/politics/main20068077.shtml
The law is expected to be quickly challenged. A similar Michigan law passed in 1999 that required random drug testing of Welfare recipients lasted five weeks in 1999 before it was stopped by a judge. An appeals court ruled it unconstitutional after a four-year legal battle.
Also, what is your position on his making the state employees take a drug test. And it is related to this issue.
There is enough evidence to suggest that the premise of the law was based on financial motivation by this governor since he indirectly owns a company via his wife that will profit from this act. His economic gain from this act weakens your argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
As I said, welfare is a kind of property which the government cannot deprive without first going through an evidentiary hearing (Due Process Clause). It is permissible for gov't agencies to first screen applicants to assure compliance. |
A welfare candidate's application for aid is based on financial need. How does what drugs they have or haven't taken determine ones financial need? |
Because if they're spending all their money on smack (or booze for that matter), then they won't have any left over for food etc., hence the need for welfare.
Regardless, welfare is certainly not a "right". No more than I have the right to stick my hand in your pocket and help myself to your money. |
You fail to see the point. There is no argument that welfare is a right. You do have a right to privacy. The state's reasoning for removal of your right is flimsy. Second of all, where is the proof that if someone smokes pot that they got it with the use of their own funds? A recipient using pot does not prove they bought it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Would it be okay for the state to ask for a drug test before someone can receive state grant money for college? |
I don't think that is necessary.
|
It can be reasonably argued that college students could use state aid to buy pot just as much as a welfare recipient. |
Please respond to my response kuros. Student aid is not a right anymore than welfare is. Why don't you think its necessary to test a student under the same rules and conditions that a welfare recipient would? Or for that matter ANY monies the state provides that is not a right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
The right to privacy is the issue. Furthermore when Michigan tried the same thing back in '99 it was ruled unconstitutional so you're wrong in that its not a civil liberties issue. |
Do you have a case citation or not? I will not do your homework for you. I'll even take a net article.
| sirius black wrote: |
RICO statutes were set up specifically to combat organized crime of the Italian mafia families but were extended to Wall Street firms to fight insider trading and such in the '1980s...slippery slope. It may be something that people wanted but its still within the slippery slope paradigm I alluded to. |
No, this is not a case where Gov. Scott's decision will bleed into the financial aid decision, at least not without a legislature passing a different law first.
You keep abusing the slippery slope fallacy. Its a bad sign for your argument. |
Here is a sign that your position is wrong and the evidence. Two links (one provided already if you would taken the time to read it) says its unconstitional and I'd be surprised if the court agrees your position.
http://www.examiner.com/hernando-county-political-buzz-in-tampa-bay/gov-rick-scott-forces-drug-testing-for-public-aid-hernando-co-florida
�A Michigan law that required welfare recipients to receive random drug testing was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2003,�
or this
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/01/politics/main20068077.shtml
The law is expected to be quickly challenged. A similar Michigan law passed in 1999 that required random drug testing of Welfare recipients lasted five weeks in 1999 before it was stopped by a judge. An appeals court ruled it unconstitutional after a four-year legal battle.
Also, what is your position on his making the state employees take a drug test. And it is related to this issue. |
Interesting. That's the Sixth Circuit (my circuit). But its only persuasive authority as to Florida. But very persuasive insofar as its been the only ruling.
As for Scott's possible conflict of interest, what do you want me to say? I don't think that because Scott may profit from the law that it means the law lacks any legitimate basis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/282/michiganruling.shtml
(Michigan) state started a pilot drug testing project under the law, only 21 of 268 people tested positive -- and 18 of those were for marijuana.
268 people may not be a large enough sampling to extrapolate but if the numbers hold true then its what, about 8% using some sort of illegal drug and 6/7 of those smoked pot and we don't know how many of those actually bought it.
These numbers compare similarly to America in general. Using 2003 numbers and assuming drug use has stayed current.
http://citizenjoe.org/node/53
% of Americans who have used illegal drugs:
In the past month: 8.2% (2003) SAMHSA
We may in fact find that all Florida will find out is that its welfare recipients use illegal drugs the same as America at large.
The average welfare recipient is a single mother, it holds true for Florida. I would suggest the costs would increase. Furthermore, a person applying for aid who smokes pot would do what everyone else does who has to pass a drug test but uses. Simply stop using. Of course the cost benefit analysis working against the state doesn't mean its a bad law obviously. Just interesting to point out.
Furthermore I would suggest that in Florida specifically the likelihood of those turning up positive would be diminished because a large portion of their welfare families are immigrants.
http://immigrationlawyersnow.org/study-shows-largest-population-of-welfare-recipients-are-immigrants
Fifty seven percent of households in which immigrants live are collecting at least one welfare check. This number refers to both legal and illegal aliens living in the United States. The report found that the majority of people on welfare are not even residents or citizens of the country. Only 39 percent of Americans are receiving welfare compared to the totals for immigrants.
and Florida specifcally
Florida itself is home to over 1 million immigrants and the state spends an estimated $5.5 billion providing aid to undocumented aliens every year
The cost of the test for those that pass against the number of Florida welfare recipients (about 56,00 in 2009: http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article1023722.ece
More than 56,700 families received state welfare aid in July (2009)
and we can see the cost going up.
Still waiting on the answer of students being tested as well as any other persons who receive aid from the state in any manner or form. A case can be argued that welfare recipients and state workers are unfairly targeted when other groups such as students meet the same criteria,that being they also receive monies from the state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see this going one of two ways: either the government has a constitutionally apportioned duty to provide aid to these people, meaning those qualifying for assistance have a right to it, or it doesn't. If the government does, then presuming guilt and demanding a drug test without probable cause is an obvious violation of the fourth amendment. If, however, the government does not have some responsibility to help, then TANF shouldn't even exist in the first place. Either way, these drug tests shouldn't be happening.
And really, if welfare monies being spent on drugs is such a problem, there are other, more constitutionally palatable ways to ensure it is used on intended necessities, food stamp credit cards that require an accompanying photo ID being one of many. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|