What do you think Romney and the Republican controlled House and Senate should work on first?

[bsd058 296]

There is no right to welfare, or any other benefits. If you want free money, you have to accept whatever conditions the folks offering the money may require. For instance, if you go to the soup kitchen for a meal, you may have to listen to praises of Jesus while you are eating your meal, or the homeless shelter may require you to leave your shopping cart outside in a designated area.

No one is saying it's a right. They are saying you have to give up your rights to get welfare.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No one is saying it's a right. They are saying you have to give up your rights to get welfare.

Who is "they"? What "rights" are you giving up?

Edited November 1, 2012 by The Patriot

[bsd058 296]

I think I'm starting to see where everyone is coming from, now. It's just difficult for me to give up the logical consequences of the 4th amendment. That's fine. In my gut I want to take your sides. I really do. I just cannot get there logically, since there is a clear contradiction. Perhaps it's not a contradiction, and I'm just wasting my time. I'll read things over again and think about it more. Thanks for your input, everyone.

Who is "they"? What "rights" are you giving up?

Government. 4th amendment.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think I'm starting to see where everyone is coming from, now. It's just difficult for me to give up the logical consequences of the 4th amendment. That's fine. In my gut I want to take your sides. I really do. I just cannot get there logically, since there is a clear contradiction. Perhaps it's not a contradiction, and I'm just wasting my time. I'll read things over again and think about it more. Thanks for your input, everyone.

Government. 4th amendment.

Maybe actually read the Fourth Amendment, and notice the word "unreasonable" as a qualifier.

[bsd058 296]

Maybe actually read the Fourth Amendment, and notice the word "unreasonable" as a qualifier.

Yes I read that.

I just don't know if reasonable is the key word there. In context it seems there needs to be probable cause. But I'm no lawyer.

Could a person walk up to another on the street asking for a drug test because they don't want drugs in the neighborhood? What is reasonable and unreasonable seems so subjective.

In fact, the legal definition of unreasonable search is:

n. search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present. Such a search and/or seizure is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment), and evidence obtained thereby may not be introduced in court.

Perhaps the key is that the search isn't made by law enforcement.

Edited November 1, 2012 by bsd058

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Drug abuse, like alcoholism is a disease. There are plenty of 'upstanding citizens' who abuse drugs - they just get 'em in bottles with a doc's prescription. Welfare's purpose is to help those who need a hand - whether it is just bad economic luck or if they have personal demons they are struggling with. You don't deny them Food Stamps because they test positive for marijuana. That's backwards. If their drug habit is a contributing to why they need a helping hand, then require they go through counseling. You gotta treat the disease if you want to fix the problem.

[natty bumppo 297]

I think I'm starting to see where everyone is coming from, now. It's just difficult for me to give up the logical consequences of the 4th amendment. That's fine. In my gut I want to take your sides. I really do. I just cannot get there logically, since there is a clear contradiction. Perhaps it's not a contradiction, and I'm just wasting my time. I'll read things over again and think about it more. Thanks for your input, everyone.

Government. 4th amendment.

the "search" (drug testing) is administered by consent.

here is a simple idea:

a ) want free money .... here is the condition.

b ) don't want free money ... then no conditions apply (no testing required/ administered)

c ) want free money from the gov't with no conditions ... find somewhere else besides my tax $$$$ (or get a j.o.b)

Edited November 1, 2012 by natty bumppo

[bsd058 296]

the "search" (drug testing) is by administered by consent.

here is a simple idea:

a ) want free money .... here is the condition.

b ) don't want free money ... then no conditions apply (no testing required/ administered)

c ) want free money from the gov't with no conditions ... find somewhere else besides my tax $$ (or get a j.o.b)

It's administered under duress actually. Since they are in such circumstances where they might do anything to get the money, and if they don't their lives could be at stake.

Edited November 1, 2012 by bsd058

[natty bumppo 297]

It's administered under duress actually. Since they are in such circumstances where they might do anything to get the money.

like many employeers are currently doing.

want to work here ... here is the condition. don't like the condition ... move on down the road and find some other means to fill your coffers

there is no duress. consider it a "condition of employment"

[bsd058 296]

like many employeers are currently doing.

want to work here ... here is the condition. don't like the condition ... move on down the road and find some other means to fill your coffers

there is no duress. consider it a "condition of employment"

So we should consider it mutual obligation then. okay. Again I'll have to look into this debate deeper. Most people are not on my side when it comes to this issue. I just try to put myself in their shoes (if I can) and think to myself, "I wouldn't want the Government to know x about me and the only reason they are asking for it is because I'm poor and am in need of assistance." That's where I was coming from when I began thinking about this issue seriously.

Then I realized that it seems wrong for employers to ask for drug tests. They aren't police and they have no reason to suspect anything of you.

On the other hand life insurance contracts make you divulge medical info if you want their products. They have to in order to assess your risk, but they aren't obligated to give you their product blindly.

So...maybe it's just considered a part of a contract like you all are saying. Between the Government and the people in need of assistance. Perhaps duress should not be assumed just because they are in need.

Thank you all. I think I'm coming around.

Edited November 1, 2012 by bsd058

[natty bumppo 297]

So we should consider it mutual obligation then. okay. Again I'll have to look into this debate deeper. Most people are not on my side when it comes to this issue. I just try to put myself in their shoes (if I can) and think to myself, "I wouldn't want the Government to know x about me and the only reason they are asking for it is because I'm poor and am in need of assistance." That's where I was coming from when I began thinking about this issue seriously.

Then I realized that it seems wrong for employers to ask for drug tests. They aren't police and they have no reason to suspect anything of you.

On the other hand life insurance contracts make you divulge medical info if you want their products. They have to in order to assess your risk, but they aren't obligated to give you their product blindly.

So...maybe it's just considered a part of a contract like you all are saying. Between the Government and the people in need of assistance. Perhaps duress should not be assumed just because they are in need.

Thank you all. I think I'm coming around.

think about the potential issues an employer faces with a person on staff doing drugs.

lots of things could go wrong which will cost the employer time/money or an employee their health, life, or limb (could be the employee drug user and/or innocent co-workers and/or general population)

working in many environments can quickly become life threatening, a danger to the environment, or a danger to property if the person performing a task ... is well ... not up to the task (3 sheets to the wind, stoned, high, etc.)

[bsd058 296]

think about the potential issues an employer faces with a person on staff doing drugs.

lots of things could go wrong which will cost the employer time/money or an employee their health, life, or limb (could be the employee drug user and/or innocent co-workers and/or general population)

working in many environments can quickly become life threatening, a danger to the environment, or a danger to property if the person performing a task ... is well ... not up to the task (3 sheets to the wind, stoned, high, etc.)

I'm willing to admit to it being a contract (whether duress is established in order to void the contract or not is another story), but employers have a duty to ensure their employees will not harm the public while acting as employees. This makes it necessary to act in all prudence when hiring. You can negligently hire someone if you do not take all reasonable and prudent measures to ensure they are not a violent or drug using criminal.

Since the Government does not owe a duty to ensure the safety of the public in regards to a welfare recipient, the analogy of employer-employee relationship and government-welfare recipient breaks down somewhat.

However, I admit that duress probably couldn't be established and so the contract would stand if a welfare recipient decided to give a drug test in order to gain benefits. It might depend on the situation, though.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://www.examiner.com/article/welfare-monies-used-for-sex-alcohol-tobacco-and-guns

Welfare monies used for sex, alcohol, tobacco, and guns

[natty bumppo 297]

Since the Government does not owe a duty to ensure the safety of the public in regards to a welfare recipient, the analogy of employer-employee relationship and government-welfare recipient breaks down somewhat.

However, I admit that duress probably couldn't be established and so the contract would stand if a welfare recipient decided to give a drug test in order to gain benefits. It might depend on the situation, though.

when someone wants my tax $$ as a helping hand, to be a short term bridge so-to-speak, to help them survive is one thing.

if they want my tax $$ to buy drugs instead of life's necessities (ie food) that is totally unacceptable.

if the person using my tax $$ to survive so they can eat better than I do and buy junk food/ soda and other "feel good foods" as well ... that also is unacceptable.

want my tax $$$$ via government welfare ... the recipient should then consider themselves working for me (the gov't represents me) the tax payer. the welfare recipients job at this point is simple ... stay clean/sober & prove it, and get a j.o.b so they can take care of themselves.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-65-year-old-clerk-was-fired-for-refusing-to-sell-cigarettes-to-a-food-stamp-customer/

65-YEAR-OLD CLERK WAS FIRED FOR REFUSING TO SELL CIGARETTES TO A FOOD STAMP CUSTOMER

Edited November 1, 2012 by Bad_Daddy