one of my first duties working for the aclu was to do a survey of how states took care of the HIV virus patients. to say the least, there was no interest.it absolutely broke my heart. peace people.
hey mooney. i hear you.
No interest in taking your survey or no interest in taking care of HIV/AIDS patients?
What year was this and what were the HIV/AIDS infection demographics in that year?
Exactly HOW is this idea (testing welfare recipients for illegal drugs) unconstitutional?
Exactly HOW is this idea (testing welfare recipients for illegal drugs) unconstitutional?
im not saying that, because i dont think thats true…
im just saying it is another form of class oppression. its privileged cruelty… but i mean… its not unconstitutional…
[reply]Exactly HOW is this idea (testing welfare recipients for illegal drugs) unconstitutional?
im not saying that, because i dont think thats true…
im just saying it is another form of class oppression. its privileged cruelty… but i mean… its not unconstitutional…[/reply]
It’s not a form of class oppression. Unless you’re trying to suggest that junkies are a class by themselves.
but You’ve already pointed out that junkies transcend class lines by being rich folk too. so that can’t possibly be it.
There is no oppression, you test clean there is no holding anyone down. You test dirty and it’s not the states job to continue your addiction.
I’d be cool with state sponsored rehabs where instead of them getting a check, their welfare money was funneled to a rehab facility that they could check in to.
Late,
grmpysmrf
[reply][reply]Exactly HOW is this idea (testing welfare recipients for illegal drugs) unconstitutional?
im not saying that, because i dont think thats true…
im just saying it is another form of class oppression. its privileged cruelty… but i mean… its not unconstitutional…[/reply]
It’s not a form of class oppression. Unless you’re trying to suggest that junkies are a class by themselves.
but You’ve already pointed out that junkies transcend class lines by being rich folk too. so that can’t possibly be it.
There is no oppression, you test clean there is no holding anyone down. You test dirty and it’s not the states job to continue your addiction.
I’d be cool with state sponsored rehabs where instead of them getting a check, their welfare money was funneled to a rehab facility that they could check in to.
Late,
grmpysmrf[/reply]
it IS class oppression because the poor are the only ones havng to take these tests to get government aid. it IS class oppression because the poor are the ones who need the help the most and yet are the ones that have to be deemed ‘worthy’ of aid. it is class oppression because rick people made this law without the consent of the poor people being touched by it. it is class oppression because it isnt an equal and leveled playing field to fight on here.
there is no reason someone who is a drug addict should be forced to starve first off, and second, the argument i am making here is that it isnt right to force anyone to prove they fit your definition of ‘worth helping’ in order to be helped. where the fuck do people get off deciding who is worth getting food or housing and who isnt?
but ok, this is all just going in circles so im done here. im just saying, being a drug addict doesnt make you a bad person, and it doesnt mean you shouldnt be helped.
king smurf. having worked for that most dreaded of institutions in the us (AAAAHHHHH…the ACLU)
I have ZERO problem with the ACLU.
i think i know a little bit about laws digging into privacy rights.
I’m sure you do, which is why I’m kinda wondering how come you aren’t coming with a clearer answer than that.
How is someone ASKING the state for something private? they are telling the state their business, THEY are ANNOUNCING that they are poor. It’s none of the states business otherwise.
You put yourself out there, I would think that you have zero claims to Privacy once you start telling people your business.
those laws are a distraction from the real issues of poverty, poverty and poverty.
I don’t understand. If you choose to be a junkie, and yes it’s a choice (Unlike being gay) because unless your Jeremy London and somebody made you do drugs, You chose to follow the road that you are on, you chose to do drugs despite the laws and the Propaganda that is out there against it, why is it the states responsibility to help you keep being a junkie
[u][i]I think it boils down to this. you are a junkie before you are poor, socially that is. It is NOT the states job to take care of junkies. The state should not take care junkies and to NOT take care of Junkies there needs to be a way to weed them out… TaDa drug tests.[/u][/i]
I would assume Poor people wouldn’t want to fund Junkies either … and would welcome a way to take away the sting as being labeled as such for being poor.
The arguement that the Anti’s are making right now seem to be that poor does not =junkie. Well no kidding but the perception from the average american is that poor COULD = junkie. One way to put that perception to rest is this drug test.
if we were to impose such mandates for the POOR, let’s impose mandates all over the place.
I think I’ve said at least twice in this thread before, YES.
it’s a circus idea which helps no one.
It would help the perception that all poor people are junkies.
BTW. Junkies are interested in helping no one either, so why fuel that?
and the poor, really poor in this country who are struggling to keep their families intact don’t need this.
Absolutely, and it’s unfair for Junkies to come in and take a handful of that money from those that really need it. drug tests would stop that
and btw, it IS unconstitutional.let the lawsuits fly.
WHY is it Unconstitutional?
Late,
grmpysmrf
Let me just say, I think it’s wonderful that you all hate “junkies” enough to passionately argue in favor of throwing massive amounts of your tax money right out the window. 40 people tested. 2 positives. $1140 spent on the tests. $240 saved by denying benefits to those two people. Really responsible use of your taxes, guys. Let’s scale that up, pronto!
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/floridas-welfare-drug-testing-costs-more-than-it-saves/
it IS class oppression because the poor are the only ones havng to take these tests to get government aid. it IS class oppression because the poor are the ones who need the help the most and yet are the ones that have to be deemed ‘worthy’ of aid. it is class oppression because rick people made this law without the consent of the poor people being touched by it. it is class oppression because it isnt an equal and leveled playing field to fight on here.
I think you don’t wholly understand the word oppression. No one is being heavily burdened or held down by having to pluck a hair or pee in a cup.
now you want to change that over to “discrimination” then you may have something… but I still don’t think the argument that you are putting up for it, either way, is compelling.
there is no reason someone who is a drug addict should be forced to starve first off,
That is the choice they make because they are using that money for dope. Welfare money scores them dope so they are still starving.
We no longer give them money for food that goes to dope and they are still starving… their starving situation has not improved either way.
and second, the argument i am making here is that it isnt right to force anyone to prove they fit your definition of ‘worth helping’ in order to be helped.
But it is right. Responsibility tells us it is right.
To give money to those that have no interest in helping themselves is counter productive to those that have every intention of helping themselves. If you can’t pass a drug test you obviously do NOT want help. nor she the state be forced to provide it.
where the fuck do people get off deciding who is worth getting food or housing and who isnt?
When it’s MY country, when it’s MY state, When it’s MY neighborhood, when it’s MY house. When it’s MY motherfucking HELP that’s being given!!
If you refuse to help yourself by staying clean I am not obliged to help you. How many people are poor because of drugs?
Where the fuck do people get off saying who I have to help? Some people don’t want help and I don’t want to help those people. I should not be forced to help those that refuse to help themselves.
but ok, this is all just going in circles so im done here. im just saying, being a drug addict doesnt make you a bad person, and it doesnt mean you shouldnt be helped.
Of course being a drug addict doesn’t make you a bad person but if you’e looking for me to fund it you are in for some serious fucking disappointment.
Late,
grmpysmrf
Let me just say, I think it’s wonderful that you all hate “junkies” enough to passionately argue in favor of throwing massive amounts of your tax money right out the window. 40 people tested. 2 positives. $1140 spent on the tests. $240 saved by denying benefits to those two people. Really responsible use of your taxes, guys. Let’s scale that up, pronto!
this is a much better argument against.
Late,
grmpysmrf
[reply]Let me just say, I think it’s wonderful that you all hate “junkies” enough to passionately argue in favor of throwing massive amounts of your tax money right out the window. 40 people tested. 2 positives. $1140 spent on the tests. $240 saved by denying benefits to those two people. Really responsible use of your taxes, guys. Let’s scale that up, pronto!
this is a much better argument against.
Late,
grmpysmrf[/reply]
It’s not a valid argument because they receive much more than $240 over the entire course of their benefits if they refuse to clean themselves up immediately (housing, food, medical, etc. all adds up). For those who clean up immediately in order to receive the benefits, davelybob has a valid argument.
As the smrf already stated, this is for those habitual users that do not want to help themselves immediately. Take the benefits and use them to put the habitual test failures in rehab/therapy. If they still can’t make it after rehab/therapy, then bring back the state institutions for them to receive their housing and food benefits because they obviously have additional problems and can’t take care of themselves.
My point is that I want as many capable people as possible to positively contribute to society without getting a free ride. For those who truly need it, they should receive benefits.
rusty, I’m extremely proactive; I make things happen. Some of the lucky breaks that I got over the years:
I was lucky that I grew up in MN and not another state. I did not go to the 12th grade because the state has a program that allows 11th and 12th graders with excellent grades to attend the university of their choice while the state pays for the tuition and books. I took full advantage of that program.
I was lucky that my field started hiring again the year before I graduated from university. There were no jobs to be had in my field for about 10 years, including when I started university for that field. Companies reflect this hiring freeze in the ages of their employees: there is a gap of people in the age range between 40 and 50.
I was lucky that my second professional employer called my parents phone number when they could not reach me at the number on my resume (this was before the wide-spread use of mobile phones). My parents told them that I had moved and provided them with the correct phone number.
i don’t hate junkies… needs based testing goes into the fifth amendment territory of the right against self incrimination. people. that’s what criminal defense is all about.
Nobody is accusing them of a criminal act to throw them in jail for using.
Being clean is a term of their gov paycheck as it is for all other regular gov employees who bring home a gov paycheck.
What do you all think happens when a gov employee fails a test?
i don’t hate junkies… needs based testing goes into the fifth amendment territory of the right against self incrimination. people. that’s what criminal defense is all about.
Is Child Protective Services unconstitutional as well? I mean, we shouldn’t be sending social workers to stop by some foster kids’ house to check on their safety and well being, right? We’re violating the constitutional rights of the foster parents by “assuming they’re guilty” because we’re doing such checks, right?
And if one or two little bastards take a red hot poker up the ass or have to live in a closet and eat strips of olive loaf slid under the door, well, better for a few guilty perps to slip through than to inconvienience the rest with such inhumane and degrading processes such as check ups and so forth, right?
How about instead of just telling us all the time that you worked in criminal defense and using big words like “constitution” you explain to us how the 5th Ammendment applies or why this proposed idea is unconstitutional.
Effectively EXPLAINING and CONVINCING a judge and/or jury of your position is how cases are won. So, try being a little less smug with your own convictions and attempt to actually communicate your viewpoints to others and you might make some of us understand or even agree with your side.
THAT’S what criminal defense is all about.
and you became an attorney when? you kinda remind me of a certain wannabe rock star’s wife who WISHES she were as smart as a lawyer.
you kinda remind me of a certain wannabe rock star’s wife who WISHES she were as smart as a lawyer.
I remind you of yourself? Cool. I knew we’d get along well.
[reply]you kinda remind me of a certain wannabe rock star’s wife who WISHES she were as smart as a lawyer.
I remind you of yourself? Cool. I knew we’d get along well.[/reply]
HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!
and again, you became an attorney when?