Unconstitutional?

Printable View

10-25-2011, 11:35
trlcavscout

Unconstitutional?

Ok I get the right to privacy and all that BS. The supreme court shoots down mandatory drug testing to recieve "benefits" in Florida? Why should they be exempt from urine testing? Military drug tests, most large companys drug test, every job I had in Las Vegas required pre-employment drug testing, my current job required drug testing. Why are the mooches special? Its obvious the ACLU knows that most of their fan base could not pass it. I am sure this has been covered but I couldnt find it in a search. The least those POS's could do while living off other peoples tax dollars who do work is stay clean [Rant1]

Drug testing for "benefits" should be mandatory nation wide!!!
10-25-2011, 11:46
cstone

Not the US Supreme Court, a federal District Court judge:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/2...ng-halted.html

This case will go higher in the appellate process before we get a definitive answer.

For the record, I agree with you. You should not be in the process of breaking laws while accepting benefits from the same government who made the laws. It just seems a little hypocritical.
10-25-2011, 11:47
DeusExMachina

You know who owns the drug testing facilities that would have been used for that program?

The state senator that sponsored that bill.

You know who had to pay for those tests?

The individual receiving welfare.

Kind of ironic, don't you think?
10-25-2011, 11:51
cstone

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeusExMachina

You know who owns the drug testing facilities that would have been used for that program?

The state senator that sponsored that bill.

You know who had to pay for those tests?

The individual receiving welfare.

Kind of ironic, don't you think?

That certainly would help discourage me from taking illegal drugs and accepting welfare at the same time. I wouldn't want to support a corrupt politician. [ROFL1]
10-25-2011, 11:53
DeusExMachina

Quote:

Originally Posted by cstone

That certainly would help discourage me from taking illegal drugs and accepting welfare at the same time. I wouldn't want to support a corrupt politician. [ROFL1]

Good point, but you'd have to anyway. Taking drugs or not, you'd have to pay for the tests and be tested.
10-25-2011, 12:03
BPTactical

I think this judge opened a can of worms with her decision and if the SCOTUS were to rule in kind I can see a real mess.
SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that UA's are not a violation of the 4th. If they had not then nobody including the Feds would be allowed to do UA's other than "Reasonable Suspicion" and or provisions of probation or such.
The Federal Judge contradicted the SCOTUS's case law precedent with her "Decision".
OK- so let's look at the other side-they allow UA's before one can receive benefits. Ms Crackhead like in the WTF? thread blows her UA and can't receive her gubberment dole.
She whines and is now a person with a disease(addiction) and now demands treatment and rehab.
Guess who pays?
Yup-we do.

But I do agree that pissin in the cup to keep your government handout is acceptable.

I think most all of us have had to pass the whiz quiz to gain/retain our means to a living right?
The bastard welfare slobs can't have it both ways.

They want "equality" right?
Then piss in the cup like the rest of us you lazy worthless parasites.
10-25-2011, 12:16
El Caballo Loco

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeusExMachina

You know who owns the drug testing facilities that would have been used for that program?

The state senator that sponsored that bill.

You know who had to pay for those tests?

The individual receiving welfare.

Kind of ironic, don't you think?

So are you saying they should not use that welfare money to prove they deserve it just because the Senator owns the companies or were you just pointing out the irony?
10-25-2011, 12:31
trlcavscout

Quote:

Originally Posted by BPTactical

I think this judge opened a can of worms with her decision and if the SCOTUS were to rule in kind I can see a real mess.
SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that UA's are not a violation of the 4th. If they had not then nobody including the Feds would be allowed to do UA's other than "Reasonable Suspicion" and or provisions of probation or such.
The Federal Judge contradicted the SCOTUS's case law precedent with her "Decision".
OK- so let's look at the other side-they allow UA's before one can receive benefits. Ms Crackhead like in the WTF? thread blows her UA and can't receive her gubberment dole.
She whines and is now a person with a disease(addiction) and now demands treatment and rehab.
Guess who pays?
Yup-we do.

But I do agree that pissin in the cup to keep your government handout is acceptable.

I think most all of us have had to pass the whiz quiz to gain/retain our means to a living right?
The bastard welfare slobs can't have it both ways.

They want "equality" right?
Then piss in the cup like the rest of us you lazy worthless parasites.

I thought the lady in the video said the were protesting equality and change? [ROFL1]

I think they should pay for their own test out of their money. Most half way houses are owned by judges.
10-25-2011, 18:47
KevDen2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by cstone

Not the US Supreme Court, a federal District Court judge:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/2...ng-halted.html

This case will go higher in the appellate process before we get a definitive answer.

For the record, I agree with you. You should not be in the process of breaking laws while accepting benefits from the same government who made the laws. It just seems a little hypocritical.

+1. Hoping that it hits a higher court. There is already case law for Indians in this country in support of drug testing (just off the top of my head).

I also agree they should be tested.
10-25-2011, 19:22
jerrymrc

In my mind this is not unreasonable. The Judge cites the 4th but the state is not going around asking everyone to submit to the test.

You are asking for $$ for free. Just as there are programs that say you have to show that you are looking for a job to get benefits although that is a little different the state should be able to (within reason) to make the rules.

Just as a job that pays money to you can require it I do not see why when the state is going to GIVE you money they can't. Want $$ pee in the cup.

I also don't get the state workers fighting this. The fed does it all the time. I had to to get my $$$ and they can make me pee in the cup anytime they want. If it goes higher I see it going for the state. Private can, fed can, cities can, counties can but the state can't? BS.
10-25-2011, 22:41
Irving

I don't like the senator owning all the places, and I'd say that most legislation that is similar than this is just to help turn something into an industry. Ever know anyone who has gotten a DUI? That whole process is a damn shame. They make you do all kinds of stuff (that costs a lot of money) and it is all to further the industry.

Drug testing? Yes.
Have to go to only certain places? Absolutely not.
10-25-2011, 23:28
sniper7

I heard the obama administration wanted to remove the word "unconstitutional" from the dictionary. They said there is no such thing
10-26-2011, 10:30
Ronin13

Here is my .02 on this... one, you all by now probably know my stance on the drug war (as a 1/2 libertarian, 1/2 republican I'm against the drug war), but, if it is required for many jobs, my current one is not, but most out there are, you should be clean. Do I care what people put in their bodies? No. Do I care what they use MY money to pay for? Yes. Welfare is our money given to people who don't have much, so they should have to pee in a cup and pass to get their check from the government's tit. As far as the constitutionality of it, Welfare is not in the constitution, so this is not regulated by such, thus piss in the cup or no check for you! Nuff said.
10-26-2011, 11:27
clublights

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irving

I don't like the senator owning all the places, and I'd say that most legislation that is similar than this is just to help turn something into an industry. Ever know anyone who has gotten a DUI? That whole process is a damn shame. They make you do all kinds of stuff (that costs a lot of money) and it is all to further the industry.

Drug testing? Yes.
Have to go to only certain places? Absolutely not.

Yeah 90% of the DUI stuff is not about punishment anymore.. it's about making companies money.

as for the certain places thing....

you have to limit it some to make sure that there is integrity in the process...

Should the state trust Joe's drug testing emporium? ... run outta his garage ?
10-26-2011, 11:41
earplug

Why give the government more power?

Using the same clean piss for government payments argument could be expanded to requiring clean piss to collect your IRS/state tax refund. Hunting, fishing licence
Its for the good of society and your own well being.
The power of the state needs to be reduced
10-26-2011, 11:53
SuperiorDG

Quote:

Originally Posted by earplug

Using the same clean piss for government payments argument could be expanded to requiring clean piss to collect your IRS/state tax refund. Hunting, fishing licence
Its for the good of society and your own well being.
The power of the state needs to be reduced

This ^^^

And also CCW. The UA is an ideal example of the slippy slop in action. The government has been allowed more and more power to circumvent the 4th Amendment and this needs to stop some where. Whether or not society benefits from a particular case is no reason to make exception to the Constitution.