Only liberal Democrats would scream drug testing when applying for welfare is unconstitutional. Cocaine is more expensive than a hamburger. It’s just wrong to ask for a hand out, then spend your money on illegal drugs.
Welfare is tax payer money. We have a right to determine what it can and can not be used for; therefore it is not unconstitutional to deny drug users welfare.
Drug testing for applicants of welfare should be in all 50 states. That is really the only issue here, that it is not yet in all the states.
ARLIN REPORT...................walking this path together 
Reblogged this on Vernon Pope.
LikeLike
You’re a busy man tonight. Thanks for the reblog
LikeLike
The ratio of welfare recipients that are drug users is questionable. Drug testing for welfare only reinforces to employers the cleanability and demonstrates the employability.of welfare recipients..
LikeLike
And vice versa. I learn things from your blog I would never learn in my own echo chamber 🙂
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Serve Him in the Waiting.
LikeLike
Another case where we agree on some of the principles, but there’s something scarier in this than whether or not people on hard times are using our hard earned tax dollars to get high.
Fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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 far as I’m aware, there’s no data yet to demonstrate that welfare recipients have a higher incidence of drug use than those who receive no welfare. Worse, Florida discovered (yet maintains its program) that welfare recipients had a lower incidence of drug use. Basically, there is no probable cause for this invasive search.
So if we decide that it’s okay for big government, even big state government, to conduct unreasonable searches of this type without probable cause, what else are we going to let government search without probable cause and warrants?
Then we can consider money spent. The idea is that if a welfare recipient gets busted on a test, they don’t get the money, and we save that money. Florida has busted so few people this way that they spend more money on the drug testing program than they save by withholding welfare benefits.
Then there’s the other ugly side of the money issue. Remember LBJ and Bell Helicopter? When someone in power makes decisions that affect/ruin/end other peoples lives, we start to wonder how they’re making those decisions when they personally stand to make boatloads of money. In the case of Florida’s drug testing, why did Scott Walker push it so hard? Could it have anything to do with the fact that someone has to run all those tests and make money from it and that one such company was run by his wife?
Now ask yourself how you’d feel about this if we swapped the name Walker for Clinton. What if, totally hypothetical here, Bill was that governor, drug testing was his program, and Hillary’s company made the money? Just sayin’.
Oh, and to show that I’m not just blowing rotten liberal air into the debate, here’s Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2015/02/17/the-sham-of-drug-testing-walker-scott-and-political-pandering/
LikeLiked by 2 people
I actually did think of someone like a Clinton or Walker making money off the drug testing. I admit that gliche does bother me. There are private/labs doing drug testing, such as those used by companies for employment.
As usual though you bring things to light to help heal my blindness. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wellllll, didn’t you just put a huge hatchet in my thinking, Frank. Ashamedly, I had not considered this as a fourth amendment issue and you have opened my eyes to dig much deeper on this topic, as well as a few others. Well done, sir, well done…!! =)
LikeLike
Radical independent with a distrust of our current political machinery, at your service 🙂 Thank you for the kind comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person