Do you think welfare recipients should have to pass a drug test to receive their tax-payer supported welfare check?

You're ASSUMING all Welfarers are crooks. Don't tar the occasional users with the chronic parasites. We ALL pay into the system, shouldn't be much of a concern if you're only on it less than 5 (or so)% of the time if you've paid that amount in deductions (like any other insurance).

Where does the Constitution give Government the power to take my money to give to others?

For good or bad it's the 16th amendment.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

"general Welfare" doesn't mean individual welfare, just as the police have no duty to protect individuals, but only the community as a whole.

“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

But it is the Congress' purview to determine what is best for the General Welfare. They determined that providing those safety nets does promote the General Welfare (corporately) Like it or not Taxation and the use of tax dollars for social programs are Constitutionally sound.

Where I worked, some did beat the test. They were tipped off when it was coming and did whatever it is they do to beat it. But that is why the testing is random, sooner or later they slip up and they don't get tipped off or they get tipped off too late to do anything about it.

Have you looked at the numbers? Are there legitimate welfare cases? Of course there are. Are there more legit than there are scammers? I would venture to guess for every 2 bonafide cases there is 1 that is not. If we knew for sure how many were not need based, we would demand more adamantly that a handle be put on it.

I have to pass one to get a job to pay there welfare so why wouldnt they need to pass one to get there hand outs.

perfect!!

They aren't engaged in an occupation, like school bus driving, in which taking drugs would endanger others, so the tests would be unnecessarily intrusive.

That's rational "In the special case I can cook up in my head, they don't need it, therefore they don't need it".

I say if you appose it then by all means, locate all the ones who do fail, and buy them groceries every month.
I don't want to buy their food.

The only ones who are tested routinely are people like those in the occupation I mentioned involving public safety. Let's face it. You are a selfish jerk who doesn't like paying taxes.

No one likes paying taxes.
I personally don't like when they come up with new ways to tax us.
I really hate it when they tax us for things I know are insane.
Like feeding drug addicts who won't feed themselves.

As I said.. I think, that since you feel they need to be fed. I think YOU should feed them.

They have the right to refuse the test and food.

YOU on the other hand are taking away what little matter I have to say in this.
You feed them, you have the right to feed whom ever you want to.

You do not have the right to force me to feed someone who refuses to feed themselves.

You do understand that it's a greed thing for sure " I will die before I feed myself I want what I want I do all of the drugs"

and your response is greed because you want all of us to shell out money that you want to give away.

Ask the druggies to cut off some of their drug money, so they can help feed the other druggies.

To them, that's just like sharing their drugs. They wont share their drugs. They are greedy beings. That is the magic part of it all.

The only greed appearing in connection with this post is yours, especially in the foregoing post. Do you even read what you write?

Yep, and I read you writing that it is greedy for me to dissagree with you and I should shell out money to people who do not deserve my money.

If you think they deserve your money, then by all means, give it up and let this go.

I am not the one trying to change the law. I don't have to let anything go.

Then you should lobby your or vote out the representative to make changes, not BRAGPLAIN about it. That's the trouble with most of you, APATHY rarely solves any REAL problems and you ASSUME the bureaucracy has your interests eternally paramount. GET INVOLVED!

Oh boohoo, wouldn't want to offend those living off of those of us who work, would we? If they have money for drugs, they surely don't need free money.

You don't have a clue as to what goes on in the real world. The notion that, because someone has a drug problem, we should take away food stamps he or she needs to survive is absurd. You should get out once in a while, away from the wealthy Republican enclave where you live, and learn about the real world.

I love it when people like you make asinine assumptions, it continually shows how ignorant you are. How many human services offices have you worked in? How many rehab facilities have you worked in? How many countries have you visited to help at orphanages where the children have run away from sexual abuse and drug addicted parents? I worked at a rehab facility and interned at a human services office during college, after college I worked at another human services office before continuing my education. My sister is an alcoholic and drug addict, as a result my husband and myself raised her son until he was 4 when she finally got clean. I've spent years taking clothes, toys, and medical supplies to orphanages to countries such as Bolivia, six to be exact, multiple times. Pull your head out of your ass, it's obvious that your brain needs the oxygen.

It may seem asinine to you, but it's also asinine to assume that just because someone is poor, they're a drug addict or an alcoholic. Not so.

Please show me where I made that assumption.

You assume (above in previous posts) that if someone tests positive for an illegal substance they are abusing it or are addicted. This is a false assumption, in my view. More than that, you maintain that they should be tested before getting "free" money. You did not clarify what you meant by that, specifically. Welfare, as I've pointed out, is a very vague term. Some people, like veterans, people on SSI, etc. do get subsidies from the government in part or full. If we're going to drug test single moms, drug test everyone or no one at all.

I never made that assumption. ANYONE that gets free money needs to be drug tested.

What do you mean by ANYONE - who precisely do you intend this law for and please be specific and COVER ALL who receive partial or full benefits and all benefits. I'll wait.

I don't know how to make this simpler for you. ANYONE WHO RECIEVES FREE MONEY.

Well that's nice, except that drug testing people who are paralyzed, in wheelchairs, disabled, chronically ill or elderly is not going to change the fact that they need "free" money.

They probably aren't using illegal drugs and couldn't care less about a drug test. The only ones that should care are those who have something to hide.

They will still need the benefits though, so what will you do with those disabled paralyzed people who don't pass it?

If they are *NOT* "a drug addict or an alcoholic" they will pass then, won't they?

So what is your point?

My point is it's unconstitutional and unfair assumption that because they test positive for something "illegal" they are addicts.

Alcohol and prescription drugs are legal and would not count. How is this a fair application of the law?

And who are these bums everyone is referring to (not you so far, just others)?

People in wheelchairs, disabled, elderly, who?

You state: "My point is it's unconstitutional and unfair assumption that because they test positive for something "illegal" they are addicts."

I haven't heard that this would only apply to addicts, just *ILLEGAL* drug users.

You ask: "Alcohol and prescription drugs are legal and would not count. How is this a fair application of the law?"

Please re-read your post, the answer is there: one is *LEGAL* the other is *ILLEGAL*.

You ask: "And who are these bums everyone is referring to (not you so far, just others)?"

May I suggest, that you ask those that use the terms and phrases that you question?

Lots of substances that are legal cost money too and can be addictive and/or abused: Alcohol, prescription drugs, cigarettes to name a few.

If the purpose of the test is to stop people who spend money on mind altering substances, it fails if it doesn't include these.

By an unfair application of the law, I mean a person who smoked a joint would not get any benefit, but a flaming alcoholic would, or a chain smoker, or a pill popper.

I also think that unless the law was applied to every single person who receives any benefits at all, it would be an unfair application of the law.

You state: "Lots of substances that are legal cost money too and can be addictive and/or abused: Alcohol, prescription drugs, cigarettes to name a few."

And these are all *LEGAL*, aren't they?

You state: "If the purpose of the test is to stop people who spend money on mind altering substances, it fails if it doesn't include these."

What about if the goal, is to stop these people from using taxPAYERS' money to engage in *ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES*?

You state: "By an unfair application of the law, I mean a person who smoked a joint would not get any benefit, but a flaming alcoholic would, or a chain smoker, or a pill popper."

Sex and rape are physically similar; yet one is a *LEGAL ACT* while the other is an *ILLEGAL ACT*.
I don't drink, I don't smoke and I don't smoke pot, yet 2 of the 3 are *LEGAL ACTS* while one of the 3 is an *ILLEGAL ACT*.
Bottom-line: Don't support *ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES* with the taxPAYERS' money.

You state: "I also think that unless the law was applied to every single person who receives any benefits at all, it would be an unfair application of the law."

So are you oppose to prosecuting rapist, if husbands and wives aren't prosecuted as well?
Same thing.

A drug is a drug is a drug, whether legal or illegal.

Sex is consensual, rape is not. No comparison.

I understand you disagree with me, but I don't see the difference between an alcoholic and a pill popper, legal or not.

You state: "Sex is consensual, rape is not. No comparison."
I've had *consensual sex*, that was rougher than many actual rapes and the only real difference between the two was a single word: "Yes!"

That word changed the act from a *VIOLENT CRIME* to "The most INCREDIBLY and memorable experience of my LIFE!"
That one word made all the difference in the world, changing the actual act from a *CRIME* to a *GREAT TIME!*

So while I don't agree with alcohol abuse, it is still a *LEGAL* act, thus I believe, outside of Government control as long as it is legal.
*ILLEGAL* drugs are, well, *ALREADY ILLEGAL*.

There is a fine line between rape and consensual sex sometimes, I understand that. Still, at the opposite ends of the spectrum I think we can both agree that there is a difference between the two.

I think we can safely assume that most drugs made illegal were for good reason, but not all. The same applies to legal drugs, like alcohol and prescription drugs that are legally prescribed. Just because they are "legal" doesn't mean they are good or that the outcomes aren't as bad upon using them, and maybe worse, depending. They still cost money, still cause dependency and addiction, and still a fallout in personal decisions/behavior as a result of their use if abused.

You are correct about the potential for harm they pose, but they are still *LEGAL*.

And you live in a rich Republican enclave and don't have a clue as to how the real world is except for the volunteering you did to help yourself get accepted at college.

Learn how to read moron. Funny how, like the coward you obviously are, you avoidied answering the questions. How many human service offices have you worked in? How many drug rehab centers have you worked in? How many countries have you taken needed supplies and aid to? None I'm guessing. You just sit on your lazy ass complaining about those who are better than you could ever hope to be. If you had the the ability to read properly, you would have seen where I worked in the places AFTER I was in college. Just because YOU only do good things to get something for yourself, doesn't mean the rest of us do. Now, run along troll, it would be beneath me to waste any more time on someone like you.

You did not identify any place where you worked after your education was concluded. Do you often have difficulty communicating in this forum?