FR7 Baptist
Active Member
It's unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment. BTW, the government can only drug test their employees if they are in a safety-sensitive or national security position.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Welfare drug tests
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
It's unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment. BTW, the government can only drug test their employees if they are in a safety-sensitive or national security position.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Are you kidding billwald? They'd be okay with brain implants as long they were free and the government or one of it's many corporate sponsors promised em a good job with benefits right now.
To most em we're all guilty until proven innocent now anyway. We've gone from a republic founded on individual liberty to a total surveillance insane asylum founded on fear and prejudice in less than one hundred years. That's gotta be some kind of record.
I know Salty I know it's all the liberals fault.
Last edited by a moderator:
People keep complaining that this is violating the rights of people.
Why are you only looking at *certain* people?
What about the right of an employer to choose not to have druggies in his/her workplace, possibly becoming violent, stealing from the place, being incapable of job performance, and raising the insurance rates with the possibility of becoming hurt on the job because they're doped up?
What about the rights of taxpayers to know that the money they give in taxes and is going into the pockets of others...what about their right to know that it's less likely their tax money isn't going to be spent supporting a drug habit?
Face the facts. A lot of people on welfare are on it because they've made poor choices. A LOT of them are abusing alcohol and/or drugs, and you really think those paying for it have no right to have them do something as simple as take two minutes to give a urine sample to show they're going to use it on electric, housing, and food instead of alcohol and drugs?
Who are you trying to protect here? Why not put your efforts into protecting the people who make this country work, like businesses and those with jobs?
Anyone can get down on their luck. That's tough. Sure, help 'em out. I'm all for that. I've been there. But asking them to be drug-free in return for help with food and housing isn't some vastly horrid violation of their rights. NOT doing so is a vastly horrid violation of the rights of those forced to pay for it.
Why are you only looking at *certain* people?
What about the right of an employer to choose not to have druggies in his/her workplace, possibly becoming violent, stealing from the place, being incapable of job performance, and raising the insurance rates with the possibility of becoming hurt on the job because they're doped up?
What about the rights of taxpayers to know that the money they give in taxes and is going into the pockets of others...what about their right to know that it's less likely their tax money isn't going to be spent supporting a drug habit?
Face the facts. A lot of people on welfare are on it because they've made poor choices. A LOT of them are abusing alcohol and/or drugs, and you really think those paying for it have no right to have them do something as simple as take two minutes to give a urine sample to show they're going to use it on electric, housing, and food instead of alcohol and drugs?
Who are you trying to protect here? Why not put your efforts into protecting the people who make this country work, like businesses and those with jobs?
Anyone can get down on their luck. That's tough. Sure, help 'em out. I'm all for that. I've been there. But asking them to be drug-free in return for help with food and housing isn't some vastly horrid violation of their rights. NOT doing so is a vastly horrid violation of the rights of those forced to pay for it.
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
Private employers have the right to do that.
It doesn't exist. While there is a governmental interest in insuring that the money doesn't go to fuel a drug habit, it can not override the Constitution of the State of Florida.
I'm trying to protect the citizens of the State of Florida from unreasonable searches and seizures.
As a Libertarian, I have no problem with private employers requiring drug tests. The market will win. If, say, pot is legalized and employers want pot free employees they will have to raise the pay rate because the potential employee pool is smaller.
>Interesting to note that the authors said "among these" unalienable rights.
>Meaning that there are other unmentioned rights besides life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Which form of government prohibits chasing after happiness? This is the amended declaration. As written, it was "pursuit of property" which was more honest.
But as the ant-federalists noted during the constitutional debate, if the bill of rights was included in the long run the courts would find they are our only rights. That is exactly what happened.
>Interesting to note that the authors said "among these" unalienable rights.
>Meaning that there are other unmentioned rights besides life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Which form of government prohibits chasing after happiness? This is the amended declaration. As written, it was "pursuit of property" which was more honest.
But as the ant-federalists noted during the constitutional debate, if the bill of rights was included in the long run the courts would find they are our only rights. That is exactly what happened.
Really? I believe you. I would like to see it. Can you point me to an appropriate narrative Bill?
HankD