TN - Less Than 1% Of Welfare Applicants Used Drugs.

[nehalem256]

Public safety exception.

Well considering that welfare is for the kids I would think that having children under the care of a stoner is not in the interest of safety.

 

[fskimospy]

Well considering that welfare is for the kids I would think that having children under the care of a stoner is not in the interest of safety.

Looks like you would be wrong!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/602

The Government's interest in regulating the conduct of railroad employees engaged in safety-sensitive tasks in order to ensure the safety of the traveling public and of the employees themselves plainly justifies prohibiting such employees from using alcohol or drugs while on duty or on call for duty and the exercise of supervision to assure that the restrictions are in fact observed. That interest presents "special needs" beyond normal law enforcement that may justify departures from the usual warrant and probable cause requirements.

It's a requirement that effectively attempts to prevent public employees from drinking and driving with the safety of hundreds of lives in the balance. Needless to say to anyone who isn't a moron, that's not even remotely the same thing.

Additionally, the ruling itself goes out of its way to say how a generalized, suspicionless drug test would be unconstitutional, just like this one.

 

[nehalem256]

Looks like you would be wrong!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/602



It's a requirement that effectively attempts to prevent public employees from drinking and driving with the safety of hundreds of lives in the balance. Needless to say to anyone who isn't a moron, that's not even remotely the same thing.

Additionally, the ruling itself goes out of its way to say how a generalized, suspicionless drug test would be unconstitutional, just like this one.

There is a fundamental right to employment.

There is no right to welfare.

 

[nehalem256]

Here we go:

Driving under the Influence of alcohol is a special type of crime, as driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) over a set limit is defined as the crime; it is not necessary to drive recklessly or cause an accident in order to be convicted. To determine BAC accurately, it is generally necessary for the driver to subject himself to tests that are self incriminating, and drivers sometimes exercise their right against self incrimination to refuse these tests. To discourage this, some jurisdictions set the legal penalties for refusing a BAC test to equal or worse than those for a failing a BAC test. In other jurisdictions, the legal system may consider refusing the roadside alcohol breath test to be probable cause, allowing police to arrest the driver and conduct an involuntary BAC test. The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#Legality_in_the_United_States

Driving is a privilege. Welfare is a privilege.

 

[Vic]

So what you are saying is the government has the power to compel people to buy health insurance but it cannot require a drug test before getting welfare.

Yeah that is totally consistent

I don't support the mandate, keep trying.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't support the mandate, keep trying.

Your statement:

Liberals are constantly complaining about the cost and power of government.

Are you saying liberals don't support the mandate?

 

[fskimospy]

There is a fundamental right to employment.

Cite the appropriate court case or statute, please.

There is no right to welfare.

That's not what the rulings that declared this constitutional were based on. I love how you still haven't even read the thing you're trying to attack. What an idiot.

 

[PokerGuy]

It may seem reasonable to you, but it is also unconstitutional.

If the courts find it to be unconstitutional, then so be it, but it still seems very reasonable to me. There isn't some God given right to handouts from others (government), so if there are strings attached with handouts, you are free to either take the handouts with the strings or not take them. Either way, that's a different discussion than the thread topic from the OP, which is complete fail as expected.

 

[xBiffx]

It may seem reasonable to you, but it is also unconstitutional in Florida.

FTFY. Seeing is how the title of the thread and topic are about TN, its still up for debate.

 

[nehalem256]

Cite the appropriate court case or statute, please.

Come on now. Do I need to provide citation for a right to eat or a right to breathe too?

The right to work is the concept that people have a human right to work, or engage in productive employment, and may not be prevented from doing so. The right to work is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law through its inclusion in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, where the right to work emphasizes economic, social and cultural development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_work

That's not what the rulings that declared this constitutional were based on. I love how you still haven't even read the thing you're trying to attack. What an idiot.

Welfare is a privilege. Driving is a privilege.

SCOTUS has clearly said the government can impose conditions including drug testing on using a privilege.

 

[fskimospy]

FTFY. Seeing is how the title of the thread and topic are about TN, its still up for debate.

It was federal court.

 

[xBiffx]

It was federal court.

Still only applies to the FL law. You'll notice other states that still have a law regarding this testing as proof of that.

 

[fskimospy]

Come on now. Do I need to provide citation for a right to eat or a right to breathe too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_work

Nothing in there is relevant to US law.

Welfare is a privilege. Driving is a privilege.

SCOTUS has clearly said the government can impose conditions including drug testing on using a privilege.

Looks like you still haven't read the case. You cannot require people to waive their constitutional rights to receive a government benefit.

I'm going to link to the case here: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/document.pdf

No more discussion until you can prove that you've read it.

 

[MrPickins]

There is a fundamental right to employment.

This is demonstrably false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

 

[nehalem256]

Nothing in there is relevant to US law.



Looks like you still haven't read the case. You cannot require people to waive their constitutional rights to receive a government benefit.

I'm going to link to the case here: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/document.pdf

No more discussion until you can prove that you've read it.

And driving on government roads is not a government benefit?:hmm:

Sorry, SCOTUS disagrees with you.

From the opinion:

“the [Supreme] Court has recognized [only] two concerns that present such exceptional
circumstances which are sufficiently substantial to qualify as special needs meriting an
exemption to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant and probable cause requirement: the
specific risk to public safety by employees engaged in inherently dangerous jobs, and
the protection of children entrusted to the public school system’s care and tutelage.”

Sorry, but as I pointed out the SCOTUS allows at least one other exception. DUI checkpoints. An exception that seems a lot closer to the issue at hand. As working for a railroad or being a school teacher is not a government benefit.

So now that I have shown that apparently the court is unfamiliar with relevant case law why should I give it any credence?

This is demonstrably false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Employment is a negative right. You are free to seek work and work for a firm that will hire you.

Are you really disputing that?

 

[werepossum]

Surely you don't think that people who smoke pot (the only thing these tests are really for, given the short detection window of most other drugs) are only suitable as welfare recipients?

I think that people who smoke pot have a much lower chance of finding gainful employment.

 

[blankslate]

Obviously that means we're not drug testing them enough...

amirite?



...

 

[MrPickins]

I think that people who smoke pot have a much lower chance of finding gainful employment.

Don't be mislead by the stereotype of the lazy stoner.

I know far more employed professionals who imbibe than I do losers.


I'm not saying they don't exist, but those are the ones you see because the responsible users are discreet about it.

 

[MrPickins]

Employment is a negative right. You are free to seek work and work for a firm that will hire you.

Are you really disputing that?

That's not what you said.

You said there was a fundamental right to employment, not that there is a right to seek employment.

 

[nehalem256]

That's not what you said.

You said there was a fundamental right to employment, not that there is a right to seek employment.

Constitution guarantees a right to freedom of speech. Doesn't mean you are guaranteed an audience.

The government cannot prevent you from working.

Again this should be obvious.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't be mislead by the stereotype of the lazy stoner.

I know far more employed professionals who imbibe than I do losers.

I'm not saying they don't exist, but those are the ones you see because the responsible users are discreet about it.

The most successful people I know use drugs far more often than the losers I know.

Spend any time around a high end law firm, bankers, etc, and you will quickly be buried in a blizzard (har) of drugs.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You are reading it exactly as it's worded.

"In the month since it began, six people submitted to a drug test and just one tested positive out of the 812 people who applied."

Did you expect people to actually read an article or just get frothy mouthed over the title.

LULZ!

Talk about...

THREAD BACKFIRE!!!


Nice one Newell /Highfive!

 

[MrPickins]

Constitution guarantees a right to freedom of speech. Doesn't mean you are guaranteed an audience.

One can speak without an audience. One can not be employed without an employer.

The government cannot prevent you from working.

Again this should be obvious.

I never said it could, but it also does not guarantee that you will get a job.

I know I'm arguing semantics, but the "right to work" issue has always irked me in this way.

 

[Vic]

Your statement:


Are you saying liberals don't support the mandate?

Because everyone of any particular label you choose to give them MUST be in lockstep agreement.

 

[nehalem256]

One can speak without an audience. One can not be employed without an employer.

You can work for yourself. Just like you can talk to yourself.

I never said it could, but it also does not guarantee that you will get a job.

I know I'm arguing semantics, but the "right to work" issue has always irked me in this way.

Just like the right to eat doesn't guarantee you food. The right to water doesn't guarantee you having clean potable water delivered to your door step.

They are rights so fundamental there isn't really a need to list them except to idiots like eskimospy.