I was reading the thread on the Healthcare topic and was reminded about this discussion about drug testing for welfare. Where I work we are tested and a lot of other places where people work test. Do you feel that welfare should be any different?
I don't think so however, they should be provided a back-to-work program or incentive which obviously would require them to be clean, punctual and coherent so it goes with the territory.
My province has a back to work program where welfare recipients are contacted and given some work choices (jobs participating in the program) and unless they have disability issues or something else hindering their job search, they MUST participate. They get a little bit of extra on top of their monthly cheque and job training, interview techniques, job search tips and other training opportunities.
Somewhat along these lines I heard about a guy in the UK, an alcoholic who requires a liver transplant. The uproar is about whether or not the national health care system should cover it.
I think we fall into dangerous territory when we start playing judge and jury with certain issues. I mean, why just drug users? Shoule the obese be disallowed benefits? Should alcoholics?
Not so much citizenship, but legal residency, for sure. I have no problem with someone who is a legal taxpaying resident using public assistance, no matter what their citizenship is.
I don't mind drug testing, but it seems almost cost prohibitive. Is it worth the cost to administer? Need more info. As for the "obese" and "alcoholics", neither of those things (food or booze) is illegal.
What's the purpose of testing?
I can understand testing where it affects your ability to do your job but I don't see how that applies to people on welfare.
So, then is it a way for the government to save money? One strike and you're out?
Is the government just looking for an excuse to take away people's monthly cheques to save some money?
I know some employers will hold your job for you while you attend treatment. Is that the goal here? To get welfare recipients into treatment programs so that they may become more "productive" members of society? Can you test people, determine that they are using drugs and then not offer options if they admit to a problem? Is that morally the right thing to do? I guess you could move the people from welfare to shelters or wherever it is that people with substance abuse issues sleep when they don't have rent money.
So taxpayers are going to pay for drug tests for people on welfare? Does anyone here want to do that? If not, then who pays?
Drug abuse is the single biggest factor connected to violent crime. Get people off of drugs and you potentially reduce the violence, which can lead to a reduction in the public cost associated with it. So I have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients. I think there should be exceptions for the disabled, but everyone else needs to pee in a cup. Don't want to be drug tested? Don't go on the dole.
Now I think the other important question to ask is, what are the consequences of getting caught doing drugs, while accepting public assistance? If we just kick them off and offer little or no help, the drug testing is useless. But if they're offered drug treatment, then OK.
That being said, you can't save everyone. So we have to have limits on how long people can be on welfare and how many times they can enter treatment for drug problems, before we kick em to the curb and put our efforts into those who CAN be helped.
I'm not sure how these two sentences are related: "Drug abuse is the single biggest factor connected to violent crime." and "I have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients."
I do agree that drug use = violent crime but I don't agree that welfare = violent crime or that welfare = drug use.
I'm not convinced of the cost effectiveness, like I said. But hell yes, you should have to jump through hoops. I'm sure there are already hoops. I know when I got unemployment I had hoops. And if someone had told me I had to get piss tested, I would have showed up with a full bladder or said no thanks. Easy.
There's a distinction between welfare and unemployment? Right? Unemployment is pretty much earned. Is it not? So, hell fucking no, you shouldn't have to piss in a cup for unemployment benefits.
Welfare is for parents of children. Are you going to deny food to the child of a person who tests positive for drugs?
I wouldn't deny food to a child who's parent is on drugs but give them warnings maybe 3 strikes you're out - as in 3 strikes we take your kid away and give em back when you're sober.
A little pot yeah yeah... but do you really want someone on more serious drugs to be around a kid anyway?
I'd say that poverty is the most direct cause for drug use then violent crime. You're blaming a symptom in a cause-and-effect chain if you say it's just drug use.
The government should have no right to the fluids of its citizens. It is a violation of my civil liberties to require jack shit from me innards.
If I want a given job badly enough, MAYBE I'll knuckle under to a private enterprise requiring it - but it would be a huge knock against the company that they do it. No way for my government. The government that only recently created an environment where situations like pyramids of prisoners and waterboarding could happen cannot have access to my DNA.
And I have nothing to hide. My pee has nothing but legal substances in it. So why not? Because, fuck you Government, that's why not.
Because it's immoral to treat a group of people as if they are potentially guilty of doing something wrong with no reasonable suspicion.
That's why.
Random drug testing is a bachanded way of treating everyone as if they are guilty of wrongdoing. The "nothing to hide" argument is tacit approval of having your privacy violated by those who would go on a fishing expedition looking for wrongdoing. Authority figures need a good reason to go snooping in your private life and being poor isn't a good reason.
Having to disclose your finances is a more well settled example of a violation of privacy rights. But, you have to do that to get welfare, too. If you don't want to waive your rights, don't hold out your hand for money.
Apples and oranges, Ginny. Financial disclosure isn't a fishing expedition looking for wrongdoing. It's a matter of demonstrating need.
It goes to intent as well. The financial disclosure in no way is geared towards punishing anyone for their actions. The drug test only serves one purpose.
And I'll asnwer Theo's question. Who is the judge of "looks high"? I dunno, let's use an example we can relate to. Suppose you are the clerk who handles welfare claims and a person comes in who just doesn't seem to be 'all there' that day. Are you qualified to say "we should test that young lady"? Only to discover that it's Rainy and she's been having a bad day which has really brought her down. I suspect that the government employee who handles stuff like that is in no way qualified to make that call. If a person does come in and is reaking of booze or pot, then it seems reasonable to turn them away until they can return in a better state. But with medical marijuana becoming legalized in more states, then it's an even more difficult call to make, isn't it?
Enjoy the Kool-Aide (made from real crap)
This message has been edited by 8_Bucks on Jul 23, 2009 11:21 AM
I'm not committed enough to argue with anyone about it, but it just doesn't strike me as a serious violation of civil liberties. You are inviting the government into your life when you take public assistance.
The statement "You are inviting the government into your life when you take public assistance" is not and should never be true.
If you took assistance from my father, then yes, you'd be inviting him into your life, but the government is not my father. And I am suspicious of the government's ability to draw an appropriate line between reasonable conditions of support and invasion of ones privacy. Mostly because the government will draw the lines based upon the interpretation of the regulations by a huge range of people who may or may not be as reasonable as me.
A license to drive a car is government given privelege. Let's make sure we don't have any dope heads driving and drug test everyone who applies for a license. If you don't want to be drug tested you can walk. Don't think about using public transit, though, cause we don't want druggies on the buses either.
Although the license to drive is a privilege you would have 100% of the people who wish to drive (which is about 98% or so of the adult population) treated as if they are all potential drug abusers?
I know, I know, your gonna say "well is you have nothing to hide, then..."
To which I answer, then I think the government should get a DNA sample from you and everyone in your profession. As well as installing a web browsing monitor to watch for kiddie porn. On top of that, you should have an interlock on your car the requires you to breathe into the machine to start it just to be sure you're not drinking and driving, which will alert the authorities of your intent to drive drunk (if that ever happens).
My point is that treating people is if they are potentially breaking the laws without any reason to believe that they are is immoral. People allow it to happen to us because we somehow feel safer as a result, but we are exchanging freedom for a false sense of security.
Mev, do you have a source for saying that drug use is the single most contributing factor to crime? I don't deny that it's up there, but I would say there are other factors (such as poverty) that correlate higher with crime than drugs. Particularly if you're looking at marijuana, I've never known a stoner to get into a physical altercation. Not that it doesn't happen, just not the norm from what I've seen.
I also agree that this would be akin to taking advantage of their poverty to abuse their civil rights. Of course, I don't agree with drug testing for employment either but I can somewhat understand it when being sober is a requirement for the job, like working with heavy machinery.
What would be the purpose of the testing, to what end? To make sure they aren't breaking the law? Cause there are other laws they could break. To make sure they are spending their money appropriately? What if they took up gambling instead?
Actually, Caps, the majority of states issue your drivers license on the condition you give implied consent to undergo breath, urine or blood tests if asked by a police officer.
ETA: cite from wiki.
Many states also operate under "implied consent," meaning that anyone issued a driver's license in the state agrees to submit to a test of his or her breath, blood, or urine when requested by a law enforcement officer. Failure to submit to such a test may result in automatic suspension of his or her driver's license even if not convicted of drunk driving.
This message has been edited by Ginnyesq on Jul 23, 2009 12:06 PM
My guess is that it has to do with the spending money appropriately, and I agree with you on the gambling thing.
My brother has some sort of state support because he's lazy and won't get a job and instead is an alcoholic in government housing in New York. He got his food stamp money a couple weeks ago (I'm not sure how its given or how it works) and bought LOBSTER, ate that for 2 days, and was out of money for the rest of the month going to the soup kitchen.
I don't have a resolution, but his complete lack of financial responsibility is what keeps him where he is. Why was he even able to buy expensive foods like that? Wouldn't it make more sense for government assistance to only allow people to buy necessities instead of fancy foods? Geez, I can't even afford lobster.
I understand your frustration, Theo, but how on earth are you going to enforce what people spend their money on?
I guess you could offer money management/budgeting workshops (maybe they already offer this) and you could even mandate that people go, but you can't force them to learn anything.
DNA testing popped into my mind too $8.
I don't believe you are signing up for giving up basic rights/rights to privacy when you sign up for welfare.
Eta clarity
This message has been edited by jeannien on Jul 23, 2009 12:30 PM
I have less rights as a person who drives my ass to work every day than someone who gets welfare and does drugs and takes the bus. In my state, I agree that I will undergo blood breath or urine tests if asked because I have a license, if I am operating a motor vehicle. I'm just saying.
I guess I thought food stamps limited you to buying bread and inexpensive meats and basic veggies and stuff...I didn't realize until my brother called that he can buy whatever he dang well pleases with it.
I don't really have any solutions, that's why I'm not in politics...it is frustrating to know he eats better than I do half the time since he chooses to be a leech.
No, but the point is I don't have the right to refuse.
Welfare issues, in general are stupid to get upset about. Especially with the amount of corporate bail outs going on right now. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that money vastly eclipses the amount given to poor people.
Drug test the CEO of Chrysler? I wouldn't have a problem with that either.
$8's right - the state works for YOU not you for it. They're not entitled to jack shit.
A driver's license is more than a priviledge - you have a right to have one if you can demonstrate via a test and a clean driving record the ability to do so. You lose the privilege if you violate the laws regulating the use of a motor vehicle - and not for any other reason. You cannot be denied a driver's license on any other basis I'm aware of - there may be some felony stuff, but you get the point. You have a right to protect your civil liberties by voluntarily surrendering your license for a time rather than allowing your body to be tested. The choice is yours - the state cannot compel brethalyzer or BAC testing, thank goodness.
Whether people use drugs or not, most pay into the system while gainfully employed, and if their circumstances change they have a right to the services the government provides based on financial need, not based on their personal behavior. So what other low-level crimes might be used as a litmus test next? Too many parking tickets equals no welfare? You jaywalked, so sorry Charlie? A barfight? YOU GO HUNGRY PAL! NO SAFETY NET FOR YOU!
The burden is on the state to catch criminal behavior, not on its citizens to self-report it. There are penalties outlined by law to punish criminal behavior already that are generally plenty stiff. Maybe we should sew scarlett letters on drug users who fail the test too?
I hardly trust the average welfare employee to fill out the paperwork related to their own job - are we now going to trust them with accurate drug testing? Or maybe we'll hire Haliburton to do it?
And last I checked, isn't drug addiction generally considered a DISEASE? Eff the morality argument here - no one CHOOSES addiction. I think Schitzos can be violent from time to time - should we deny them as well? Some people give others VD and cost us more in health care - should we STD test everyone too?
Man, every time we have one of these conversations, I'm so fucking glad that the framers spent so much time protecting me from the tyranny of the majority.
I think it's because you have to show some level of skill before you can drive. If you take the time to learn the rules, you can have the privledge of driving a car.
I always thought you could only buy certain things with food stamps. Like, you couldn't buy pet food or cigarettes with it....just certain types of food. But I may be confusing that with WIC.
Right, and not everyone can get Welfare either. If I showed up they'd tell me to go pound sand. I don't qualify.
Maybe I am the only one who has had the experience of being in line at the grocery store behind someone paying with food stamps, and they have a nice manicure and a nice cell phone and you just sit there thinking "what the hell. You are taking my time, after I have been at work all day, to argue with the checker of if you got the right gallon sized jar of peanut butter, when I've been at work all day and just want to go home. And you have a nicer phone than me".
Is that most people? No. But I have seen it more than once. But hey, they are entitled! I'm bothered by that.
I'll be honest....a friend of mine is on WIC now. She's driving a 2009 Honda mini van, she owns her own home, her husband owns HIS own home, but because he just lost his job, they qualify because of their (temporary) income. There is a list of foods and food products you can buy for WIC though. It seems pretty strict but I think that's a good thing.
I've had that happen too. I used to deliver pizza to the government housing area too...and was confused by all the $60,000 Hummers and Escalades with rims.
Wow, I feel like I've been teleported back to the late 1980's and early 1990's before Clinton 'reformed' welfare by kicking 5 million kids off the roles. We're hearing the "Myth of the Welfare Queen" all over again here.
Maybe that lady is a laid off pedicurist and did it herself? A CELL PHONE?! What a luxury! Maybe she has no home phone and this is her only phone? Maybe it's a pay-as-you go minute deal? How's she gonna find a job with no phone?
As for the Hummers in the low income areas - maybe their Grandfather left it to them? Maybe they're drug dealers? If so - it's up to the police to investigate - not the welfare agency, because last I checked, the police handle law enforcement in this country. Gee thanks for hanging out that neon sign that lets us know we maybe should look into your affairs!
And holy cow on the picture of low-income housing and the comments there! So, low income housing should suck and be dirty? Clearly that community cares about their homes and keeps them nice in part because they started out that way? You want Cabrini Green? Why would you want anyone living in that? What is more tied to your sense of self success and esteem than your domicile? It costs nearly to same to build a brick wall one way or another, and is it so hard to imagine the net positive effects for society to make it seem a little less like class warfare via architecture?
Wow. There but for one random catastrophe go you all.
Um, I didn't hold it against her she had a cell phone, but having a tricked out cell phone? Does your phone have to be able to take pics and be an MP3 player to get you a job? My only phone is my cell, and it doesn't do those things. And I know you are not a girl, but you physically can't give yourself acryllic nails. It's not possible.
Actually, my college roommate used to give herself acrylic nails. I don't know how she did it....she had the tips, the glue, the brushes, the powder...all of it. Stunk up the whole house but her nails looked fierce!
You really want to debate my nonsense scenarios that were designed to show you that in reality you have no idea what her deal is, and therefore you are completely incapable of rendering judgement?
No, you are right, I don't know. And like I said, I don't think welfare is an issue people should get all hot and bothered about. I think the vast majority of people on it need it, and the overall cost is a drop in the bucket compared with corporate welfare.
There is a sense of entitlement some people have that irritates me. It's not limited to people on welfare.
Yep. It happens with people not on welfare, too. I also get irritated when people I work with take the food leftover from meetings home. It's supposed to be for the people in the office! Go to the grocery store you lazy fucks!
Edited because I can't type
This message has been edited by Ginnyesq on Jul 23, 2009 2:45 PM This message has been edited by Ginnyesq on Jul 23, 2009 2:40 PM
Here are some (old, but relevant) statistics on the relationship between drugs and crime. Alcohol is actually the number one factor, but illegal drugs are a close second.
I don't deny that it is highly correlated, but I don't think the researh there proves that is THE HIGHEST correlation.
for instance, I googled "violent crime correlates" and found a few things.
This study doesn't discuss drugs, but finds a .7 correlation between violent crimes and unfortunately people who are aboriginal (which isn't necessarily race based, but more so living condition based)
And then there is this quote
"There are about 25,000 homicides in the United States each year. A study of 414 homicides in New York City at the height of the crack epidemic showed that only three murders, less than one percent, could be attributed to the behavioral effects of cocaine or crack. Of these, two were victim-precipitated. For example, one homicide victim tried to rape someone who was high on crack and got killed in the process. "
From a very reputable website that has marijuana ads.
http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/library/basicfax6.htm
My point? If we could PROVE that drugs are the NUMBER ONE most significant contributor to violent crime, then we would be on our way to fixing it. The problem is that we can't prove it, that there are so many compounding factors that lead to violent crime, and my guess is that even within the drug relem it's going to be alcohol that is tied to the most crime.
ETA: The statistics you provide do show drug use as being the highest in what they tested, it doesn't mean it is the highest overall.
This message has been edited by CanadianRaven on Jul 23, 2009 4:01 PM
Aurora, I already said that Alcohol was the number one factor. But it IS a drug, is it not?
Also, your statistics are mostly related to murder. I'm talking about violence in general. And while I realize that violent crime has been going down, it has been going up for people under 24, a demographic that probably abuses drugs more than any.
Yes, alcohol is a legal drug, which I don't believe would be tested for in your pee tests. So that's kinda moot.
My position remains the same, you can't prove illegal drugs are the single biggest factor... only the single biggest factor in the tests that test for it.
"You cannot be denied a driver's license on any other basis I'm aware of."
Actually you can have your license taken away for medial reasons and you have to give a thumb print. So you're already giving a unique part of your body.
And you're wrong about being compelled to undergo a BAC test too. You can refuse a breathalyzer, but you most definitely CAN be compelled by a court order later on.
I'm not sure how you can say that a drivers license is a right and then also say it's a privilege. How can it be a right, if in order to obtain one, you have to take a bunch of tests and also carry your own insurance?
As far as the right to services go, there are a myriad of things a recipient has to do in order to quality, beyond just a financial need. A lot of government housing projects require a drug free environment. And while they don't randomly test, if you're caught with drugs, you're usually kicked out. In addition, you have to be enrolled in a education, or work programs.
There aren't any government programs I know of where you don't have to jump through a few hoops and disclose personal information about yourself, in order to qualify for assistance. If employers can take my pee and I don't think it's too much to ask a welfare recipient to do the same. By implying a welfare recipient is exempt is kind of a slap in the face to people with jobs who DO have to undergo testing.
And why do you guys keep on bringing up DNA? It's a chemical screening, not a DNA data collection. And yes, I realize there is some DNA in urine, but it's just not how it's done.
I really don't see any fundamental difference between sharing all your financial information (your life activities) with the government, in order to qualify for tax credits and giving them your urine, in order to get welfare. The are both intrusions, but they are reciprocal.
So I guess you guys are saying you're OK with giving your tax dollars to the poor, with no strings attached, regarding illicit drug use. I'm not OK with that. If I'm going to give my tax dollars to someone, I don't want them on drugs, because it's a no win situation. And I don't think asking them to periodically pee in a cup is the same thing as treating them as criminals. I've had to pee in a cup on more than one occasion. I didn't like it, but I understood why it was being done.
Drug abuse kills people. It kills people throughout the entire process, from growing, to manufacturing, to distribution and the end user. It's a huge problem for law enforcement and if we can make a dent in it by requiring drug testing for folks on the dole, I say go for it.
Also, here's fundamental question for you guys who are for UHC, but against so called government intrusion, via drug testing. Are you OK with a government run clinic keeping records pertaining to your health? Because if we actually get UHC, there will probably be some federally run clinics, that will have to keep personal medical records on people. And those records will a hell of a lot more revealing than a few ounces of urine.
And re: UHC... granted I haven't looked into it, but I'm pretty sure that when I go to a clinic, or to the hospital (which are run by the province) that the only people with access to my information are the doctors/nurses. Even when I've wanted to have records transfered between hospitals, I've had to sign a release, and technically, it was all staying within the same system. So, I don't know if it's as easy for the govt to look into as you may be suggesting.
That's the thing. I'm not suggesting it at all. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that sometimes governments have to collect information for good reasons and we can put policies in place to deal with privacy issues.
If you pee in a cup and the man who takes that cup walks away with it into another room, you have given your DNA to the Government. You are trusting they who brought you McCarthyism, the Patriot Act and GitMo with your DNA. Good luck. Remember all those super-secret VA medical records slipping into the hands of the public? Don't you all complain how sucky the Government is all the time, yet THIS is ok with you?
I still say you're arguing that a symptom is a cause when you tie drugs to violence. The violence from drugs is CAUSED by the cast-offs of capitalism, an inadequate safety net, and the resultant poverty. Drug treatment or testing is a finger in the dike that will never make the real problem go away.
Your medical cases etc. on the drivers license thing change my point not one whit. Your points do not pass my common sense smell test. If you wind up in court compelled to give blood, you VIOLATED A DRIVING REGULATION. You do NOT EVER EVER EVER have to breathe or give blood in order to simply GET a license.
OK, I'm getting too fired up here. I can't believe how ready you are to give up our basic rights to privacy, and I fear I'm getting shrill. On this one, if it ever comes up for a vote, I promise to fight you all to the point of "Give me liberty or give me death."
But, I can see the original poster's redneck point about drug testing by employers.
The problem with his argument of "if I have to pee in a cup, welfare recipients should also" is that employers drug test for safety reasons mostly. Or for reasons of security.
Poor people get the help because they are poor. That's the only thing you need to qualify. You have to be poor. That's the way it should be.
Well besides the fact, the Government IS different from a private employer. Still, my distinction is, you don't HAVE to take a check from the Government. They drug test in the military, don't they?
Emokid is throwing slomo dove at my face, I guess that means he flipped me the bird
I was just explaining my point about the military. "Poor" is not a protected group as far as civil rights goes. (Not that they should get less, but they don't get more). You are allowed to be discriminated against because you are poor. You may have noticed this when you go into a bank.
Squid, when did you become a paranoid conservative? Your argument sounds exactly like the the one all conservatives make when they compare the DMV to every other government program by saying "And these are the people you want running bla bla bla?" When it's not the same people at all.
Not all government is run like the Bush Administration. You of all people should know that.
===
The government can't help anyone, if it can't be a least somewhat intrusive. And I think it's justifiable to drug test people who take our tax dollars. In fact I wouldn't end with poor people. Any corporation that takes bailout money, should have to submit all of their top execs for drug testing. After all, they had to be on drugs to lend all that money to people who couldn't possibly pay it back. And I'm completely serious about that. They took billions, here's some pee cups!
Also employers drug test because employees using drugs make lousy workers. The safety and security concerns are secondary. Similarly drug users are not the kind of people I want to give money to; not unless they agree to treatment. That's why most cities have given up on programs that give money to the homeless and instead offer services. Giving money to the poor, without considering that they might be abusing drugs is just stupid and wasteful.
I agree whole hardheartedly with Ginny. This is NOT a civil rights issue, because signing up for welfare is a choice.
And no, I did not read any of this treah before I posted this.
Drug tests suck and are an invasion of out constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It's not "unreasonable" to drug test, for example, airline pilots. I think most reasonable people would agree with that.
There are volumes and volumes dedicated to what is "unreasonable".
ETA: You are quoting the constitution a lot tonight Marney, but forgetting that the constitution is full of rules that are defined by their exceptions.
This message has been edited by Ginnyesq on Jul 23, 2009 11:51 PM
If that pilot smoked a Jay 20 days ago would you care? Because it would get him fired. How about if he went on a Rum bender 48 hours ago? It would not. How about if a Meth addicted pilot held off for 24 hours? He could pass his piss test and bump before his flight(s) and then continue getting shooting up for days.
Drug test do not cover all situations or drugs evenly. If you want to drug test we should be breathalizer testing everyone before work and after, piss testing everyone before work and after, saliva testing everyone before work and after.
It's that old slippery slope argument again, but to me it holds true. Test no one for anything ever or everyone for everything all the time.
Well most rules and laws don't cover all situations and are not designed to do so. It's an imperfect world. If you're a meth smoking airline pilot, you've chosen the wrong profession.
Everyone has to make sacrifices and compromises. It's part of being an adult and living in civilization.
I don't think welfare recipients should have to undergo drug testing. It stinks of accusation and there is no sense in that. Besides, welfare doesn't pay anywhere near enough to support a drug habbit.
Personally, I don't mind peeing in a cup. The CPRP program required random testing and I was in that program from age 17 to 29. It was hardly random though, they knew who the druggies were and called them every time.
I also had to submit to a drug screen prior to being hired for my current job. That was a one time only deal. The company does not do randoms and you only have to submit to one if you are involved in a lost time accident.
Fair enough, I say.
If it's your choice whether to pee in that cup, I'm fine with it.
Receiving welfare is not a 'choice' - it is a need provided for by our social safety net. A hungry person with hungry children has no choice, they will jump through whatever hoop required, and it's a violation of their rights.
It would be akin to saying you must be drug tested prior to receiving medical care for say, nicotine - and then being denied pneumonia medicine because, well you're a dirty smoker and that's probably the reason you got it, asshole.
And Mev, All of my posts are consistent with my strong belief in the bill of rights, which is about as far from an ultra conservative view as one can get, save on their radical misinterpretation of the right to bear arms. Ultra conservatives have demonstrated time and again their disdain for privacy, freedom of the press, and pretty much the whole document. They're not alone - if we put them up for a vote today, most of those amendments would lose. I do not cherry pick - each is a critical component of the maintennance of a free society in protection from the selfish and ambitious nature of man.
I neglected to address Mev's calling me "paranoid." I am proudly paranoid, and you should be too. All the best folks are paranoid when it comes to Liberty.
Some of my fellow paranoid folks:
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. - James Madison
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. - Thomas Jefferson
All restraints upon man's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree. - Lysander Spooner
No constitution, no court, no law can save liberty when it dies in the hearts and minds of men. - John Perkins
"Being poor is spending hours typing up a list of stupid shit I have done in my life that must be everyone else's fault and bitching because I have a toothache while not doing shit about it except complain until someone else takes responsibility for the fact I bought this computer instead of getting a root canal."
![[linked image]](http://www.jcha-gov.us/App_Themes/Photos/LafayetteVillage/IMG_2060.JPG)
