And how about explaining why they want drug-addicted welfare recipients' CHILDREN to be forced to live with drugged out "parents" who are ENABLED by a continuing stream of welfare money??

You didn't answer one question relating to your previous post.

Why are your asking Chachacha this question? I'm sure she never advocated what you're implying here.

I was adding onto her question. I agree with her!

Writings without hearing tone of voice nor seeing facial expression....leads to misunderstandings sometimes.

Funny how *I* am still subject to drug testing to get the check I WORK for.

I have no idea what your occupation is. I also was subject to years of drug testing, but only after my union agreed to it.

Most jobs now require the workplace to be drug free. I was also subject to random drug testing at my job.

So why are so many liberal groups against recipients of public assistance to be verified drug free? They will need to be if ever they are to be gainfully employed again, and so it is logical to nip it in the bud and to make it a requirement for anyone who is requesting a "hand up" in the manner of public funds.

If people need their "privacy", then by all means they can remain private, and also privately support themselves. If they have dependents, then they may have to forgo stewardship of them until they get their drug addled selves together.

Seems logical to me.

Why are so many liberal groups against recipients of public assistance to be verified drug free? Maybe because it is unconstitutional?

The Fourth Amendment puts strict limits on what kind of searches the state can carry out, and drug tests are considered to be a search. In 1997, in Chandler v. Miller, the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to strike down a Georgia law requiring candidates for state offices to pass a drug test.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said that the drug testing was an unreasonable search. The state can impose drug tests in exceptional cases, when there is a public-safety need for them (as with bus and train operators, for instance). But the Fourth Amendment does not allow the state to diminish “personal privacy for a symbol’s sake,” the court said.


Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2011/08/29/dru...#ixzz1j4yFeY3G

most of us are in favor of a drug free workplace or any other public venue.

So how do the law waving, don't violate my privacy supporters suggest we make that happen? The invasion of privacy is no more prevalent in drug testing than it is for being asked to take your clothes off to validate the security of flying.

If one is not in violation what's the problem? If one is in violation then we all hope they get caught!!

btk

janmcn - I work for the Air Force. (late lunch today)

coralway - Yes, drug tests are considered a search. No problem there. But if I'm supposed to be "free to choose not to work" at this job - meaning the 4th Ammendment doesn't apply to me at work, then public assistance recipients are "free to choose not to receive" if they don't want to be tested.

As anyone who knows me can attest, it's the double standard that I hate.

Your statement MAY be true IF - and this is a big IF - welfare recipients CHOOSE to be on welfare.

If recipients choose to be on welfare, then there may be some validity to requiring drug testing. I believe there is a very strong body of evidence to support the argument most welfare recipients have no choice.

To address the question of the original poster it will be difficult to address anything during this campaign or the presidential election IMHO. It will be difficult because the deciding factor for both the GOP nominee and eventually the presidency will be independent voters who have grown in numbers since the 2008 election. And since independent voters more so than those labeled Democrats or Republicans don't decide until their in the voting booth it would be an educated guess by even the best of us.

Once the battle begins between the two presidential nominee's it will become increasingly clear whether the country is going red or blue. for now it appears purely speculation and wishful thinking by many of us voters.

Kind of a crazy logic.

They also have no "constitutional right" to be supported by their fellow citizens, and we are not "constitutionally required" to support them.

Once you apply for public funds, what's wrong with the requirement that you submit to a drug test? Why is it OK in the workplace but not for recipients of public assistance? Why isn't it a "unreasonable search" to drug test employee applicants and employees once they're hired?

You're giving the impression here that Ultra-Leftist Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg was speaking to this issue. She actually was speaking to the issue of candidates for State Office in 1997. She said they were protected from drug screenings. I guess the Supreme Court has decided that drug addled State Office holders, who are most likely involved with the illegal consumption of narcotics, are no danger to the American public. What logic that is. What a brilliant ruling.

I'm thinking it's time for the Court to revisit this question.

What's next? Drug testing social security recipients, testing medicare recipients, testing medicaid recipients? Where do you draw the line? I thought republicans were the party of small government?

If Ron Paul wins, this will be a moot point because drugs will be legal. We can only hope.