Drug Testing the Poor
Posted on
Kentucky State representative Lonny Napier is proposing in a new bill where welfare, food stamps, Medicaid recipients should you be subject to random drug tests. Napier says it will not only get people off drugs, but save the state millions of dollars. But is he right? Drug Free Schools Coalition's Attorney David Evans and Reason Magazine's Jacob Sullum debate.
Video Rating: 4 / 5
November 13th, 2011 - 19:13
There hasn’t been a single documented case of someone dying from smoking weed and those who have developed mental problems from smokong it are the ones who don’t know where and what they are smoking came from. Knowing what you’r smoking is essential and until the law changes, those who grow their own risk prison for being carefull! It’s a dangerous law and needs to be changed.
November 13th, 2011 - 19:40
If you can afford drugs then you can afford FOOD!
November 13th, 2011 - 20:11
@Tommy9834 It was overturned in 2003. On April 9, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down a law that requires drug testing of Michigan welfare recipients.
November 13th, 2011 - 20:55
@jfsfrnd And as of now, they failed. The Marchwinski v Howard case, where the ACLU tried to strike this down, failed to get the number of votes they needed to overturn the decision. So as of now, the lower court’s decision still stands, and they say, drug testing recipients is legal. Once this makes it to the supreme court, they will make the final decision on this, but till then, the courts are not on your side buddy.
November 13th, 2011 - 20:58
@Tommy9834 There is no legal drug test qualification. Good try. The ACLU is all over this JUST LIKE THEY WERE IN MICHIGAN IN 2003. No one has tried to do this since then. Drug tests have a false positive possibility. They are not 100% accurate.
November 13th, 2011 - 21:10
@jfsfrnd And there is no due process rights for welfare, until you prove your qualified.
And this is about treating everyone equally.
November 13th, 2011 - 21:45
How are they gonna save the state million and millions of dollars if a percent of welfare recipients are now living on the street with their children? These people are not going to disappear.
November 13th, 2011 - 22:01
@Tommy9834 There are no due process rights to buying a car. You are making no sense. This is about picking on a segment of the population that can’t defend themselves. Not to worry. You will be next. Stay tuned.
November 13th, 2011 - 22:07
@renzokata I see you point and I’ve been refuting it with, not just facts, but common facts, things that is obvious to anyone.
And if you know someone that has been trying to find a job, and can’t find one, and need financial aid, fine, apply for welfare. Nothing is free and the drug test is the price we’re asking for, and we only ask cus we wanna make sure you won’t waste it.
If you wanna buy a car, but don’t like the price, and won’t pay, is the dealer still obligated to give you the car?
November 13th, 2011 - 23:06
@Tommy9834 yeah, i see how manipulate you are trying to be. if someone needs a job they should be able to go out and get one. it’s kinda sad i know people who have been looking for a job since the beggining of this year and still havent found one. did you know its legal now fior companies to now hire you because you smoke ciggarettes? you see why this argument is so pointless? because you dont wanna see my point and i DAMN SURE AINT GONNA SEE YOURS.
November 13th, 2011 - 23:44
@renzokata if someone NEEDS “A JOB”, that means it’s not really a CHOICE anymore to go and apply for them, people do what they gotta do. now they GOTTA take drug tests. <—See what I did there?
November 14th, 2011 - 00:14
@Tommy9834 no dude, this is a little loophole to get americans to violate their 4th ammendment rights dude. if someone NEEDS assistance that means it’s not really a CHOICE anymore to go and apply for them, people do what they gotta do. now they GOTTA take drug tests. it’s a violation of our rights, no matter which way you try to manipulate it and make it sound, IT IS.
November 14th, 2011 - 00:27
@renzokata I do mind if my rights are TAKEN, but they’re not. No one’s rights are being TAKEN. They’re being waved, or better, they’re being traded for benefits, NOT by force tho. In communist countries, you don’t have that option.
When I say rights can be waved, it means they can be traded for benefits that you WANT, not ones that are forced on you. If I want welfare, the price is, waving the 4th. Don’t like that? Well sorry we couldn’t do business, have a nice day.
November 14th, 2011 - 00:43
@Tommy9834 hey man, if you don’t mind having our rights taken away, well not your rights, you dont have to worry about this(which is why you dont mind it)-but hey man, if you like living in a communist-like country-you can always move to russia. me-i’d rather be dead than red.
November 14th, 2011 - 01:33
@renzokata People have the choice to accept the terms and conditions for welfare, in order to survive or not. It’s no different then a defendant accepting the D.A’s offer to accept a plea, where the conditions are, you wave your 5th amend right, for a reduced sentence. It’s no different then accepting the conditions to work at wal-mart, in order to make money to survive. So long as choice is offered, and not forced, no rights are in violation. Same rules that apply to us, apply to welfare ppl.
November 14th, 2011 - 02:24
@Tommy9834 yeah but that is just a self protective statement about your government. the fact is, the rights ARE waved because the recepients have no choice but to do so in order to recieve benefits that are for survival. and who is being punished? i’ve done the math on this. the money that goes towards social services out of our tax dollars, is compared to a small pile of chump change. this is about people losing their means of survival and also our rights as americans.
November 14th, 2011 - 02:32
@renzokata They doing just fine? So that’s your justification for punishing them? So they’re worked hard for a good life, and so, their rights can be forsaken?
Again, no one’s 4th amendment rights are being taken. Saying this violates the 4th amend, is like saying when a D.A offers a deal with a defendant to reduce his sentence, that’s a violation of his 5th amend right, because part of the deal is you have to testify saying you did commit the crime.
Again, rights cant be taken, only waved.
November 14th, 2011 - 03:15
@Tommy9834 because they are just fine. i think the proper word is appreciation. it’s not just about trying to look out for poor people, it’s also about our rights as americans. why are we being forced to give up our 4th ammendment rights for welfare? thats against the constitution. i think the couple of cents that might contribute to it that you may pay a year means very little to your life savings. so what now poor people dont deserve 4th ammendment rights?
November 14th, 2011 - 04:13
@Tommy9834 If they don’t agree and you know you are right you can write your Congressperson and file a complaint. Or write to a state agency that is set up to be watchdog to these programs. They have lawyers who know the laws.
November 14th, 2011 - 04:46
@jfsfrnd And if those at hearing agree with your reason, then fine. But if they don’t your shit outta luck, go find a job. Just cause you have a right to a hearing isn’t a shoe-in to always get what you want.
November 14th, 2011 - 04:59
@Tommy9834 They would still have a right to a hearing. There might be a reason they tested positive for drugs.
November 14th, 2011 - 05:27
@jfsfrnd OK fine.And what part of, “If you fail the drug test, your NOT eligible” did you not understand?
Having the right to apply don’t mean it’s an automatic shoe in to get free welfare. While you are applying, you do have the right to Due Process, to ensure you get a fair hearing. But that’s it. That’s all your entitled to. Your not entitled to your welfare check until you prove you are eligible.
November 14th, 2011 - 06:09
@Tommy9834 I never said it was a right that anyone is intitled to. I said you are entitled to welfare if you are eligible. However, you do have a right to apply for any of these programs whether you are eligible or not. Did you know that?
November 14th, 2011 - 07:00
@jfsfrnd Where in Goldberg V. Kelly does it say that? Oh and you do know the decision of the Wheeler v. Montgomery case was right? It just upheld the decision of a previous case, Goldberg v Montgomery, which was being appealed. And again, Goldberg v. Kelly decided that you have to be eligible to receive welfare, thus NOT making it a right that anyone is entitled to.
Try again, and I’ll say it again, READ THE DAMN CASE BEFORE POSTING IS NEXT TIME!!!!
November 14th, 2011 - 07:48
@Tommy9834 Nice trolling. Goldberg v. Kelly, and Wheeler v.
Montgomery, which established beneficiaries’ property right to public assistance.