Michigan may drug test welfare recipients

Welfare recipients could be tested for illegal drugs

I see a few problems with this pending legislation (or possibly just the article). First, they rely on self-reporting in a survey to help untrained individuals decide if tests should be ordered. Second, although the article implies that a positive test will result in losing benefits, would a positive test be appealed?

I like the idea that money that people get from the government to help them live (food, shelter, etc.) should not be used for illegal substances. But I also think that it should not generally be used for some legal substances (alcohol). And I am aware that this is a slippery slope.

On the other hand, as a Libertarian, I don't like the idea of drug tests generally. But this is based upon receiving money from the government, and I am not enthusiastic about the way that particular program is administered.

What do you all think?

While I disagree with the whole welfare system, by accepting state support the recipients are giving up some of their personal liberty. If this was Ohio it would be my money the state is giving to the recipients and I would want to make sure that I was not supporting someone's drug habit.

If a recipient wants the government to stay out of their life, they could get a job.

I can see where this idea has a lot going for it and I'm sure they will at least try to clear up any gray areas.

The premise that by accepting government money you should be required to give up any of your rights or liberties is astoundingly arrogant and blatantly supportive of an even greater governmental control of our lives.

If you believe that in order to benefit from our government that we need invite it to monitor our very bodies then where do you draw the line. Shall we set up surveillance cameras in the bedroom if we get a pell grant? Should we expect to be drug tested to make sure that we won't spend our tax returns on illicit materials? Perhaps in order to travel the highways and byways of america we should be required to submit to breathalizer tests each and every time we want to fire up the family vehicle.

Almost everything we do is somehow financed in part or in its entirety by government funding. Why should we single out one segment of the population for this kind of orwellian treatment? What makes them such a valid target for infringment on thier rights, on thier very persons?

There but for the grace of god test I.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ September 17, 2004 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Pi?a ]</font>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pi?a:
The premise that by accepting government money you should be required to give up any of your rights or liberties is astoundingly arrogant and blatantly supportive of an even greater governmental control of our lives.

If you believe that in order to benefit from our government that we need invite it to monitor our very bodies then where do you draw the line. Shall we set up surveillance cameras in the bedroom if we get a pell grant? Should we expect to be drug tested to make sure that we won't spend our tax returns on illicit materials? Perhaps in order to travel the highways and byways of america we should be required to submit to breathalizer tests each and every time we want to fire up the family vehicle.

Almost everything we do is somehow financed in part or in its entirety by government funding. Why should we single out one segment of the population for this kind of orwellian treatment? What makes them such a valid target for infringment on thier rights, on thier very persons?

There but for the grace of god test I.

<font color="#000002"><font size="1">[ September 17, 2004 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Pi?a ]</font></font>

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I disagree with you.

In order to receive any number of benefits from the government, we must submit to various tests to determine eligibility.

The military requires drug tests, and they are direct employees of the government. I see welfare recipients as employees of the government also since they are getting directly paid. I see no reason why they shouldn't submit to drug tests.

reason

Since all of us, in one way or the other, benefit from governmental programs should we then all be subjected to random, or not so random, drug testing on a routine basis?

If not, why not? If so, then how are we different from any other type of police state?

So you think the government should just openly subsidize drug abuse?
Are you sure that not wanting people on welfare to spend their welfare checks on drugs is "Orwellian"?

Hey maybe they should just cut out the middleman and have the government just get the illegal drugs for them. That'd be a real timesaver. [img]graemlins/hmmm.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/whatever.gif[/img] [img]confused.gif[/img]

CG

So since you feel it's the governments role to keep us from drug abuse then I suppose you are in favor of all beneficiaries of governmental programs be subjected to drug testing?

Oddly enough I can see the validity of both sides of this argument. While I do not approve of welfare recipients using the money to buy drugs, I also don't like to see money denied to US citizens (of any stripe) when we send billions of dollars to other countries no questions asked, no requirements to fulfill. If we suspended even 1/3 of the money we spend in "foreign aid" we could perhaps use it to address a number of problems in this country. America First...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reason:
I disagree with you.

In order to receive any number of benefits from the government, we must submit to various tests to determine eligibility.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Was just thinking about this comment and I'd like to know just which benefit programs actually do require drug testing?

Quote:

---

The military requires drug tests, and they are direct employees of the government. I see welfare recipients as employees of the government also since they are getting directly paid. I see no reason why they shouldn't submit to drug tests.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The military is not a benefits program. It's an adventure [img]smile.gif[/img] . Supposedly the military tests for safety reasons and I can actually see that as a valid reason for requiring testing. There is a direct correlation between safety and drug use in that situation. I still don't think it's the best way to deal with the issue but I can see a logical rationale for it. Same with truck drivers. Safety.

Benefit programs have no direct safety-drug use correlation so they are not comparable on that basis.

In most places nowadays, you cant get a job without taking a drug test so what is the difference?

I'm not talking Big Brother crud, I'm just saying that if a aperson has a history of drug problems or something of that nature that they should have to be clean to gain benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cincygreg:
In most places nowadays, you cant get a job without taking a drug test so what is the difference?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Irrelevant. This is not about jobs in the private sector. This is about how we draw the line concerning government intrusion into our private affairs.

Quote:

---

I'm not talking Big Brother crud, I'm just saying that if a aperson has a history of drug problems or something of that nature that they should have to be clean to gain benefits.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This IS "Big Brother crud". It's all about how we are going to allow the government to monitor us.

The article that is referenced is about who gets to decide "probable cause" when mandating a drug test to recipients of public assistance. The main argument concerns whether to allow untrained, with respect to legal probable cause determinations, to mandate drug tests. It is an extension of police powers to people who have no business making such legal determinations.

It's like saying that marcie the crossing guard should be able to mandate a drug test for you because she sees you stumble on the curb. Lack of motor coordination ? must be drugs. You get to be legally required to pee in the cup.

Don?t misunderstand. I am against most all forms of drug testing as I find them to be outside of the pale for any government to mandate except in situations related to safety where there is real, legally defensible, probable cause for someone trained in such things to suspect that someone?s abilities are impaired at a time that causes a concern for people?s safety.

I am curious as well as to why seem to equate drug problems with governmental assistance. What?s your basis for this belief? I mean if receiving governmental assistance is an indicator of drug use then I have to ask again: You ever receive anything from the gov? Then why are you exempt from drug testing? We might want to make sure that a consumer, you, of government services is "worthy" of receiving them, after all.

This trend to want to cut people off at the knees if they somehow don't measure up to some sort of evangelical moral ideal is abhorrent to me. While I am not christian I always find it useful with these kinds of issues to ask the trite but sometimes true "What would jesus do" question. Somehow I don?t see him standing there with the specimen cup.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ September 17, 2004 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Pi?a ]</font>

It's not irrelevant you moron.

How can you honestly say that that it is irrelevent that people who seek employment in most jobs have to take a drug test ?


How can a sane person actually say that it is ok to test those who seek gainful empolyment, but not those who dont?

Get over yourself anf your pompous crap.

CG

I know your comprehension skills aren't what most would wish for in their children but I'll try just this once to explain what apparently is a complicated notion to you.

Drug testing for employment is irrelevant to this discussion because this discussion is not about employment. Simple? No? OK, let's continue.

This discussion is about who gets to decide to compel someone receiving governmental benefits to take a drug test based on their interpretation of what is or is not probable cause that they are using illegal drugs. The republican legistlators referenced in the article want to give that power to people who frankly aren't qualified to make that determination.

If you read the article you would see that. Well, ok, maybe you wouldn't but any reasonable person would.

So while employment testing may be tangentially related it is not directly comparable to the issue raised by the article.

In other words: It's not relevant.

Corporate drug testing could be relevant to this discussion in that neither is truly mandatory. I've been tested several times, but I could refuse and quit my job. (Or if I tested positive, undergo treatment and come out a corporate hero.) Similarly, welfare recipients could refuse the drug test and go off the program. Sure both are difficult choices, but what's the problem if you're not being forced to do it? [img]wink.gif[/img]

I think I mentioned this before, but some drug testees (heeee!) are more equal than others. Our company randomly drew the name of an employee for drug testing who has knowledge critical to improving technology. He balked and was allowed to take a one month leave of absence and take his test upon his return, then continue on as if nothing unusual had happened. Anyone else would prolly be shitcanned instantly. [img]mad.gif[/img]

Side issue - if marijuana is ever legalized, few people will be able to enjoy it. Every corporate or Government employee, and every welfare recipient will be tested regularly. Only college students, bums, and the self employed will be able to do it. Guess we'll have more professional students when that happens. [img]graemlins/party.gif[/img]

This is a gray area for me.

You see, I don't care if people want to use drugs for fun that don't endanger others by their use. For example, if you drink, don't drive. If you are going to be operating a large truck, go easy on the OTC cough/cold/allergy medicine if you know you're sensitive to sleepiness with them. Don't take angel dust if you are going to be around other people.

But don't use money that I have provided via the government for things other than shelter, food and other basic necessities of life.

And don't ask your employees to take a drug test if their productivity is not suffering.

The guy that Lan referred to - the guy that was more equal than the others due to being more valuable - if he did not have "performance issues" that were causing problems why should he be tested? It would serve the employer right if this guy went to a company that did not have random testing for existing employees, just upon cause.

Oh yeah, and I agree with Pi?a about the Marcie the crossing guard thing. That is one of my problems with the way the thing in Michigan is being presented, that people without proper training will be making the judgements.

(Pi?a, that was a pretty funny image! I got a good mental picture of Marcie when I tripped on the curb, the set of her mouth as she whipped out her notebook.)

Pina, I think YOU need to be tested!


The point is that people on welfare should not be able to subsidize illegal activity with their welfare money.
It would be almost impossible to monitor how they spend it, and that would be a waste of more tax dollars but...
Drug testing those with drug histories might at least put a dent in it.

I used the employment thing as an example of why you have no clue about anything and the fact that you see no corelation between welfare and jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cincygreg:
The point is that people on welfare should not be able to subsidize illegal activity with their welfare money.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Answer me this. Why not? Really, why do you think they shouldn't be able to spend their benefits as they see fit?

(And before you go off on one of your juvenille rants about how anyone can't see why not please keep in mind that they only prove that you can't support your position. Not that the other person is wrong.)

So, big mouth, prove your case.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pi?a:
Answer me this. Why not? Really, why do you think they shouldn't be able to spend their benefits as they see fit?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Illegal drugs are, well, illegal.

2. It's not THEIR money. Taxpayers support the them. And welfare isn't a "benefit".

I have no problem with helping people in need. I DO have a problem with supporting crack habits.

Welfare is there to help those who can't work. If one cannot work because one is a druggie, there are enough programs out there to help one get straight.

Our tax dollars should not go to those who won't work so they can stay home and get high.

"The guy that Lan referred to - the guy that was more equal than the others due to being more valuable - if he did not have "performance issues" that were causing problems why should he be tested?"

Aha, a good point that brings up another parallel between corporate and welfare drug testing. Pina's main point seem to be who decides who gets tested and when - evidently these decisions should be made by knowledgeable professionals to avoid discrimination, etc. To preclude that objection, the corporate world has settled on random drug testing where anyone from the janitor to the CEO can be selected, which is how Mr. Indispensible was selected. (In my experience it also means some people may be tested 3 times and others zero over the same period. [img]mad.gif[/img] ) So if the welfare testing was truly random, that objection would be removed...

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ September 20, 2004 06:31 AM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gae:
1. Illegal drugs are, well, illegal.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, Illegal drugs are illegal. So? We have a system in place to take care of that already. I?m surprised that you are calling for yet more governmental oversight. I thought you repubs were against that sort of thing.

Quote:

---

2. It's not THEIR money. Taxpayers support the them. And welfare isn't a "benefit".

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well actually gae, once it?s given to them it is indeed THEIR money. When you buy something in the store do you think you continue to have ownership in the cash you hand over? And why would you assume that people on welfare aren?t taxpayers?

Welfare isn?t a benefit? Beg pardon? Of course it?s a benefit. It?s a governmental program financed through taxes to benefit those in need.

Quote:

---

I have no problem with helping people in need. I DO have a problem with supporting crack habits.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Crack heads are people too and probably more in need of help than most. I suppose you see them as less than human somehow.

Quote:

---

Welfare is there to help those who can't work. If one cannot work because one is a druggie, there are enough programs out there to help one get straight.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why do you make the assumption that just because someone may use drugs that the drug use is the reason they can?t or won?t work. What is the basis for this belief?? I know for a fact that many ?druggies? work so it must be something else.

Quote:

---

Our tax dollars should not go to those who won't work so they can stay home and get high.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again you assume a causal relationship between drug use and not working. Got proof?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LanDroid:
Pina's main point seem to be who decides who gets tested and when - evidently these decisions should be made by knowledgeable professionals to avoid discrimination, etc. To preclude that objection, the corporate world has settled on random drug testing where anyone from the janitor to the CEO can be selected, which is how Mr. Indispensible was selected. . . . So if the welfare testing was truly random, that objection would be removed...

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes it would, but only on the issue brought up in the article. (The who gets to determine if someone gets tested issue.)

gae and cg are pursuing radically flawed logic regarding the broader question of who should be included in the group that may be subject to testing and I am taking them to task for it as well.

Pina, YOUR logic is flawed.

Welfare is a handout. It is not a "benefit". (But then again, I'm sure you think that Social Security is a "benefit", don't you?) Welfare is being on the dole, and doing absolutely nothing for the money received.

The money comes from taxpayers. You know, those folks who have jobs?

Since taxpayers are subsidizing the lifestyle of people on welfare, I think we have every right to dictate how the tax money should be spent.

If the people on the dole don't like it, let them find employment.

I'll put it more simply to you. Let's just say you fall on hard times and everyone on this board chips in to help you out. We want to know that our bucks are going for food, clothing, education, housing; not crack. Your argument is that since we're helping you, we haven't the right to know what you're spending OUR money on.

You're wrong. Just plain wrong. As usual.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gae:
Welfare is a handout. It is not a "benefit". (But then again, I'm sure you think that Social Security is a "benefit", don't you?) Welfare is being on the dole, and doing absolutely nothing for the money received.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sorry gae, but you can repeat it all you want to but welfare is a benefit that the government offers those in need. You want to get all tied up in the semantics game, go right ahead but it won?t change anything.

Quote:

---

The money comes from taxpayers. You know, those folks who have jobs?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I asked about this before but you conveniently chose not to answer: What makes you think that people who receive welfare aren?t taxpayers? What makes you think that they too haven?t held or will hold jobs?

Quote:

---

Since taxpayers are subsidizing the lifestyle of people on welfare, I think we have every right to dictate how the tax money should be spent.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So you believe that if someone?s lifestyle is ?subsidized? by taxpayers that they should be required to account for how they are using that subsidization?

Quote:

---

If the people on the dole don't like it, let them find employment.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What makes you think they aren?t trying to find employment? Your assumption that people on welfare are just lying around smoking crack and laughing at all the ?good? people whose money they?re spending on drugs, hookers and pimpmobiles is a fiction. Are there some who abuse the benefit. Sure, but so what? There are always people who are going to misuse benefits given them. Demonizing everyone who receives assistance is flawed logic and you know it.

Sounds like some folks have forgotten that welfare benefits have been cut to something like a maximum of two years. That makes a huge difference for me, I don't worry 'bout fraud and slackers so much. It was a bigger problem when there were some slackers that turned welfare into a multi-generational career.

But it doesn't hurt to combat fraud and slackerism anyway. Hey, ya know what, I've been drug tested several times, knew I'd be clean, but didn't like it anyway so WTF do I care if welfare recipients are tested too? Don't discriminate, make it random, you know like 80% of the population chosen at random? [img]tongue.gif[/img] "Sorry Dawg, straighten up then try again in another month or so..."

A few programs like WIC women infants, and children that deliver food to the door should prolly be exempt.

Pina supports drug trafficing. He is in favor of letting people on welfare use the money to buy and traffic drugs.


That's not Juvenille it's Pina esque! [img]eek.gif[/img]

PINA WANTS WELFARE RECIPIENTS TO BUY DRUGS!

HE INSISTS THAT IT'S THEIR RIGHT TO SPEND THE WELFARE MONEY ON ILLEGAL DRUGS!

WOW, what a powerful sentiment Pina.

You make me laugh Pina. LOL!

You are such a tool!

Welfare Drug Testing

April 15, 2003

Welfare Drug Testing

The War on Drugs has become a war on the poor. Instead of helping lift the destitute out of poverty with compassionate and sensible economic policies, drug laws target the poor, trapping them in a vicious cycle of poverty and disempowerment. Drug testing welfare recipients is just one example of how our drug laws single out the poor.

Brief History
As part of his administration?s war on drugs and zero tolerance policies, President Reagan ordered drug testing of all federal employees in the 1980s.[i]

The Supreme Court scaled back random drug testing to only include employees in safety sensitive positions such as pilots and conductors. [ii]

The 1996 Welfare Reform Act authorized (but did not require) states to impose mandatory drug testing as a prerequisite to receiving state welfare assistance.[iii]

Michigan is the first and only state to require random drug testing of all welfare recipients.[iv] In its lawsuit fighting the Michigan policy, the ACLU contends that "mandatory drug testing of a broad swath of the adult population has never in our nation?s history been proposed or enacted by a state government, much less approved by a court.? [v] The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision striking down Michigan?s policy.

Current Laws
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. [vi] Mandatory drug testing is considered a search, and courts have ruled that most drug testing programs can only be imposed if they serve special needs, usually related to public safety.

In 1996, Congress undertook a massive overhaul of the welfare system. Under the Welfare Reform Act (officially known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act), people convicted of drug offenses are subject to a lifetime ban on receiving cash assistance and food stamps.[vii] The law also allows states to impose drug testing on welfare recipients.

Michigan enacted a law authorizing suspicionless drug testing as a condition of eligibility for family independence assistance, MCLA 400.57l. The law directed the Family Independence Agency (FIA) to ?implement a pilot program of substance abuse testing as a condition of family independence assistance eligibility in at least three counties, including random substance abuse testing.? Although the legislature called for ?substance abuse testing,? the most commonly abused and most lethal drugs ? alcohol and tobacco ? were not a part of the testing program. Refusal to be tested resulted in denial or termination of FIA income support and the possible termination of medical insurance, food stamps and support for pregnant women or nursing mothers. FIA participants who submitted to drug testing also risked losing vital assistance. According to Michigan law, ?failure to comply? with a substance abuse treatment plan resulted in the reduction or termination of assistance under FIA programs.[viii] The courts have struck down the Michigan policy.[ix]

Although no other states have implemented a law as extreme as Michigan?s, Arizona[x] and Vermont[xi] are currently considering similar legislation.

Myths and Facts
Myth 1 - Welfare recipients are more likely to use drugs than non-welfare recipients, thereby justifying random drug testing for welfare recipients.

Fact 1 - A wealth of evidence demonstrates that welfare recipients and other adults use drugs at similar rates.

According to a 1996 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, differences between the proportion of welfare and non-welfare recipients using illegal drugs are not statistically significant. In each case, the national average for drug use fell within the range of the welfare population that has been found to use illegal drugs.[xii]

Before the Michigan policy was halted, only 10% of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. Only 3% tested positive for hard drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines. This is similar, if not lower, to rates of illicit drug use in the general population.[xiii]

More parents with an income 300% or more above the poverty line have used drugs than parents whose income is below the poverty line.[xiv]

Myth 2 - Mandatory drug testing programs are an easy way to make sure state welfare money is not being spent in the wrong way.

Fact 2 - Many states initially considered mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients, but did not implement them for various reasons, including financial considerations.

New York and Maryland originally intended to require random drug testing for those receiving welfare. They discarded their drug testing plans after finding that a program of questionnaires is more cost-effective.[xv]

Louisiana passed a law in 1997 requiring drug testing for welfare recipients. However, a task force set up to implement the law decided that more limited drug testing of individuals identified by a questionnaire is more cost-effective than mandatory drug testing.[xvi]

Certain counties in Oregon experimented with drug testing on some welfare recipients. The process was halted when it was found that drug testing was less effective in identifying drug abuse than through less invasive methods.[xvii]

Alabama decided against drug testing because it found that focusing on job training programs was a more effective method of moving individuals off of welfare.[xviii]

Iowa decided against drug testing welfare recipients since it could not include a test for alcohol abuse, which is more prevalent than illicit drug abuse. The state found other methods to be more cost-effective. [xix]

Myth 3 - Drug use among those on welfare often leads to continuing unemployment and child neglect and abuse. Testing for drugs is the best way to find and fix these problems.

Fact 3 - A focus on drug testing distracts from other problems that contribute to unemployment and child neglect more than drug use. For example, far more welfare recipients have psychological disorders than drug problems. Additionally, drug testing does not differentiate between drug use and drug abuse. A positive result in a drug test does not necessarily identify a drug problem.

A study published in January 2001 by the University of Michigan found that drug testing is not an efficient or cost-effective way of testing for psychological disorders. Data analysis concluded that 4% of those on welfare were seen as drug dependent. Yet, 7-9% tested positive for drug use, despite not showing any drug dependence problem. Even more overwhelmingly, 21-22% did not test positive for drug use, but exhibited signs of alcohol dependence or psychological disorders.[xx]

26 states have chosen to use alternative methods to drug testing, including questionnaires and observational methods. These methods are not only less intrusive, but more effective. An Oklahoma study found that a questionnaire was able to accurately detect 94 out of 100 drug abusers. The questionnaire was also useful in detecting alcohol abusers, something drug tests fail to accomplish.[xxi]

Myth 4 - Welfare drug testing is a limited use of drug testing laws. Drug testing of welfare recipients could not be applied to other groups.

Fact 4 - If random drug testing for welfare recipients was permitted, it could eventually lead to a vast expansion of drug testing.

In halting the implementation of Michigan?s drug testing law, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state?s rationale for testing welfare recipients ?could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.?[xxii]

Important Court Cases ? Marchwinski v. Bowler

In September 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts halted the Michigan law calling for the random drug testing of welfare recipients. She found that the law violated the Fourth Amendment and that ?upholding suspicionless drug testing would set a dangerous precedent? Drug testing under these circumstances must satisfy a special need, and that need must concern public safety.?[xxiii]

In April 2003, the full U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court declaring Michigan?s welfare drug testing law unconstitutional.[xxiv]

Expert Opinions

The Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) recommended against implementing random drug testing of welfare recipients. CAMH believes that there was little benefit to testing and that the stigma associated with testing impacted those on welfare negatively. They recommended that resources be allocated towards better training for government workers to detect signs of substance abuse and mental disorders, as well as to greater assistance and treatment to those who need help.[xxv]

ACLU Position/Summary

The ACLU believes that suspicionless mandatory drug testing is discriminatory, an invasion of privacy and a waste of state funds. Welfare recipients? constitutional rights are no less sacred than the rights of any recipients of state assistance including those of corporate subsidies. And the Michigan welfare policy denies benefits to the neediest children. This policy sends the message to welfare recipients that they are criminals solely because of their socioeconomic level. As a defender of civil liberties, the ACLU believes that all people, rich and poor, are entitled to the same privacy rights. As Kary Moss, the Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan, explains, ?No one should have to choose between their constitutional rights and providing for their families.? The ACLU applauds the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for recognizing the unconstitutional discrimination inherent in the Michigan policy. Emphasizing the important precedent this recent decision sets, Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project, said, ?This ruling should send a message to the rest of the nation that drug testing programs like these are neither an appropriate or effective use of a state?s limited resources.?

<font color="magenta"><font size="3">Source</font></font>

CG

If you can't answer my questions at least have the spine to admit it. Thanks for verifing my lack of respect for your limited intellect.

Why cant you answer anything without having to use someone elses answer. Your answers are always quotes from articles and speeches. You have no opinions, they are all opinions of others.

Give it a rest Pina.

You take everything so seriuosly.

Maybe you should go see a therapist. Oh wait, nevermind!

cg

And there I was thinking pretty much the same about you.

It's interesting that you seem incapable of answering my questions. Why is that?

Fear? Ineptitude? Flat out ignorance?

You choose.

Pina, dont you have something to protest or a flag to burn or something?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cincygreg:
Pina, dont you have something to protest or a flag to burn or something?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now Greg, don't you know Tuesdays are for burning his bras?

OOPS, My Bad. [img]eek.gif[/img]

Thanks for straightening that out Lake! [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

Actually lake, I set aside Tuesday to burn your bra's. Changed my mind and decided to retask 'em when I found they're awfully handy for carrying my groceries. Nice capacity and aside from banging my knees they're pretty useful.

The entire welfare system is one that creates dependence.

It should be completely abolished. No welfare:no drug testing:no argument.

LBJ was the worst president EVER.

gae

When you can't argue your point just rant, eh?

Just an anecdote from personal experience.

When I was living in a "depressed area" in Baltimore, close to the Johns Hopkins Hospital and medical school, I would chat with my neighbors. They were bemused that someone would leave in the morning, go to work and be gone all day, and come home in the late afternoon. But they were protective of me - once someone on their stoop called out to me as I returned home that some guy had been trying to get in the windows of my house that opened onto the alley, and they told him to go away, a "nice white woman" lived in that house.

So, I got into a conversation with the 13 year old girl that lived a couple of houses up from me (row homes, so our front doors were really only about 40 feet away). She told me that her social worker had taken her to a doctor to have an IUD put in when it was found out she was sexually active. She then told me, I know what that's for, I pulled it out. I want to get pregnant and have a baby so I can get my OWN check and move out.

I know, this is only one experience, and many reforms have occurred between the time I had this exchange (~1982) and now. But it startled me at the time, and I was saddened at the thought that this was the extent of this young woman's ambition.