No Drug Tests For Food Stamp Recipients, Feds Tell Georgia

abolish the drug war, not the laws of demand and supply.

 

We indeed should abolish the drug war. Not sure what you mean about supply and demand, must have missed something.

 

Make claims and then fail to back them up.

Nice.

Regardless of your attempt at stupidity, people who rely on others for their food shouldn't be taking drugs. I really can't see how anybody of logic would argue against that unless they were guilty of it.

 

Agreed.

If people are desperate for food, don't waste what little they have on drugs.

Seems pretty rational to me.

 

Anyone who took two seconds to google the event would find it. I'm not here to convince you. But the fact that you're unable to dispute it is telling.

- - - Updated - - -

It is pretty rational. Which is why the super large majority of people desperate for food don't waste their money on drugs unless they have a preestablished habit. In which case they need medical help.

 

Poverty is being reduced through "eminent domain" as part of promoting the general welfare; any privileges and immunities "taken for public use" should be compensated.

 

I've made several alternative suggestions (work programs, and no money transfers for food packages, etc...), nobody including yourself seems to listening or interested in solving problem, just pointing fingers at somebody other than the real culprits to our problems.

Drug tests for welfare is considered coercion. That is why the courts reject the practice. If there were work programs you could test them, but it is still a waste of time and money since the worst drugs are out of the system within 72 hours. The only drug that remains in the system longer is cannabis, 6-8 weeks for a heavy person, you see it is stored in the fat cells. Skinny people have the advantage there. Hell most of them will bring in (*)(*)(*)(*) that belongs to someone else, unless you are going to draw it directly out of their urine tract.

Then you have to look at who is actually doing the tests. A clerk at the welfare office? That is the cheapest way but, yea good luck with that. You just created a loophole for tampering and preferential treatment. At a doctors office with the best technicians available, now you are spending way more than you are saving. You just took a $5 test the government is pushing to the $75 or up per test.

You are allowing emotions to dictate ignorance when it comes to achieving anything. It sounds good if you hate drug users and welfare rats, but you are actually accomplishing very little. Even if you find a mother (since you used 'her') to be using, her children will still remain government dependents with another family member or be placed in foster care which is an additional cost, for a few months until the mother can prove she is clean again.

Emphasis should be placed on getting these people back to work and taking care of themselves, if they are not already working. If they are working, they are already taking tests to maintain their employment, and most of them who are using regularly are getting around those tests too.

 

The problem is the existence of welfare, an unconstitutional preemption of perogatives reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

The solution to that particular problem is to terminate ALL federal welfare programs immediately and allow the states severally and individually to make whatever choices they prefer to deal with the problem of lazy (*)(*)(*)(*)s that vote for Rodents.

Not by intelligent people. Of course, intelligent people can't disagree with what the Mayor stated in his previous two paragraphs. Since participation in the unconstitutional federal welfare scam is a voluntary act, since there is no "right" to recieve moneys stolen from citizens to perform unconstitutional acts, any and all forms of means testing imposed on the disbursal of those stolen funds is justifiable, and drug testing is merely a manner of testing if the applicant has means to commit illegal acts thereby disqualifying it from recieving stolen funds.

It's no different than filling out the Voter Regiastration Form at the welfare office, another supposedly voluntary act.

If some refuses drug testing, they don't get stolen taxpayer dollars.

You have some difficulty of the moral concept of their body, their choice?

MOD EDIT - RULE 3

Courts reject the practice because federal judges are an unelected political body no accountable to the taxpayers they're (*)(*)(*)(*)ing over.

Arguments from authority don't mean (*)(*)(*)(*) outside of the fact that you don't have an argument.

And if someone had to take a monthly drug test and was a crack addict....the numbers say they'd get caught. Since they're also ignorant (*)(*)(*)(*)s who will be required to sign an affadavit that they did not take illegal drugs prior to the test, they will be informed that if they test positive they will be prosecuted...many addicts will refuse to take the test, thereby voluntarily removing themselves from taking stolen moneys they don't deserve...giving the taxpayer a free win.

Yeah, typically speaking the giving of a drug test means getting the sample FRESH.

Duh. Obama voters. Not two working brain cells among a hundred of them....sheesh....

Strawmen.

Don't you dare accuse the Mayor of being a Rodent.

That kind of talk is libel and subject to legal redress.

The Mayor is 100% supportive of legalizing all chemicals stupid like to play with.

The Mayor also supports the idea that welfare offices should also provide 100% chemically pure heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine for any welfare recipient that wishes to take it, as much as they want, with clean needles.

The more that die, the fewer that recieve money stolen from taxpayers.

Welfare OPM is an addiction, why stop at half-measures? Give them straight horse, be done with it.

MOD EDIT - RULE 3

Do YOU feel YOU owe those people a living? No, of course you don't. You're not empyting your wallet and bank account to assuage your white guilt.

Why do you then feel THE MAYOR owes them a living? He KNOWS he owes them nothing. He's an American, after all.

Fastest way to do that is to stop treating them like children and turn off the money they have no right to, anyway.

If they won't do that when they don't have someone else's money to live off of, why pretend they'll start doing it when they're paid to be lazy?

Really? How many welfare parasites work for companies doing tasks that make it desirable for their employers to carry the expense of testing them for drugs? Are they air traffic controllers, goonionized overpaid bus drivers, subway motormen, or just burger flipping turds on the minimum wage that nobody cares about?

 

There are some very strange posters on this board, in the past they would be screaming at us all from a street corner, today they have the internet, my my my.

 

Good luck getting either party to agree with the elimination of welfare all together.

First you want it gone and then you want to use it to induce overdoses, committing some form of genocide, but you are not too emotional. Oh and if telling the truth is libel and subject to legal redress, please by all means sue me.

Most of the people on welfare are children and the elderly, but many people are eligible for food stamps including military personnel. They are not parasites. You scream straw man to facts and toss around stereotypical nonsense as if it was the gospel. Are you on drugs right now?

Did you know that referring to yourself in first person or at other times in 3rd person it could be the signs of a mental disorder or identity crisis? Don't worry though there are drugs out there that can help you, or make it worse. In any case 6-8 years of treatment can do a lot of good for people like that.

 

doesn't it depend on the level of drug addiction?

 

Anyone who would rather starve to death than be straight is a lost cause.



​

 

that still does not address the issue that some folks really do trade via food for drugs because they are so addicted, now does it?

 

It does. It says charity must have it's limits, and that if someone would rather starve than do without drugs... well, then keeping them alive may not be a reasonable goal.



​

 

so why waste years of free handouts only to have them OD? Test 'em now and let the system sort them out.

 

If you are receiving aid from the government such as food stamps then you should be required to show that you are not on any illegal drugs. Why is it that people object to this? It's mind boggling the amount of ignorance and stupidity that seems prevalent among low information liberals.

 

I don't have an issue with drug testing folks who want a government handout. But the courts have investigated and found it conflicts with certain public guarantees. I'm not ready to dismiss their constitutional rulings without looking at their reasons more closely (which I haven't yet). Constitutional law can be tricky and it's really easy to set a bad precedent.

Find a different way to get the same thing done, one that the courts don't find violates constitutional rights and I am likely to support it.



​

 

...and it's not like Republicans aren't hypocrites or anything....

Several of the House Republicans who voted Thursday for a bill that slashed billions of dollars from the food stamp program personally received large farm subsidies for family farms. The bill cutting the food stamp program narrowly passed on a mostly party line 217 to 210 vote.

During the food stamp debate, GOP Rep. Stephen Fincher, who received thousands in farm subsidies, responded to a Democratic Congressman during the debate over the cuts by quoting the bible, saying “the one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Fincher himself has received his own large share of government money. From 1999 to 2012, Stephen & Lynn Fincher Farms received $3,483,824 in agriculture subsidies. Last year he took in $70,574 alone.

Another Republican congresswoman who voted to make cuts to the food stamp program was Rep. Vicky Hartzler of Missouri. Her farm received more than $800,000 in Department of Agriculture subsidies from 1995-2012. In 2001, her farm received $135,482 in subsidies.

Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, who also voted to make cuts to the program, was a partner in Racota Valley Ranch, her family’s farm and previously had nearly a 17% stake through 2008. The farm received $3.4 million in subsidies from 1995-2012. The Environmental Working Group, which analyzes subsidy data, says the “estimated amount of subsidies attributed to Rep. Noem from 1995-2012 is $503,751.”

Rep. Marlin Stutzman, a Republican Rep. from Indiana also received his fair share of government subsidies. He personally took in nearly $200,000 for the farm he co-owns with his father.

According to the New York Times Stutzman said Thursday the bill cutting food stamps by $39 billion over the next ten years “eliminates loopholes, ensures work requirements, and puts us on a fiscally responsible path

 

Aren't most of those subsidies discounts on government crop insurance allowed in return for planting the crops the U.S. government determines are best for national interest?

Did any of these folks receive money?




​

 

I wonder how many people are required to take drug test to get a job, pay taxes, support governments, federal and local..............while so few are actually required to pass one pee test to get those subsidies and government cheese.
That's the real issue, why I should have to and they do not...seems like special privilege to me instead of Rights.

- - - Updated - - -

anyone, and I mean anyone, who receives one thin dime get tested and that includes all politicians, judges, prosecutors, cops, school boards, teachers...anyone and everyone on the government dole should be tested.

 

Again, if it were up to me I'd be fine with that. However, here is a difference between a job and a government guaranteed right. And placing arbitrary hurdles between people and their right to vote, right to free speech, right of privacy or otherwise is a constitutional issue.

We've made welfare one of those rights (don't blame me), so introducing those hurdles is sort of like saying you can only have your right to vote if you give up your right to free speech. You can have the right to free-load, but only if you give up your right to privacy.

So I think you'll have better luck repealing the right to a free-lunch than making it contingent on giving up the right to not pee in a jar. And I guess I'm kind of ok with that, because if it wasn't the case some joker might get a law passed saying I could travel freely only if I give up right not to have my genome mapped.

(Don't laugh too much, with monster airport lines and the TSA's pre-check being tied to government issued RFID/biometrically encoded federal enhanced drivers license program we're closer than you might have guessed.)



​

 

Food Stamps are in the nations best interest too because people aren't going to starve willingly.

A starving person is going to find a way to eat one way or another, and the most dangerous person in the world is the person with nothing to lose(Sun Tzu calls it, 'death ground,' in, The Art of War and a starving person is someone with nothing to lose, and sure you could pay more taxes to hire more law enforcement, build more jails, and you could buy guns and ammunition to protect you and your family, maybe you could even hire private security, maybe you could even build a fence with razor wire around your house and buy a bullet proof car, or, on the other hand, you could just continue to pay a few cents a year and with those few cents you're actually getting a really good deal. You're buying a lot of security and peace of mind with those few cents and you're probably paying a lot less for food stamps than you would be if you were to pay for all those other things I mentioned.

So food stamps are actually a really great deal.

 

So we're talking about extortion?




​

 

No we're talking about paying very little and getting a whole lot in return. I mean how much is your life worth???How much is your families life worth, more than a couple pieces of bread I hope???

 

Sure sounds like extortion.



​