People throw the term unconstitutional around very often without thinking about what the word actually mean, and the idea that such a small measure of a law could, from one sentence, could be considered against the Constitution, makes no sense. Still, regardless, the drug testing provisions would probably not be the wisest move.
Without a doubt, random drug tests for welfare recipients are completely constitutional. There's no reason a person should receive welfare if they're hooked on drugs. Such testing would be an excellent solution to doling out welfare, since the country wastes billions of dollars on welfare each and every year without pause.
I feel that if someone decides to live off of the Government, they should have to undergo a mandatory random drug test. If someone on welfare fails a drug test without prescription, I think they should most definitely lose all of their benefits. It just shows how responsible they can be.
Welfare is a privilege, not a right. If you want the privilege of receiving free money from the rest of the public, then you should be willing to abide by simple requirements. This ensures that the money is going to people that deserve it and not to a scum bag drug dealer.
Mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients is a good policy to ensure that state funds are spend most efficiently in the interest of the state. The testing encourages welfare recipients not to use drugs in order to remain eligible for welfare. Since people can decide whether to participate in the welfare program, the search is constitutional.
Yes, each and everyone receiving welfare should be drug tested. No ands, ifs, and buts, about it. If you want welfare and have to be drug tested you won't get mad if your not doing any drugs. The only ones that will be mad are the ones doing the drugs.
I had to take a drug test to get my job. That is not unconstitutional. So why is it unconstitutional for someone getting taxpayers dollars for free to have to take a drug test. If you have many for drugs you have enough to fully support yourself. If you're not on drugs, why do you care if you need to take a drug test? I would like to reiterate, I had to take one to get my job...
That's it, simple question. It is very common for people to abuse the welfare system just as they would abuse drugs. Why should hard working, honest taxpayers contribute part of their paycheck to a welfare recipient's fix? That's dumb. If over half of Americans are required to take a drug screening in order to get paid, the beggars should be required to as well.
First of all, if people are going to pay for others' welfare, they should know it's not going to be used for something harmful to society. Second of all, publicly given money isn't really up to private use (look at the bailouts). Thirdly, once people abdicate responsibility, they abdicate the freedoms and privileges that go with it. I mean, if somebody is going to live off someone else's means, how much (if any) do they get to demand?
Welfare is a huge strain on our national budget as a country (america). There is absolutely every reason to have mandatory drug tests. Besides, if you aren't high, you shouldn't have a problem taking random drug tests in my opinion. It only makes sense, if you are going to use other people's money to live off of our government, the people's money YOU are spending deserve the right to know that you are not wasting it. If YOU can afford drugs, you can afford yourself.
Submission to random drug tests as a prerequisite to obtaining welfare benefits is cruel and inhumane. It's none of the government's business what substances anyone wants to ingest into their bodies, and the fact that someone is on welfare does not make it the government's business. Until members of congress agree to random drug tests, welfare recipients shouldn't have them either.
Mandatory drug tests of welfare recipients should not be considered constitutional.The right to privacy is one of the most important of the inferred rights discussed in the constitution because the founding fathers knew that this was very important to the common citizen as it is today in contemporary society for the average citizen.
It is a gross violation of constitutional rights for our government to ASSUME that all poor people are drug addicts and so mandate drug screening. In order for there to be no civil liberties violations (remember the "innocent until proven guilty" thing?), there has to be reasonable cause to believe that the citizens to be tested are indeed drug addicts, such as arrests for drug-related offenses that resulted in case dispositions wherein the alleged offenders were not acquitted of all drug-related charges. To support the government position that such testing is constitutional is tantamount to making class divisions with regard to Law in that a rich cokehead (who doesn't need "free" money) can enjoy legal protection of his right to privacy without spending a cent, while a 55-year-old widowed father of two who was disabled in the line of duty is treated like a skid row bum...With no respect whatsoever. Hundreds of millions of honest citizens with decades of productive service to their credit are being treated like recidivist gutter trash, and they should take up "arms" against this constitutional crime—and it is a crime when one has done NOTHING to merit such. Did ANY of these people study American History? It's things like this that caused our founding fathers to rebel against the sovereign British crown...And now...Our president has become King, and all his law enforcement agents should wear red coats and jackboots.
Because in order to get help from the government you shouldn't have to qualify for help from a system that was designed to fit the needs of the people and nothing less than that. For the government to ignore the needs of people that are desperate enough to apply for something of this nature is goig against everything that this country stands for.
There's nothing constitutional about requiring drug tests for welfare recipients. As was proved in Florida, the only reason for drug testing of welfare recipients was to award sweetheart contracts to the governor's corporate buddies. It's just another corrupt and immoral tactic that Republicans use trying to incite a class war.