Posted on 11/11/2014 1:18:57 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has said he wants recipients of food stamps and unemployment benefits to undergo drug tests, a move that could face possible legal trouble.
The state is already one of five that require public assistance applicants who are convicted of drug felony charges to be tested for drugs, along with Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Virginia, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Should Walker propose a broader measure that involves testing benefits applicants either randomly or without suspicion that they have used drugs, it could be found unconstitutional because of a 2003 Michigan Court of Appeals case, the NCSL said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
don't get me wrong, I'm a strong believer that only idiots abuse drugs. I just have strong beliefs regarding government snooping around in a citizens personal business and I draw a hard line on that.
It would be much more effective if they spent a little more money on fraud investigation and did a serious crack down on that.
Take the King’s Coin, do the King’s Bidding...and I don’t want MY money going to users.
I don’t see how the two can be compared. Government job? sure, but a private employer should be able to set the rules and standards that he/she wants for the people they employ. The reason doesn’t matter, it should be their choice. In the case of government benefits, you are snooping into someones private life and denying the benefits that they potentially paid for and were promised. They didn’t have a choice on whether that should participate or not, government took their money regardless and forced them into the “agreement”. if they want to drug test, they need to make participation and paying the taxes optional. doing that, you would be agreeing to participate and allow government to put demands on your private behaviors.
hey had no choice as to whether they wanted to participate in giving tax money to the programs or not. If they make THAT part optional, then I would agree. You can’t deny them the benefits that they were forced to pay into and put demands on their private behaviors when they go to collect their end of the deal. I’m sure there is a large percentage of them that have never paid a dime in taxes, but I don’t believe that is the majority.
Two changes
Required work and no monetary increases for more kids.
Can we start with Obama since he is also getting federal money?
We would be lucky if our Presidents were “one-hit” wonders. We need a long stretch of one-termers, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.