Michigan Senate passes bill on drug test for welfare receivers

 
No, what they need to do is require birth control for women on welfare. Want your check? Get a booster shot first.


So you want to legislate what I can or can not do with my vagina?


No sir.
I don't believe his proposal legislates what you can do with it... Mainly just what can come out of it.

It'd be unconstitutional. Would never happen.

What exactly makes it unconstitutional?
 
What exactly makes it unconstitutional?


am guessing he means it violates the 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
 
kind of off-base but i've noticed a trend in "tree states" to curb DUI by training cops to be "experts" on determining if someone is high on weed...


...which is ridiculous....


the best quick way to test someone for weed is a blood test - therefore i'm sure, in the future, it will be pushed to give cops the legal right to draw blood from a driver right there on the side of the road just like they can administer a breathalyzer for alcohol...

a cop taking a blood sample would be a clear violation of the 4th amendment (at this time)
 
Last edited:
 
No, what they need to do is require birth control for women on welfare. Want your check? Get a booster shot first.


So you want to legislate what I can or can not do with my vagina?


No sir.
I don't believe his proposal legislates what you can do with it... Mainly just what can come out of it.

It'd be unconstitutional. Would never happen.

What exactly makes it unconstitutional?

Something about having to force someone to inject something into their body in exchange for government assistance doesn't sound constitutional to me.

Godforbid my mothers home or yours rather, were to be destroyed by a hurricane/ earthquake - and as a result needed government assistance. I guess by default she'll need to be put on birth control, despite the fact she hasn't had a kid in over 24 years and has no intention to do so in exchange for assistance.
 
Last edited:
kind of off-base but i've noticed a trend in "tree states" to curb DUI by training cops to be "experts" on determining if someone is high on weed...


...which is ridiculous....


the best quick way to test someone for weed is a blood test - therefore i'm sure, in the future, it will be pushed to give cops the legal right to draw blood from a driver right there on the side of the road just like they can administer a breathalyzer for alcohol...

a cop taking a blood sample would be a clear violation of the 4th amendment (at this time)

LAPD has been using saliva oral swab kits on the spot if they suspect you're under the influence. They also call for a drug recognition officer to test your impairment.
 
LAPD has been using saliva oral swab kits on the spot if they suspect you're under the influence. They also call for a drug recognition officer to test your impairment.


a drug recognition officer could be a medical doctor - or it could be a cop that took a one-day training course to be deemed an "expert"


just to cut through the words a bit


cops have a hard enough time using discretion - imagine one that is having a bad day trying to find the vein for a blood sample?
 
What exactly makes it unconstitutional?


am guessing he means it violates the 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Yea, but no one is forcing you. It's an inducement. If you want government assistance, you play by their rules. The government doesn't have to shell out any type of assistance.
 
The poor aren't the only ones who get state support tho 
eyes.gif
 
The poor aren't the only ones who get state support tho :rolleyes
The money set aside for welfare is a smalllll portion of the budget. We live in a society where we blame the poor for everything . Michigan will just waste money like Florida with this stupid policy. You don't want people on welfare abusing drugs why not focus on how drugs get into impoverished neighborhoods???? I guess it's better to skip the root causes of the drug issue and just punish the poor.
 
He can't. It's an idealistic catch phrase.

While the catch phrase part may be true, I will explain what I mean.

Education can be and is used as a form of social segregation

It is also true that the uneducated classes have more children.

Less of their time is spent pursuing things like demanding degrees and fields because their economic situation makes them feel as if to that would be going outside of their box.

For the poor in parts of the world where education is a luxury, they have nothing to hold off on having kids for. They feel as if their destiny is only gonna go so far so why bother. It's the people lucky enough to get good education that get to sit and ponder what they want to be when they grow up. For the poor, they have to grow up quickly without contemplation.
 
Wait correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying you need education to understand that having 10 kids you cannot take care of isn't wise? Or am I reading this wrong?



I know there is a definite correlation between socioeconomic status and how many children people have. Educated people are moving more toward a trend of not having children or having less children, while the woman from the projects on welfare is having 6 or 7.  I suspect many of these women use their children either as chips to get what they want whether it be govt assistance or child support. If we put an end to policies that promote these benefits we will see a drop in the birth rate.

Your last paragraph is what I am speaking of.

Though both examples represent extreme ends of the spectrum. Both rationalize reasons to have more or less kids. There is a middle ground in this situation.
 
As far as the OP, this was done in Florida and found to have costed the state MORE. So from strictly a financial side, it's a poor idea. I guess it's fine from a demonizing the poor standpoint, even though we lose more money from corporate welfare than these programs, but I digress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/u...-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html?_r=0

Florida passed the measure in 2011, and the case was being closely watched by several other states, including Georgia, which passed similar legislation in 2013 but found it dogged by legal challenges. State data in Florida also showed that the measure produced few results. Only 108 out of 4,086 people tested — 2.6 percent — were found to have been using narcotics. State records showed that the requirement cost more money to carry out than it saved.


As far as women and having a bunch of kids...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/education-level-inversely-related-to-childbearing/

New U.S. fertility data suggest that having a higher education isn’t associated with having a big family: Women who are college graduates are likely to have fewer children — if they have them at all — than their less-educated sisters, the Census Bureau said Monday.

Let's examine reasons WHY the less educated are having more babies.

It's funny how we judge the impoverished addicts as being such a drain on our society but rich, drug addicts are positive members of our society?

People are quick to point the finger and blame, but not so quick to engage in thoughtful analysis and propose possible solutions.
 
While the catch phrase part may be true, I will explain what I mean.

Education can be and is used as a form of social segregation

It is also true that the uneducated classes have more children.

Less of their time is spent pursuing things like demanding degrees and fields because their economic situation makes them feel as if to that would be going outside of their box.

For the poor in parts of the world where education is a luxury, they have nothing to hold off on having kids for. They feel as if their destiny is only gonna go so far so why bother. It's the people lucky enough to get good education that get to sit and ponder what they want to be when they grow up. For the poor, they have to grow up quickly without contemplation.

Typical "blame the system" argument. Education starts and ends at home. The government can (and will) only do so much. Parents need to take an active role in their kid's (or kids') education. Without that, there is no hope. We're so far gone, that what you say about education and climbing the socio-economic ladder is just not a reality. We'd have to start over at this point, and we can't.
 
Typical "blame the system" argument. Education starts and ends at home. The government can (and will) only do so much. Parents need to take an active role in their kid's (or kids') education. Without that, there is no hope. We're so far gone, that what you say about education and climbing the socio-economic ladder is just not a reality. We'd have to start over at this point, and we can't.

But...

The Sun analyzed federal education data on school expenditures and high school graduation rates and found the majority of states see a correlation between high education spending and high student performance.

Of the top half of states that spend the most on schools, 15 states — or 60 percent — are also among the top half of states with the highest graduation rates.

The following states spend the most on schools and have among the highest graduation rates: Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia ( :pimp: ), Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Two states in particular, Vermont and New Hampshire, are among the top 10 states in both per-pupil spending and the high school graduation rate.

Of the bottom half of states that spend the least on education, 14 states — or 56 percent — are also among the bottom half of states with the lowest graduation rates.

The following states spend the least on schools and have among the lowest graduation rates nationally: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah and Washington.

Two states in particular, Alabama and Nevada, are among the bottom 10 states nationally in both per-pupil spending and high school graduation rate.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/jul/17/analysis-finds-correlation-between-high-education-/

The numbers do not agree with you, sir.
 
they should do this for those getting section 8 housing too. lot of folks  i see getting this housing abusing it, staying home all day doing drugs. dont look like they even freakin work. making the neighborhood ghetto and ish.
 
so we have 2 issues ...

it's not cost effective

and we have possible unintended consequences from those that get cut off possibly committing crimes ...

i still like the idea ... i guess i'd have to think about some more though ...
 
Back
Top Bottom