Orrin Hatch: Drug-test Welfare Recipients

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

People seeking unemployment benefits or welfare would have to first pass a drug test under a proposal Sen. Orrin Hatch will try to add to legislation extending the social safety net during this time of economic turmoil.

Hatch, R-Utah, said his idea would help battle drug addiction and could reduce the nation's debt. He will try to get the Senate to include his amendment to a $140 billion bill extending tax breaks and social programs this week.

"This amendment is a way to help people get off of drugs to become productive and healthy members of society, while ensuring that valuable taxpayer dollars aren't wasted," he said after announcing his amendment. "Too many Americans are locked into a life of a dangerous dependency not only on drugs, but the federal assistance that serves to enable their addiction."

State Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, introduced similar legislation during Utah's legislative session but ultimately abandoned the bill because the programs are governed federally. [...]

"It is simply immoral for them to use taxpayer dollars to fund their addiction," he said. "Clearly, people who have a drug addiction need help, but they need to step up to get the help."

This is, alas, nothing new. In addition to social-welfare recipients, lawmakers have identified several other sub-classes of people ripe for being forced by the state to urinate on command, including (but not limited to) student athletes, kids who dare take part in other extra-curricular activities, and even kids who do nothing all day but draw "I Heart Conor" in their Pee-Chees. (They still have those, right?)

Always missing from these flippant tramplings of our privacy rights are two classes of people: Lawmakers themselves, and recipients of corporate welfare. Wouldn't you feel just a little safer if Patrick Kennedy got his fluids checked on regular basis? Ya think some of those juicy subsidies for film productions ever land in the hands of people who use drugs?

The moral of the story here is not new, but bears repeating: If you are at all dependent on the state, whether by choice or force, and you don't have the good manners to be powerful, you will always stand the risk of being treated like a patient at a criminal asylum. It is as good a reason as any other to resist further encroachment of the government on our private lives.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    You first, Orrin. As soon as everybody who works in the Capitol building, from Senators to janitors, is on a rigorous random drug-testing program, I will consider thinking about your proposal.

  • ||

    What percentage of Senators and Representatives would test positive?
    - 10 - 24% ?
    - 25-49% ?
    -50 - 74% ?
    -75 - 95% ? (I'm allowing for some false negatives here.)
    [Note that there is no "under 10% category.]

    Next question:
    What % of Senators & Representatives would blow under .08 if administered a BAT at 4 PM on any given day?

  • adam||

    this just made me think of an even better idea- their voting machines should be fitted with a breathalyzer and pissalyzer so that they can't vote until they've proved they are alcohol and drug free.

  • ||

    That sounds like a cunning plan.

  • adam||

    the voting machines could also have a short multiple choice test on some of the basics of the bill they're voting on.

  • ||

    As cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University?

  • ||

    First, you will need to borrow some money from the baby eating Bishop of Bath and Wells.

  • Suki||

    As soon as I saw his name, I thought of a whole different old story.

  • Suki||

    Clicking "submit" was a thrill that time.

  • Tim||

    You got issues...

  • Tim||

    Try this on for size, Sukizoid:
    "Growing ethical turmoil surrounding Rangel has prompted calls for Pelosi to yank Rangel’s gavel."

    http://thehill.com/homenews/ca.....llegations

  • ||

    We should have drug dealers check to see if you are receiving government assistance before they sell you drugs. No chemistry needed, just a backround check.

    Second, I AM a productive member of society and I have no interest in stopping my use of drugs.

  • ||

    Come on, it starts at the bottom. If you gotta take a drug test to work for money, you should have to take it to get free money!!!

  • ||

    Hey, leave Charlie alone. He has enough problems as it is. Do you think he'll get a cameo in the new Wall Street?

  • Tim||

    If they had a pot to piss in they wouldn't need welfare...

  • qwerty||

    So you can be a multiple rapist and receive welfare, but a pot smoker can't?

    How about just getting rid of welfare?

    PS: The idea of drug tests for politicians is great :)

  • ||

    I'm not on welfare, but I'd gladly give a urine sample. Right into his fat mouth.

  • PIRS||

    "THEY CAME FIRST for the Auto companies,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Auto company.

    THEN THEY CAME for the Physicians,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Physician.

    THEN THEY CAME for the Recreational drug users,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Recreational drug user.

    THEN THEY CAME for me
    and by that time no one was left to speak up."

  • Suki||

    Didn't they go after rec. drug users before the rest of that list?

    Good afternoon PIRS!

  • PIRS||

    HI Suki,

    True, but they still are. With them it is a continuous, neverending process.

  • Hacha Cha||

    I am against welfare, BUT, I'm against this as well. Do they realize how much money it is going to cost to do drug tests to every welfare recipient and everyone who applies for welfare, and retesting people, and confirming inconclusive drug tests? Its all a waste of money, but lets not waste any more damn money. Its just another way for the government to exert control over citizens.

  • ||

    I am against welfare, BUT, I'm against this as well. Do they realize how much money it is going to cost to do drug tests to every welfare recipient and everyone who applies for welfare, and retesting people, and confirming inconclusive drug tests? Its all a waste of money, but lets not waste any more damn money. Its just another way for the government to exert control over citizens.

    That's a feature not a bug.

    Anyone want to bet if drug testing companies contribute to Sen. Hatch coffers?

  • ||

    Sen. Hatch is from Utah. You know, the state full of Mormons whose religion forbids use of drugs -- with most of them unlibertarian enough to try to foist those morals upon others. Hatch would be for this without any campaign contributions.

  • The Gobbler||

    So how much money has Big Piss Test donated to Hatch?

  • ||

    Are you suggesting that there's Piss down the Hatch?

  • ||

    I tried to look this up in between periods of pretending to work. There's a lot of medical companies on the list, but I'll look more later.

  • ||

    Do they realize how much money it is going to cost to do drug tests to every welfare recipient and everyone who applies for welfare, and retesting people, and confirming inconclusive drug tests?

    That's the beauty part, man: we charge them for the tests. Either way, they don't have any money, and we still get to humiliate them!

    WIN!

  • ||

    That's just the incentive they (the ubiquitious "they") need to get off the demon weed and turn their lives around.

  • Joe Kristan||

    Drug test them and then make them prepare their own tax returns live on the internet. With a rolling comment bar on the side for viewers, of course.

  • Joe Kristan||

    I mean the Congresscritters, of course, not the welfare recipients.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    Drug-test Welfare Recipients? Does this mean every employee of GM has to take the test?

  • ||

    Not to mention the farmers.

  • Kolohe||

    Or people that work for defense contractors.

    Actually, they already do this.

  • Suki||

    They will be replaced by Department of Education and Department of Transportation workers during their next strike.

  • robc||

    Every social security recepient too.

  • ||

    I am not sure that allowing hypocrites to stay in congress is worse than favoring self righteous prigs* in who have less compunction about telling you what to do.

    * you would get more of these just by eliminating the hypocrites

  • ||

    Ever wonder why we don't hear stuff like this?

    People holding congressional office, employment as congressional staff or any appointed office in the federal government and their staffs (including the Supreme Court) would have to repeatedly pass random drug tests like US servicemen and women do with immediate termination the result of failure under a proposal by Sen. Fill in the Blank.

    Orrin you elitest cocksucking bastard, what's good for the motherfucking citizen goose is damned sure beneficial to the useless teat sucking gander.

  • Kolohe||

    Sen. Fill in the Blank.

    He's my favorite, right after Sen. Nota.

  • Sen. Lacuna||

    Hear, hear!

  • ||

    Sen. PeeintheCup?

  • ||

    I think its a great idea that should have been put into place YEARS ago!

    Lou
    www.ip-spoofing.net.tc

  • φ||

    011110010110111101110101001000000110000101110010011001010010000001100001001000000110011001110101011000110110101101101001011011100110011100100000011000100110111101110100001000000111100101101111011101010010000001100100011101010110110101100010001000000111001101101000011010010111010000100000011011010110000101100011011010000110100101101110011001010010111000100000011101110110100001111001001000000110010001101111011011100010011101110100001000000111100101101111011101010010000001110000011010010111001101110011001000000110100101101110011101000110111100100000011110010110111101110101011100100010000001101111011101110110111000100000011011010110111101110101011101000110100000111111

  • ||

    I have NEVER used illegal drugs but am very close to being on Welfare because my three children have a dad that REFUSES TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT! and enforcement doesn't give a sh_t!!!

  • ||

    I have NEVER used illegal drugs but am very close to being on Welfare because my three children have a dad that REFUSES TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT! and enforcement doesn't give a sh_t!!!

  • ||

    I wish that there were more anti-prohibitionist congresscritters with a sense of humor. If Hatch is so concerned with "addiction" of welfare recipients, then he should add alcohol and tobacco testing to the bill. If he won't, my hypothetical anti-prohibitionist congresscritter should.

  • ||

    You'd never catch a Senator with a drug test for illegal substances. You don't get to be that powerful and not have a few sycophant docs that will prescribe you anything you want.

  • ¢||

    I wish that there were more anti-prohibitionist congresscritters

    I wish there were one.

  • ||

    There is one. Some here don't like him for the audacity of not being perfect.

  • ||

    "Clearly, people who have a drug addiction need help, but they need to step up to get the help."

    If you say Ferris Bueller, you lose a testicle.

  • ||

    Oh, you know him?

  • ||

    Xeones isn't around to say it, so I guess I have to:

    Yo, fuck Sen. Orrin Hatch.

  • ben||

    yeah we know you want to, ya faggot!

  • ||

    I support Hatch's measure and disagree elected officials should have to take drug tests. Before you attack, let me explain.

    While I disagree with Hatch's reasons, I think people who accept taxpayer dollars (including corporate welfare recipients) should be subject to whatever the hell we want them to do. If they don't like it, they don't have to take our money. I like the incentive to get off welfare. I'm kind of surprised so many here are letting the moochers get unconditional cash. Is it just because Hatch is a major douchebag and his reasoning is false? Recipients are choosing not to be free from We the People's requirements, whatever they are, when they accept taxpayer dollars. They choose to sacrifice privacy for free money.

    As for elected officials, I think we want more anti-prohibitionists in government, like say, libertarians. Requiring testing may exclude many citizens from going into public office, the citizens that may more closely match our views. The Constitution doesn't hold such a requirement, nor should it. All citizens should be eligible for office without such a standard.

  • ||

    Eat shit and die if you honestly believe that smoking weed should disqualify welfare payments. I mean that in all seriousness.

    It's none of the government's GOD DAMN BUSINESS what people on welfare do. Only an idiot would think that weed is the underlying reason why someone would be on welfare. What a stupid cunt.

  • BakedPenguin||

    It's none of the government's GOD DAMN BUSINESS what people on welfare do.

  • ||

    Unless they're on welfare, in which case they can have all the conditions for that money taxpayers through their elected officials wish to place on them. Taking welfare money is a choice. It is not forced upon anyone.

  • The Widow White||

    Gee, Nick, you stupid fuck. Do you drive a car? Because if you are going to use the public's roads, then we need to piss test you. We don't want you to crash.

    Or do you, you stupid fuck, take public transportation instead? Because if you are going to use public transportation, then we need to piss test you. We don't want you to cause a drug-addled incident on the bus.

    Or do you, you stupid fuck, ever call 911? Because if you are going to use the public emergency response system, then we need to piss test you. We don't need some stoner putting our finest and bravest at risk.

    Or do you, you stupid fuck, ever vote? Because if you are going to use the public election system, then we need to piss test you. Because we can't have some stoner deciding who should hold public office.

  • ||

    Because if you are going to use the public's roads,

    DRINK!

  • ||

    Nice strawmen you've created there.

    I never said drug use made someone incompetent. I said if you want to receive welfare, you comply with the conditions or do without.

    Voting should not have conditions other than citizenship, residency matching your polling place, and age of majority. Free people can be high as a kite when they vote for all I care. So, you're retarded.

    911 is for emergencies. If I am stone cold sober and abuse the system, that is a crime. If I am whacked out of my mind on every drug known to man, and use the service for it's emergency purpose, that justifies the service. Idiot.

    Passengers pay a fare for using public transportation. If that is not enough to ride, I'll use private transportation and laugh my ass off when 2 days later the public transportation goes out of business. Moron.

    As for driving on public roads, I have a driver's license that demonstrates I met the requirements and have been educated on the sobriety requirement. Now, I may disagree with the test and disagree with the acceptable BAC levels and I can petition my various governments to change them, but there are conditions for the use of public roads. Dumbass.

    You seem to be angry at me out of some misplaced belief that I am a prohibitionist. I am the opposite. I think all drugs should be legal. I can think that and still expect welfare recipients to comply with whatever conditions are attached to them receiving taxpayer dollars for getting free money from taxpayers such as myself, and you if you are one. If we want them to paint "MOOCH" on their forehead, they can pick up the spray can or go ask a church or charity for the money and comply with whatever conditions they require.

  • The Gobbler||

    "I said if you want to receive welfare, you comply with the conditions or do without."

    Who died and made you queen?

    What is lacking in all of your sanctimony is a simply why.

    Why do you believe they should be tested. What's the putative benefit? Please tell us, Queen Nick.

  • Mr. Mackey||

    He doesn't like the welfare how dense are you?

  • ||

    How about simple economics? If the person is in need of public funding, are they wasting money on drugs? Also, one of the requirements of welfare is that you are putting forth effort to get yourself off welfare, by looking for a job. Since most emplyers have a no illegal drug policy, and many even require drug tests prior to hire, it would make sense to have welfare recipients be drug free. In fact if they were subjected to monthly drug tests, they could submit those results to potential employers as proof of compliance.

    I'd add that welfare recipients should be required to submit an itemized spending account prior to receiving their check. I'd hate for my money to be spent by them on 50" LCD's, gambling, and chocolate covered fish eggs.

    Point is that like Nick said, if you are relying on other taxpayers to provide you with funds to make you able to buy food and shelter, you should be perfectly fine accepting restrictions on spending and behavior. Comparing that to using roads, is just plain stupid.

  • Pip||

    "Point is that like Nick said, if you are relying on other taxpayers to provide you with funds to make you able to buy food and shelter, you should be perfectly fine accepting restrictions on spending and behavior."

    Just like the Fed's bailout. If the Fed is going to give money to banks, we should know what they gave and who they gave it to.

  • The Widow White||

    Point is that like Nick said, if you are relying on other taxpayers to provide you with funds to make you able to buy food and shelter roads, you should be perfectly fine accepting restrictions on spending and behavior. Comparing that to using roads, is just plain stupid.

    Come again...

  • ||

    It's not about being tested for anything. It's about the money you receive having a stipulation, any stipulation that gives incentive to avoid the benefit, or to get off the benefit because it is not worth dealing with the conditions. It has nothing to do with drugs in my opinion, and everything to do with placing a demand on recipients of ALL forms of welfare. Or, just read what Mr. Mackey wrote.

  • Ice2||

    Well the thing is how stupid and unplanned the whole idea is. dont you worry how much this would cost? drug testing every single g damned reciepent of welfare? i wouldnt be surprised if hes only proposing this because hes getting some money from drug testing companies.

  • ||

    It crossed my mind. How much is welfare costing us? It needs to end. If it exists, then despite what The Widow White above you says, actually it IS the government's god damn business what welfare recipients do. They are collecting a paycheck from the government. I collect a paycheck from a private company that requires drug testing to work here. I choose to work here and comply, despite my preference for weed. If I don't want to take a drug test, I can choose to work somewhere without such a requirement. Welfare recipients are not required to take taxpayer money. I don't care if Hatch wants to test them for Little Debbie Snack Cakes. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

  • Tony||

    As long as we restrict the alcohol and cocaine intake of bailed-out bank CEOs.

  • ||

    Absolutely. You want my money, you do what I say. They should also wear clown suits in public until they pay back every penny.

  • The Widow White||

    Hey Nick, you stupid fuck, I DON'T WANT YOUR FAGGOT ASSED MONEY. GET OVER YOURSELF.

  • ||

    Why so angry?

  • The Widow White||

    "Why so angry?"

    Because Nick sees himself as a god, deciding who to bless and who to punish. It's just what arrogant cunts do.

  • ||

    A god? Wow. I didn't think I was blessing or punishing anyone. Explain how I've done that? Replace drugs in this discussion with peanut butter. Conditional requirements have nothing to do with the consumed product. It has to do with accepting taxpayer money without expecting a condition at all.

  • ||

    And I don't want to give it to you, so...

  • The Gobbler||

    Noblesse oblige, died today at 12:49 pm EDT

  • ||

    I don't claim any nobility. Everyone's mad at me as if I care what drugs people do. I don't care what drugs anyone does. I don't care if poor people are on drugs. I don't care if billionaire CEO's are on drugs. I don't think welfare should exist, but if it does, there should be so many damned conditions attached, no one in their right mind would ever apply.

  • Zeb||

    But Nick, it's my money too. What if what I say they should do is contrary to what you say?

  • The Widow White||

    Because Nick is god and god makes the rules, not you.

  • ||

    Zeb, well you can give them money on your own time, your own money if you want.

  • ||

    Pile it on, Zeb. My whole point is to add so many conditions to the "free" money that no one will want it. Contradictory conditions are even better than not! Make them hate the whole damn thing.

  • Tony||

    So on top of welfare, we add deliberately absurd bureaucratic red tape, official duplicity, and invasion of privacy. That a lot of exceptions to your principles just to piss on poor people.

  • ||

    Did you miss the part where I piss on rich people, too? I'm pissing on anyone who would rather use government force to take something from me to give it to them when if they really need it, they should ask family, friends, neighbors, or anyone else willing to give to them of their own free will. It is not an invasion of privacy if you CHOOSE to pee in the cup to get a benefit.

  • ||

    Well, Nick, I suppose most of us subscribe to the "two wrongs don't make a right" school of thought.

    (1) Welfare payments - wrong.

    (2) Drug testing - wrong.

    (3) Welfare payments plus drug testing - yep, still wrong.

    As for making government employees take drug tests, well, I suppose that is supported on the theory that you shouldn't make anyone else do something that you aren't willing to do yourself.

  • ||

    Drug testing is always wrong? In the private sector it's called a condition of employment. I see no reason it shouldn't be a condition of receipt of taxpayer dollars, be they poor people who are down on their luck or rich CEOs taking money for whatever reason.

  • ||

    RC, is it more wrong to drug test welfare recipients than it is to drug test members of the military? Or is it the same wrongness?

    I vote for slightly less wrong to test welfare recipients than it is to test members of the military.

  • Fluffy||

    Nick:

    Here's the issue.

    The state should not be allowed to use the offering or denial of a state benefit as an opportunity to bypass the enumerated rights of citizens.

    Drug use is illegal. If the state can come up with probable cause that someone is using drugs, they can get search warrants, demand blood samples, etc. In the absence of probable cause, they have no right to search either your person or your effects.

    If we allow the state to require citizens to surrender their Constitutional rights in order to receive government benefits, there is no principle that would prevent the state from setting the income tax rate to 100%, but granting a "special tax rate waiver" to anyone who signs away their free speech rights, or their jury trial rights, or what have you.

    The state should be bound by the Constitution in all its interactions with citizens, and shouldn't be able to "carrot and stick" its way into getting people to surrender those rights "voluntarily".

  • ||

    As a user of slippery slope arguments myself, I think your 100% tax rate argument goes just a bit overboard.

    I'm not sure why a libertarian would be firmly opposed to allowing a person to chose between drug testing and government benefits. This isn't the sort of oppressive test you are discussing in your hypothetical. Rather, it's ensuring that government money isn't spent on drugs.

    Certainly, there are circumstances under which waiver isn't really waiver but rather coercion, but this isn't one of them. Your hypo is patently coercive.

    Frankly, I have no issue with people who chose to use recreational drugs, though I chose not to myself, but I also see no problem with testing to ensure that Uncle Sam isn't supporting the habit.

  • Fluffy||

    This isn't the sort of oppressive test you are discussing in your hypothetical.

    It doesn't matter if it is or it isn't.

    The state either has the power to impose the requirement that citizens surrender enumerated rights in order to receive an available benefit, or it doesn't.

    If it does have that power, then the only reason they haven't done what I have suggested in my hypothetical is because they don't currently have the votes.

    Certainly, there are circumstances under which waiver isn't really waiver but rather coercion, but this isn't one of them. Your hypo is patently coercive.

    I don't care if it's 1 cent or everything you own. It's "patently coercive" as soon as the state makes any benefit whatsoever contingent upon the surrender of a constitutional right.

    Can the state make a condition of receiving welfare payments the signing of an oath that the recipient won't vote for a Republican? There's no real "coercion" there, either.

    Hey, if they don't like it they don't have to take the money, right?

  • ||

    If we were starting at square one I'd say the state should not be offering benefits they have no right to offer. They should be protecting people's rights and that is all. But when benefits are granted, they are always conditional. Welfare for citizens is based on income, marital status, etc. Corporate welfare is conditional on doing or not doing something, such as "don't grow crops and we'll pay you." I agree we shouldn't be doing any of those things, but let's not kid ourselves. "Carrot and stick" and what we always call incentive and it exists everywhere. Hell, at reason, it's usually the selling point for an idea.

  • Fluffy||

    They should be protecting people's rights and that is all. But when benefits are granted, they are always conditional. Welfare for citizens is based on income, marital status, etc.

    Right, and the limits to what conditions the state can create are set in the Constitution.

    The state can't make it be a requirement that you stop going to church.

    It can't make it a requirement that you refrain from voting or engaging in speech.

    It can't make it a requirement that you waive your right to a jury trial for the duration of the time you are on welfare.

    So it shouldn't be able to make it a requirement that you surrender your right against self-incrimination, or the requirement that the state be able to conduct searches only with probable cause.

  • ||

    I finally understand where you were going above. My comprehension fail. Sorry.

    So, you can support the condition of Little Debbie Snack Cake testing because a positive test would not incriminate you? Let's do that and while we're at it, repeal the drug laws, so we can test for those, too.

    But, what I want to know is how someone's rights are violated if they simply refuse to take the drug test? They won't incriminate themselves. They won't get welfare either, but so what? They can maintain their rights without any state aggression against them. You agree the benefit is not a legitimate function of government.

  • ||

    I see what you are saying, but frankly I have no problem with a consenting adult voluntarily agreeing to waive his or her constitutional rights. That's why I draw the line at coercion. Adults can waive rights, contractual and constitutional, if they so chose.

    Therefore, in my mind, the issue is whether the government withholding welfare benefits is coercive. I don't think withholding welfare benefits is coercive, but reasonable minds can differ.

    I don't see why you couldn't agree to waive all sorts of rights to stay on welfare, and frankly I have no problem with that. If an individual values a free check from the government more than his constitutional rights, why should the transaction be stopped? Coercion is one instance, and there may be others, but that does not mean that rights can't be waived.

  • Fluffy||

    Because this isn't the only benefit the state gives out. It's just the one you resent the most, so it's the one you want to punish the recipients of the most.

    But because the state has inserted itself into every area of life, if renunciations of constitutional rights were required for all of them, we would rapidly reach a situation where very few people would be able to escape the web.

    In a situation where the state at all levels takes more than half your income as taxes but then "returns services", and where entry into just about every profession involves a gatekeeper of some kind, "just don't take the benefit" is not really responsive.

    How about we pass a law saying that anyone who wants a license to practice medicine has to waive their right to a jury trial in civil suits? Or a law saying that anyone who wants to be an officer in a public corporation has to waive their right against self-incrimination in criminal investigations? After all, those aren't "coercive", because you can always install drywall for a living, right?

  • Apogee||

    How about we pass a law saying that anyone who wants a license to practice medicine has to waive their right to a jury trial in civil suits? Or a law saying that anyone who wants to be an officer in a public corporation has to waive their right against self-incrimination in criminal investigations? After all, those aren't "coercive", because you can always install drywall for a living, right?

    Medical licensing and holding an office in a corporate entity are both legal activities, and the 'requirements' that they waive constitutional rights to conduct legal behavior is, IMO, not a fair comparison with screening for illegal behavior.

    Are psychological and background tests for Nuclear defense workers okay? As another commenter stated, what about drug testing for military personnel? Government screening for illegal behavior seems to be varied in its application depending on the requirements for the job.

    Your 5th Amendment argument is a good one, and might even win out in the end, but it seems that the right against self-incrimination in a setting where the government is attempting to remove your freedom is somewhat different than a situation in which you seek government funding.

    I don't like drug testing (and think that all drugs should be legal), as it fosters the false impression that different individuals react equally to the same substances, and that the simple presence of a substance can be used to evaluate the capabilities and performance of all individuals using that substance to a significant degree.

    Forced to choose, I would rather be a passenger in a car on a rainy night on Pike's Peak with a drunk Danica Patrick behind the wheel than a stone cold sober 85 year old behind the wheel.

    And I also agree with Chris Christie in that the government has sold the population a lie - that they can receive a benefit for nothing, and that someone else will be paying the bill.

  • ||

    The state shouldn't be giving out benefits at all. Maybe this will wake people up to that fact.

  • Michael||

    I'm kind of surprised so many here are letting the moochers get unconditional cash.

    What the fuck makes you so high and mighty that anybody receiving some form of government assistance is automatically deemed a moocher? Did it ever occur to you that many of those people may very well be unwillingly subject to circumstance? Go ahead, tell me how somebody that's stuck in an economically depressed region can simply up and move. I love that one.

  • ||

    If taxation is theft and Merriam-Webster defines mooch as 1) steal and 2) beg or sponge, then tell me how I am misusing the term. Perhaps you don't like the negative connotation. Gee, I wonder why it's negative.

    I fully support private charity for the downtrodden and failure or reorganization for corporations that need assistance.

  • ||

    If taxation is theft..

    And anyone with a brain will stop reading the rest of your nonsense right there.

    All those people whose livelihoods are being ruined by the Oil Spill in the Gulf ...who are most likely gonna have to receive government benefits....
    God Damn Dirty MOOCHERS!

    Go Fuck yourself Nick.

  • ||

    I think they should all sue the pants of BP and the government shouldn't have given BP and other oil companies the welfare of liability capping. So piss off, Tom. Everyone here knows you love the taxation as long as the right people are in charge.

  • Michael||

    You're right, Nick. The government should drug test those people too just to be on the safe side.

  • Ben P.||

    As a hypothetical here, what do these people live on in the meanwhile, as the court system churns?

    Don't get me wrong -- I don't love welfare, either, but at the same time, this is not something that will be fixed in a reasonable amount of time for most reasonably blameless people to have their livelihoods saved.

  • ||

    The goodwill of others, not coerced, is what I think they should rely on while their suits proceed. It's all anyone can count on in a disaster. We've seen how well the government handles "helping people." I've seen the red cross in action. I've seen the government in action, too. Of course the inefficiency of government is beside the point, but since no one seems to get the point, I might as well try to reach everyone on whatever sensibilities will work.

  • ||

    Not picking a side in this fight, but I did want to point out a little inconsistency in your argument that just chaps my ass.

    Go ahead, tell me how somebody that's stuck in an economically depressed region can simply up and move.


    IIRC, it estimated that 12 million ex-patriots from our good neighbors to the South have done exactly that. So, you go ahead, and explain to me that it can't be done.

  • Zeb||

    Nick, the major flaw with your argument is that there is no "we the people". I don't give a fuck if welfare recipients can pass a piss test or not. I would rather there be less welfare payed out, but as long as there is, I think that there should be as few strings attached as possible. This collective decision making you allude to is not possible. It is one small group of people telling other people what to do. My representatives in congress are in no way representative of what I want and their decisions have no connection to what I would like to see happen. The idea of collective decision making is one of the biggest of the Big Lies.

  • ||

    I think I agree with you Nick.
    I was thinking that I opposed the idea of testing welfare recipients, because every little piece of power that you give the government is bad.

    But, accepting welfare is not acceptable, the government paying welfare with our money is not acceptable.

    Also the cost of welfare will increase, as will its inefficiency, most government programs are better the more inefficient they are IMO, because then they are easier to get rid of.

  • ||

    "...I think people who accept taxpayer dollars (including corporate welfare recipients) should be subject to whatever the hell we want them to do...."

    Pretty much everyone gets taxpayer dollars. Let's assume you mean only those who get substantial sums from the Federal government. That means elected officials, unless they refuse to collect their salary, accept taxpayer dollars. Just as everyone who works for the Federal government, civilian or military or contractor, accepts taxpayer dollars. Farmers (even if most of them are now corporations) accept taxpayer dollars (subsidies) which for some farmer can be quite substantial. Certain SEC employees watched and downloaded porn instead of working, but kept their jobs. I don't want Federal employees, farmers, elected officials, etc. wasting tax dollars on illicit substances...

    Get the point?

  • Oh no not this again||

    Ah, i see you are a fan of Force when it suits your beliefs. Do the world a favor thug, overdose.

  • ||

    No one is forced to accept welfare. It is a choice. My belief has not been to force anyone to do anything. If I want something that doesn't belong to me, I need to do what the owner of that things demands, whether it is pay a price or do a task, whatever. Why is acceptance of money that is not yours any different just because it is being dished out by an organization none of us like?

  • ||

    A CHOICE??? REALLY???? I will be on WELFARE soon because THE OFFENDING PARENT of our three children won't pay CHILD SUPPORT, MEDICAL BILLS ETC... I am left with NO OTHER CHOICE unless putting kids out on the street is fine with you! Oh and P.S. I'm working and paying taxes too!

  • ||

    Your expressed beliefs on this matter are right.

    Look at how your mere words triggered The Widow White into rage!

    That The Widow White lost all control of her faculties (note: a widow is a female) reveals intense psychosis, mind disorder owing to indoctrination into false beliefs.

    On an aside, no laws should exist with respect to adults consuming drugs.

    The belief of legalizing drugs is as bad as the belief of criminalizing them.

    In short, no laws should exist regarding voluntary adult acts. Only acts that interfere in the lives of others (giving drugs to minors, being piss-pants high in the middle of the street, ...) ought to exist.

    What has freaked out the commentors to your original post is their conflicted beliefs regarding conflicting doctrines that they have accepted in their minds.

  • Dan N||

    It reads "WE THE PEOPLE" NOT US the Government!!!!!! China & the former Soviet Union have these types of systems. Its idiots like you & Hatch that continually vote these IDIOTS (including Obama) into office. So don't cry when your beloved government starts telling were you can live, who you can worship, what you can say and who you can sue for screwing you over!!! This happened before and millions of young people gave their lives to preserve OUR Constitutional Rights. I'm sure these Heros/Founding Fathers are turning in their graves. To you & Sen. Hatch I say ZICH HIEL!

  • ||

    Here's how to keep a LOT of people off welfare:

    ENFORCE THE DAMN CHILD SUPPORT LAWS!!!

  • ||

    Here's how to keep a LOT of people off welfare:

    ENFORCE THE DAMN CHILD SUPPORT LAWS!!!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Threadjack / blogpimping: Two Dutch women were arrested at the World Cup for wearing identical short skirts as part of a guerilla marketing campaign. Click on my name.

  • ||

    CLICK MY NAME! CLICK MY NAME! SMEAR THE CHEESE!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Hey, all it does is sign you up for a Minuteman newsletter.

  • robc||

    Two possibilities (both of which I believe):

    1. The authorities told them no non-InBev marketing allowed in stadium, they refused to leave and/or take off skirts, and were arrested for trespassing.

    2. The authorities saw something violating the advertising rule and just freakin arrested them.

    #2 is problematic. #1 is perfectly reasonable, although stupid. If it was #1, then they werent arrested for wearing the skirts, but for trespassing - just like if a private business asks me to leave because Im carrying a firearm.

  • BakedPenguin||

    robc - I think leaving would be the option, taking off the skirts (while I would have no problem with them doing it) might offend modesty a tad. I mean, they are Dutch, but still...

  • Zeb||

    Damnit, now Urkobold makes my browser crash.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Sorry about that. I'm not sure if this is the cause, but Blogger is screwed up - it won't count the number of comments correctly.

    Maybe they hired some of Reason's server squirrels.

  • ||

    hey new job openings!!!!! lets see how many on unemployment now and welfare programs.???? that could bring tons of jobs for pee cup holders. but at min. wage of course.

  • Draco||

    No, Matt, the moral of the story is:

    Don't depend on the (coerced or otherwise) charity of others if you don't want them making the rules on how you live your life.

    It's really that simple, and every teenager who's ever waited for the day she can move out of the family home and live on her own understands it. Yet, somehow welfare recipients have a "right" to unconditional payments?

    None of this means I support the War on Drugs; in fact I support their decriminalization. But regardless, if someone is going to live off my productive effort, they're going to have to abide by some rules. The lesson here is: get the hell off the dole.

  • ||

    Who in the Hell WANTS to depend on Welfare! IF your given no other choice, then that's your only life boat! If my ex would pay his court ordered Child support, my three children and I wouldn't BE in this position. And I'm working and paying taxes too!!!

  • Anomalous||

    "Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power."
    -- P.J. O'Rourke

  • hmm||

    You forgot CDL holders under that mandatory drug testing.

  • Zeb||

    That's a bunch of crap too. They can get shitfaced every night and do blow on Friday night and get away with it, but can't smoke some weed.

  • ||

    Taking welfare money is a choice. It is not forced upon anyone.

    Does this mean you believe your employer should be able to fire you for eating too much ice cream?

  • ||

    Your employer, outside of a few protected reasons (race, gender, age, etc.), can in fact fire you for any reason he so chooses. Unless of course you have a contract that says otherwise. And this is how it should be: allowing people to contract freely as they see fit.

  • libertytexan||

    yes?

  • ||

    I believe my employer can fire me for anything, but I also believe in his freedom, so...yeah. I support my employer's health requirements for lower insurance premiums, too. My co-workers complain, but I think they are wrong.

  • ||

    And- Being a Senator is a choice. It is not forced upon anyone.

    Why shouldn't Senator Prissypants be forced to submit to random drug screening?

  • Zeb||

    It would be interesting to see who is doing what, but it certainly couldn't disqualify them from office. People can elect whoever they want, provided they meet constitutional requirements. If people vote for a hypocritical, lying drug addict, that is their (and our) problem.

  • Apogee||

    I'm torn between mandatory drug screening and mandatory drug application for Congress. I'm not sure which would turn out a better result.

    Being too high to function could have it's benefits.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I think if you test negative for drugs you should lose your welfare benefits. You're not working. You're not doing drugs. You're wasting your whole freakin' day and I'm paying for it.

  • ||

    Finally, someone wins the fucking thread. Now everyone else shut yer fucking pie holes.

  • iamse7en||

    Always missing from these flippant tramplings of our privacy rights...

    So people on welfare have a right to get the check without officials asking more about their personal lives? If people don't want to be drug-tested, they don't need to be - they just forgo their welfare check. Suppose a private charity would only give money to people who were drug-free. They say, if you want the money, you get a drug test. Consenting adults agree.

    What you should be more outraged about than the drug-testing of welfare recipients is WELFARE itself. Government steals from productive people and gives it to unproductive people. Who really cares if these unproductive people need to be drug-tested if they want these unconstitutional welfare checks. Welfare recipients don't have a right to receive stolen money with no questions asked. And they aren't forced to do anything. They willingly go to a drug test so they can get their freakin' stolen money.

    C'mon Reason. Let's tackle the bigger issue here.

  • Fluffy||

    Of course the bigger issue is that welfare shouldn't exist.

    But if welfare DOES exist, it should be available to all citizens without those citizens being required to waive a constitutional right.

    You may as well say that since people shouldn't have a right to welfare, we shouldn't be angry if welfare isn't available for Jews.

    "Hey! Who cares about equal protection or religious liberty? The LARGER ISSUE is that no one should get welfare at all! Kicking Jews off the rolls means fewer people are on welfare, so that's a good thing! Keep your eye on the ball, Reason!"

  • ||

    I am not eligible for welfare. I make too much (barely) and hold a job that has conditions for my employment. What were you saying about not having conditions?

  • Shorter Nick||

    Parolees have to take drug tests to ensure their freedom, so why not all the N*****s on welfare too.

  • ||

    Wow, now I'm a racist because I think rich white guys who run Fortune 500 companies that get all sorts of benefits from the government, what we here call Corporate Welfare, should have all sorts of conditions attached to that money, including drug, peanut butter, and snack cake testing? I feel I am being completely consistent in application of the CONDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WELFARE argument.

  • ||

    How do you get a bunch of 'em in a car? Put in a welfare check. How do you get 'em out? Throw in a job application. Checkmate? Make 'em take a drug test for their free money.

  • bchurch||

    1. are you employed by the government? (or state actor)

    2. is your government employer conditioning your employment on the waiver of your constitutional rights?

    Except in very limited circumstances, you'd probably have right to complain.

    Again the issue here is government benefit (state action = subject to constitution) plus (1) violation of Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches (2) arguably denial of Fifth Amendment due process.

    In reality something like this might not even be a 4A violation under current jurisprudence, but that's just because the Court doesn't seem to think 4A protects much of anything anymore. Presumably, as a libertarian you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt on the, say, civil liberties side of things?

  • ||

    Substitute drugs for Little Debbie Snack Cakes or Peanut Butter (any brand) and no one is incriminated for being subjected to testing in exchange for optional benefits. Then legalize the drugs and test for that too, along with anything else we can come up with that will keep people from wanting welfare.

    I work for a private company and have sacrificed no rights to work here, although I did submit to drug testing as a condition of employment. Welfare recipients of all stripes should be subject to any and all conditions we want to place on them, or they can simply not take the benefits.

    The comment you responded to was in response to Fluffy saying conditions shouldn't apply to benefits. Well, I'm saying conditions of a different variety (income) already apply to receiving welfare benefits. We don't all QUALIFY. If Fluffy's argument is to be accepted, we should all get an equal amount of welfare regardless of income, which would render welfare useless as the market would adjust accordingly and we'd be back where we started.

  • x,y||

    Comment of the year.

    Made me think, for a change.

  • bchurch||

    If random or mandatory piss testing is unconstitutional (either as an illegal search or subs due process violation), it doesn't matter what the object of the testing is. If drugs were legalized, the cops still couldn't bust down your door without a warrant looking for weed. The unconstitutionality is a result of either the search or the violation of autonomy.

  • Fluffy||

    Fine.

    As other posters have noted, then, since you drive on government roads, use hospitals "supported by" federal money, etc., you should have no problem with being required to sign a statement waiving all of your enumerated rights, including the right to be free of cruel and inhuman punishment.

    BTW, the state can't suddenly be allowed to search your house every day if they simply stipulate that they're not looking for anything illegal. The 4th Amendment says that you are free of searches and seizures in the absence of warrants. The police can't toss your house every time they feel like it by claiming to be searching for Lil Debbies cakes. So legalizing drugs would have absolutely no impact on whether it was a violation of your 4th Amendment rights to force you to submit to drug testing in order to receive a government benefit. The 4th Amendment protects you against harassment just as much as it protects you against the discovery of evidence.

    As for your claim that the income requirements set on entitlements violate the 14th Amendment - hey, that would be a productive avenue to pursue with litigation to try to take down the welfare state. Get cracking. I can't comment on that in the context of this discussion, because I am taking issue with this condition because it requires the claimant to submit to a search that the state could not otherwise compel him to submit to in the absence of a warrant or probable cause. There's a specific constitutional protection in play that is being evaded under the pretext that it's for the purposes of benefit qualification.

  • ||

    Does the 4th Amendment protect a citizen from disclosing their income or property value and still receive welfare? Serious question. Not trying to be a dick, but I honestly don't know and I'm not sure how the two requirements would differ.

    In any event, I don't see how you are being harassed since no one is obligated to apply for the benefit in question. It is a voluntary act, just like letting the cop search your house without a warrant if you consent to him doing so. You can tell the cop he needs a warrant but you don't have to make him get one. You can let him into your home. You can submit to snack cake testing of your own free will because you want what's behind door number 1.

    People are allowed to waive their rights or ignore them completely. You make it sound like because we have a right we MUST exercise it. Just because we have freedom of assembly doesn't mean we are required to assemble. We can be reclusive if we want to.

  • ||

    HAHAHA Nic, and how often should we piss test people? Maybe the Feds should hook up PISS CUPS to all our private tolets. Then each morning we will be required to piss in our personal piss cup. Our urine will then be directed to the FEDERAL PISS TEST CENTER for analysis.

  • bchurch||

    BTW, you misrepresented Fluffy's comment. It wasn't that welfare has no restrictions or conditions, it's that it can't condition receipt on waiver of constitutional rights. Even if it were entirely discretionary (which it isnt).

  • ||

    HAHAHA Nic, you have a serious case of "Communism" and "Reefer Madness" LOL

  • Rich||

    Another aspect is: testing to ascertain you *are* taking drugs -- "appropriately prescribed" drugs. If the HCR mandate and the 10 June executive order are deemed Constitutional, you may seriously not get to choose your poison.

  • Bryan||

    I'm just not sure of the reasoning for the testing? Can people who did/do drugs not succeed and accomplish things. No, it can't be that. I submit as Exhibit A the last three presidents, all of whom did weed, and some of whom did more powerful stuff.

    Is it that they will spend the welfare on drugs? Well, I guess we oould oppose that policy, but what then if they are getting it for free from their neighbor? Or growing it themselves. And who are we to tell them what to spend money on? Should they also not be able to buy a Snicker's Bar?

    In an ideal world (albiet one with welfare) drugs would be legal and accepted, and then testing would look silly, maybe not in the private sector, but certainly in the government realm.

    I'm kinda torn on this issue. I support the idea of placing limits on welfare collectability, but I favor legal drugs.

    The breaking point is that I'm just not sure of the reasons behind the testing - either drugs are scourges we should eradicate and thus ban welfare recipients from having, or they are a personal choice and should be for welfare recipients as well.

  • ||

    Legalize the drugs, absolutely. Hatch is a dumbass, but place whatever conditions you want on welfare of all kinds, so much that it goes away because no one will want it. I've been taking shit all day for that stance, and it seems to be because everyone here wants drugs to be legal, which I've not disputed at all.

  • Fluffy||

    No.

    My primary goal is to eliminate the ability of the state to use the distribution of benefits as an end-run around the Constititution.

    There was actually a ruling out of a New Deal court that struck down a farm subsidy bill because farmers who didn't participate were assessed a special tax, and that tax was used to subsidize the farmers who did participate. The SCOTUS ruled that this was unconstitutional, because it used a complex set of incentives and punishments to get farmers to "voluntarily" surrender rights that the state could not have directly compelled them to surrender. That single ruling, had it not been walked back by subsequent courts, would almost by itself be sufficient to destroy the modern regulatory state.

    Hatch is a dumbass, but place whatever conditions you want on welfare of all kinds, so much that it goes away because no one will want it.

    You do realize that's not what would happen, right? And that the extension of this principle into every area of life would simply create irresistible incentives to degrade oneself before the state?

    And you do also realize that very, very shortly, everyone in America will have a health plan that will be administered through a government clearinghouse, and that YOU will then be the "welfare recipient" who can "just not take the benefit" if he doesn't like the conditions?

  • Tony||

    I think the reasoning is that Sen. Hatch just wants to piss on poor people for no good reason. After all, it's their fault there is only 1 job for every 5 unemployed people.

  • Mark||

    While I vehemently disagree with Senator Hatch's reasons and motives for putting forward his legislation, I can find reasons for liking it.

    Such a program might go far towards helping people understand -- in a very concrete way -- the ramifications of being dependent on Government.

    If you wanna be on the gov't teat, you gotta play by the rules (or find ways to game the system).

    Hey, is there an entrepreneurial opportunity here?

  • bchurch||

    If we're going down this road, I'd propose the Ideological Consistency Act of 2010, which would prohibit recipients of any government money-- welfare, social security benefits, medicare, government contracts, etc.-- from voting for any Libertarian party member. Them's the breaks for accepting government money.

  • The Widow White||

    "Hey, is there an entrepreneurial opportunity here?"

    Yes. Plantation/slave owner

  • Mark||

    Starting a business showing people how to beat drug tests makes on a plantation/slave owner?

    Hmmmmm. I'll have to think about that one...

  • ||

    My primary goal is to eliminate the ability of the state to use the distribution of benefits as an end-run around the Constititution.

    Hey, you want these here welfare benefits? All you have to do is

    (1) Waive your right to be free from warrantless search and seizure. We'll piss test you without cause or warrant.

    (2) Waive your right to equal protection of the laws. No married gay folk need apply.

    (3) Waive your right to privacy. We'll need to see all your medical records to make sure you haven't had an abortion.

    (4) Waive your right to be free from racial discrimination. No black/Asian/Hispanic folks allowed.

    Why is (1) OK, but (2) - (4) are not?

  • ||

    I'll answer for 2 & 4. The mere existence of the requirement is discriminatory as to those groups. That only blacks or only gays would have to waive their constitutional rights is discriminatory. 1 & 3 would apply to every potential welfare recipient. Additionally, social security disability does require a waiver of privacy as you must go through various medical procedures.

  • ||

    Waive your right to be free from warrantless search and seizure. We'll piss test you without cause or warrant.

    Is a person's willing submission to a UA for a job "Waiv(ing) your right to be free from warrantless search and seizure"? How is willing submission for a welfare check different? Government?

    Does a welfare recipient not have to give a name? Have they then waived their right to privacy?

  • ||

    Drug testing is the most effective tool in the control of drug use. Everyone should be tested and fines taken out of welfare, social security, tax refunds and other government payments. Multiple positives should lead to criminal sanctions.The war is winnable if we just have the courage to fight it.

  • ||

    As always, many in the Freedom movement miss the forest for the trees.

    Reason writers yield a steady stream of wrong thinking and thus expose themselves as 10th rate thinkers.

    [Note: watch group dynamics go to work as Reason cultists attack me, the outsider.]

    The basis of Progressivism is the pursuit of Utopia through Technocracy. In short, it's Eugenics in Action; Legalized Eugenics.

    Progressives (Eugenicists) live by various dogma of wealth control (socialism, communism, fascism), liberalism as their dogma of power control and totalitarianism as their dogma of change.

    Orrin Hatch has taken the positivist approach of correcting through amending existing Progressive Law, hence Eugenics Law.

    The 10th rate thinkers of Reason never strike at the root -- What is the Normative basis for Welfare? What is the legitimacy of imposing Collectivist action against men of Freedom to perpetuate a Utopianism wet dream of the Platonic idealized man?

    Instead, the 10th rate thinkers of Reason get lost in the weeds, decrying not Eugenics through Progressivism itself as manifested in welfare, but merely some marginal aspect of political privileges granted by authorities.

    Reason writers need to engage in serious introspection and decide first if Natural Law is paramount or if Man Law is and if Man Law is, does internal supremacy hold the court or does internal neutrality.

    If 10th rate Reason writers come to see internal neutrality as the correct path, then they must argue against welfare and not its piddling degrees of administration.

    Otherwise, Reason writers are nothing more than Millsian Benthamism Liberals.

    Until then, Reason writers are wrong on this issue as they are wrong on championing illegal immigration.

    Reason writers should close up shop for they do not get at all political philosophy, political science, politics and government. Reason writers are a mess of contradiction misleading a flock of Reason cultists.

  • Reason Cultist||

    Baaaah!!

  • ||

    DRINK!

  • ||

    That one warrants a six-pack.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Might makes right.

  • ||

    That's why a gun is also known as the "ultimate negotiator".

  • ||

    What a bunch of distorted comments. Did any of you read what was written? Serial rapists, OK to do drugs as long as you are productive. I think the losers hang out at this web site. First, if you were paying taxes, it wouldn't make you happy that you were paying to help others violate the law? Hurting yourself, with your own money and violating the law is your choice, but asking me to pay for it - screw you. Secondly, if you want to pass laws making certain drugs legal, then get out of your basement and convince the rest of us and get a law passed. But right now, in this country, it is illegal. Grow up and do something about it.

  • ||

    I am not on Welfare, but may be very soon because my ex husband WILL NOT pay his COURT ORDERED child support! and YES I've been to court over this several time and have judgements, but NO MONEY!

    Let me help you with the math here: There isn't one single divorced "welfare" mother out there that doesn't have a "welfare" dad putting her there!

    If I had a dog and didn't feed it, I'd go to jail! Why don't you go find the OFENDING PARENT and drug test them!!!!!

  • ||

    Oh, and I AM EMPLOYED and paying taxes too! and if you think "hey just go get a damn job" think again. Do you know how badly the unemployed are discriminated against?
    READ THIS:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....00665.html

  • ||

    Did you sue him for divorce or did he sue you?

    If you married him voluntarily and divorced him voluntarily, why should he pay?

    As you have custody of the children, you argued to your state and the foolish judges agreed that you were the competent adult and thus should be RESPONSIBLE for the children and not your former husband.

    That government acts as a highway robbery man on your behalf forcing your former husband to pay for children that you sued to take away from him is immoral and unjust.

    Turn your kids over to him if you cannot be RESPONSIBLE on your own.

  • ||

    Family law is full of criminals.

  • Steve||

    If he's getting free money they should!!

  • ||

    I bet you owe child support!!!!

  • ||

    FUCK YOU ORIN HATCH YOU FUCKIN SCUMDOG MUTHAFUCKA . YOU ARE A PIECE OF FUCKIN SHIT!!!!!!

  • ||

    What you're saying is; "I'm at the mercy of drugs".

  • ||

    It's simple, you show you're not breaking the law with illegal drugs, and you will get your benefits provided by law. It's about time for this. Drugs give the brain the same dopamine as a job well done would.

  • ||

    I'm a libertarian by nature, and if I had my way welfare would be charity only, period. I think drug testing is an obvious 4th amendment violation, but I can tell you this.

    If people are subjected to drug testing to get and keep a job, then you damn sure should be subjected to drug testing to get on and continue sucking the government tit.

    I have been a business owner for 5+ years now and one of prime reasons for busting my hump keeping it going is freedom from having to piss for somebody on command, because I'm not a f*cking race horse, and because I OWN ME. Land of the Free my ass.

    -Will

  • Jacqueline||

    I don't see what the big deal is. If your on welfare and you aren't on drugs this shouldn't be an issue. If you are on drugs then that could be one issue keeping you from getting a job and having to be on welfare in the first place (by no means is this the only reason people do not get jobs). I know many people on welfare who need the money and are trying to get jobs, so I do not mind paying taxes that part of it goes to them. But there are also people who just sit around doing nothing just waiting for that check to come in so they can get their high and those are the people I do not want to see peoples hard earned money going to.

    Also I agree with many of the people who say 'everyone that gets a pay check that comes from tax dollars should be willing to piss'. They have every right to turn down piss test and lose their job.

  • ||

    Watch "Drugs Inc" on Natgeo and see what meth is doing to the economy and health care system.

  • ||

    Look up Brooke Marie Rottiers, meth mom on welfare who murdered 2 men. Wouldn't of happened with periodic drug tests.

  • ||

    I talked to a welfare mom and was told that if that passes, they better be ready for a lot of cases.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement