OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

I think this is a splendid idea. As a condition of employment, working Americans must undergo pre-employment drug testing in order to secure a job in a whole host of non-sensitive occupations. Anyone who makes his/her living driving a commercial vehicle must submit to unannounced, random drug screening in order to work provide for his family and pay the taxes off of which the welfare recipient lives; so why shouldn't said welfare recipient have to undergo the same require?

I would even suggest that the dependent children of the welfare recipient should also be subject to random drug screens AND be required to attend school AND maintain a minimum C standing in class.

This would force parents to be parents, whether they like it or not.

One in every three Americans does, or has, smoked marijuana. I say let there kids go hungry. Since there Mom and Dad use drugs. Where do you people come from? Why not include traffic tickets and cheating on taxs or lying on a employment application?

Not to mention that the current views on drug abuse are based on a treatable disease model...

Would you rule out based on any other diseases, or are you especially prejudiced to this one only?

Yeah, going out and buying drugs to get high, is a "disease".

Using that logic, liberalism is a disease.

You spend and spend and go bankrupt like California, and now your want others to pay for your wrongdoing.

After all, you were "diseased" and couldn't stop yourself.

I'm just saying if they can afford drugs they can live on their own. I'm not really worried about pot/marijuana but all others. Why should the taxpayers help fund their drug use. I'm randomly drug tested at least once a year at random and sometimes more. Why not test those who recieve money for not working?

Hey dkennedy, guess what, it's not my responsibility to feed someone else's kids; my job is to feed my own, and I don't ask you to help me live up to my RESPONSIBILITIES! If someone or someones has/have children, it is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO FEED THEM. If they can't live up to THEIR RESPONSIBILITY and need to sponge off of me, I should be able to demand that they do something, in this case prove occasionally that they are not spending my money on drugs or alcohol (and no, you don't have a right to adult beverages if you can't pay for it YOURSELF).

DRUG TEST ALL WELFARE RECIPIENTS AND EVERYONE WHO RESIDES IS THE HOUSEHOLD YOU AND I PROVIDE!!!

Something equivalent to this has been tried and kicked.

You cannot group citizens by virtue of a public benefit and then hold them to a different 4th amendment standard.

I have had to subit to an urinalysis for years just to keep my job and also at random/ I have watched people collecting welfare and disability and sending their children out on bicycles to pick up and collect what their dead beat parents could not do because they thought that law enforcement would not suspect 8 year old Johnny.. My heart goes out to the children who know no better, but I have no sympathy at all for those parents who snort/smoke/inject their childrens futures away.

My old man was a misserable alcoholic. We all had to suffer abuse and no money for little things like food. I see lots of angry people on this issue. I also wonder where there compassion is? I will feed anyones kids if I know they are hungry. Why does anyone think that not helping hungry kids is wrong? My wife and I donate food by the cases to the Salvation army. I definately want all children fed. I too am a alcoholic and it took me several years to get and stay sober and I thank God for good people helping us along the way. I feel sorry for anyone that could look at a child and tell them they cannot eat because mommy or daddy does illegal drugs like.Clinton Bush & Obama.

To sobi: There is no 4th Amendment issue; this is a quid pro quo - if you want the benefit, you have to pay admission to ride the ride. In fact, Christopher Coumo, as Attorney General in New York force Section 8 residents to waive their 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm in return to live in their Sec 8 housing. I can't wait for your answer to that.

And to dkennedy: I am so sorry that your old man was a miserable drunk. That does not mean that the government has the right to take from me to give to you. I am quite generous in my own right. I sponsor a family in my area out of my own pocket (no tax deduction, by the way), but MY charity should be on MY terms! I don't need Ted Kennedy to be generous with my "pittance of an income" when he has his "vast inheritance", to give away instead.

Ivan,

The demand that they waive their 2nd amendment rights would not survive challenge.

Drug testing is considered search. Search falls under the 4th amendment. In fact, it was kicked out on that basis. The same as the 2nd amendment fantasy of the attorney general.

It is not uncommon for unconstitutional provisions to be written. That happens all the time. It proves nothing.

The drug testing routine has been tried, and died.

It is similar to another legal challenge that became popular for a while.

When stores attempt to make you stand in line for inspection after completion of your business, and people rightly objected, the courts explained, slowly one presumes, that the stores have no authority to suspend constitutional rights at their threshold.

So walk on by and wave.

My dear sobi, I have worked in occupations where I was required to submit to random drug screens AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT. What is the difference in requiring welfare recipients to submit to the same AS A CONDITION TO MY MONEY?

And I am sorry if you are the welfare recipient we are discussing. This only means that you have to stop buying drugs with MY MONEY! Or at least not ingest them. Or don't take MY MONEY!

And, if I'm not wrong, those poor folks living in Sec.8 housing in New York state are still prohibited from owning firearms, as a condition of their lease.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Ivan,

You gave up your constitutional rights. That is distinct in kind from imposing a loss of constitutional rights.

You shouldn't have to submit, to my way of thinking. It is crude and rude.

I'm not using your money, honey. Relax. If I were, I would do what I please with it. Freak out. LOL

They are prohibited if they choose to be. Otherwise, they are infringed upon, and if they weren't poor enough to qualify for Section 8, the challenge would have already taken place.

That's what makes regulations like that so ugly in spirit.

Ivan...working for the govt/state..if my urinalysis was dirty///I was out. I was tested at ramdon. Does this make a lick of sense??? Give my money to people who can freely do drugs, but I have to have a clean urinalysis to give it to someone who could not test clean. Go figure.

Okay sobi, school is in session, so listen up. The Bill of Rights protects the INDIVIDUAL from abuses of the government, not from your local school, not from your employer, not from your spouse. If your principle wants to search your locker, good luck with your 4th Amendment argument, same with your locker at your place of employment. If your employer requires a drug screen, you have but two choices: submit, or find another job.

I'm guessing you are quite young, due to your lack of knowledge that my generation considered remedial. I thank God that my children, both Dean's List students at upper-tier schools, had me at home to teach them their responsibilities, as citizens, and how to think critically. Skills you obviously lack. But don't despair, one can always learn if one is inclined to listen.

Ivan, dear Ivan.

The local public school is government. Play with that for a minute.

I understand 4th amendment rights are being currently stepped on in the schools. It is improper and under challenge.

The privacy right at the job location has already traveled through the courts who ruled that an expectation of privacy bars searches.

That why you always hear the disclaimer: This call may be recorded. It is eliminate an expectation of privacy.

Finally, I'm 54, college-educated, and you are not competent to teach until you master the skill of not buying your own story.