Ballot Initative

[stroo]

Superman,

I think you misunderstood me. I certainly don't believe that welfare is a right and I am not concerned about them losing their welfare.

While you may think random drug testing in normal for jobs, it isn't. I don't think I have ever been randomly drug tested on any job I have ever had. That said, if you are operating machinery or in sales of some types, it is pretty typical.

However, when the government starts random drug testing without consent or probably cause, it is a violation of your 4th Amendment rights. That is what I have been talking about.

[Cedar Park Dad]

There were 6 propositions on the ballot. They all got my "Yes" vote:

1. Texans should be free to express their religious beliefs, including prayer, in public places.
YES or NO

I thought this one shouldn't be on there for a number of reasons:
1. I don't think the government needs to be involved in religion period.
2. We are all already free to pray, anywhere we choose and to whomever we choose...unless you think the only way to pray is to do so out loud, so everyone else can hear and admire you. I'd wager most of us over the age of 50, have all endured a few of those folks that want to make sure they get the most out of their opportunity to pray, at great length, to a captive audience over a PA system.
3. I understand what they are looking to achieve...the right to have public prayers at group events...primarily public schools, but we must be careful what we wish for. Most of the 97% voting yes are thinking, in their minds, of THEIR religion, but would be against it, if it meant they also had to stand and listen to other, "non Christian", religious prayers before every ball game or any other event. I'm fine with a "moment of silence" that one can use as they see fit.

But, I don't suspect you'll find many on this forum that would agree with you.
You're a gutsy guy.

I agree with him completely on all three points.

[RoyGBiv]

There were 6 propositions on the ballot. They all got my "Yes" vote:

1. Texans should be free to express their religious beliefs, including prayer, in public places.
YES or NO

I thought this one shouldn't be on there for a number of reasons:
1. I don't think the government needs to be involved in religion period.
2. We are all already free to pray, anywhere we choose and to whomever we choose...unless you think the only way to pray is to do so out loud, so everyone else can hear and admire you. I'd wager most of us over the age of 50, have all endured a few of those folks that want to make sure they get the most out of their opportunity to pray, at great length, to a captive audience over a PA system.
3. I understand what they are looking to achieve...the right to have public prayers at group events...primarily public schools, but we must be careful what we wish for. Most of the 97% voting yes are thinking, in their minds, of THEIR religion, but would be against it, if it meant they also had to stand and listen to other, "non Christian", religious prayers before every ball game or any other event. I'm fine with a "moment of silence" that one can use as they see fit.

But, I don't suspect you'll find many on this forum that would agree with you.
You're a gutsy guy.

I agree with him completely on all three points.

I deleted similar (well beyond) comments from my earlier post... Didn't want to stray too far into "religion" here..
I suspect there are LOTS of fiscally conservative, small government, social libertarian folks that hang out here. Like me.

[Superman]

Superman,

I think you misunderstood me. I certainly don't believe that welfare is a right and I am not concerned about them losing their welfare.

Ya, looks like I misunderstood you then

While you may think random drug testing in normal for jobs, it isn't. I don't think I have ever been randomly drug tested on any job I have ever had. That said, if you are operating machinery or in sales of some types, it is pretty typical.

However, when the government starts random drug testing without consent or probably cause, it is a violation of your 4th Amendment rights. That is what I have been talking about.

I would agree with you if welfare participation was required. If you were eligible for welfare and were forced to take the handout, then I'd agree with you that there is a 4th amendment issue there. But participating in welfare is a voluntary action (even if you are eligible, you don't have to go on welfare if you don't want to) and so I think it is reasonable to make random drug testing a condition for that benefit. I don't think the 4th amendment applies here because of the voluntary aspect of welfare. You "opt-in" to the program, so you know and accept the conditions before entering into the program.

[mojo84]

As long as government doesn't establish or mandate an official religion that all must follow, I'm not going to get upset. If something religious is mentioned by a government or elected official, I don't see what there is to get all up in arms.

[goose]

I suspect there are LOTS of fiscally conservative, small government, social libertarian folks that hang out here. Like me.

I'm sorry, you are not fitting into the shoeboxes "we" have designed for you!!

I like your description. It applies pretty dang well to me.

[stroo]

Superman,

The "opt in" principle you propose is in fact very dangerous.

What if instead of welfare, we considered use of tax payer paid for roads. You don't have to drive on them; you could walk instead. So since the taxpayer funded the roads, and you opted to use them, under your "opt in" principle, your use of the road could be conditioned random searches of your car.

I hope most of us would agree that that would be a violation of our 4th Amendment Rights. That and worse is where the reasoning behind the welfare proposition leads.

[srothstein]

Stroo,

Would you mind doing me a favor and choosing a different example? Yours is way to close to the opt in searches to use public aircraft, and we do not have a consensus about the constitutionality of those searches.

[mojo84]

And the wanding and bag searches to go to certain events.

Welfare is not a right and is available on condition. One of which should be drug testing. I also think many of the people to could do work for the state to earn the money they receive. I think this would cut down on the number of people just choosing to sit on their rears and collect what they can.

[Superman]

Superman,

The "opt in" principle you propose is in fact very dangerous.

What if instead of welfare, we considered use of tax payer paid for roads. You don't have to drive on them; you could walk instead. So since the taxpayer funded the roads, and you opted to use them, under your "opt in" principle, your use of the road could be conditioned random searches of your car.

I hope most of us would agree that that would be a violation of our 4th Amendment Rights. That and worse is where the reasoning behind the welfare proposition leads.

I don't think my suggestion is dangerous. I think it's more dangerous to confuse the differences between a public service (public roads, fire / police services, national defense, etc.) vs a public benefit (basically any means tested social program, including welfare). Means tested social programs could (and should) include drug testing in those "means tests."

[BigGuy]

And the sending and bag searches to go to certain events.

Welfare is not a right and is available on condition. One of which should be drug testing. I also think many of the people to could do work for the state to earn the money they receive. I think this would cut down on the number of people just choosing to sit on their rears and collect what they can.

I would agree IF drug test were reliable. They simply are not. My company requires drug test for all new employees. I went through 3 months when everybody I sent down did not pass. We eventually dug into the problem and discovered that they hadn't failed either. For a three month period, every sample submitted through the place we used came back as "contaminated." This means they did not pass, and were ineligible for employment with our company. But after three months, and five or six employee candidates not passing, we finally figured out that something was wrong. From this point the problem moved over my pay grade, but the next person I sent down passed. Undoubtedly several people I tried to hire did not get the job because of a faulty drug test.
In my case, a medical condition means that I now pass a considerable about of mucus in my urine. While I certainly wouldn't "fail" the drug test, it's unlikely that I would pass it either. You can pretty well bet my sample would come back as contaminated.
And finally, there are foods (poppy seeds on some breads for example) that will give a false positive on a drug test. I don't have a problem with the concept of a drug test. My objection is not even a privacy or rights issue. I simply know from actual experience that drug test are not reliable.

[cb1000rider]

On the surface this sounds great.

I'm for drug testing welfare recipients when someone can show me that it improves the cost of welfare over the cost of implementing the tests. That is, it saves us more money than it costs us. If it costs us (the taxpayers) more, forget it.. That's just increasing administrative overhead and it's more wasteful spending.

In states where this has been done, do welfare recipients have increased incidence of drug use than normal society? That is, are they more likely to use drugs? Are they more likely to be criminals? If so, that would indicate to me that drug testing might be warranted.

Now assuming we require the welfare recipient to pay for it and eliminate my cost argument, which in itself is a bit backwards, it opens up the question:
1) Is this an unreasonable search? Where is the probable cause? If there is no cause for the search, we're saying that people who need government assistance just lost some of their civil rights.

2)Couldn't this be extended to any sort of government benefit? If you receive a benefit, shouldn't you also be drug tested? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security?

[anygunanywhere]

On the surface this sounds great.

I'm for drug testing welfare recipients when someone can show me that it improves the cost of welfare over the cost of implementing the tests. That is, it saves us more money than it costs us. If it costs us (the taxpayers) more, forget it.. That's just increasing administrative overhead and it's more wasteful spending.

In states where this has been done, do welfare recipients have increased incidence of drug use than normal society? That is, are they more likely to use drugs? Are they more likely to be criminals? If so, that would indicate to me that drug testing might be warranted.

Now assuming we require the welfare recipient to pay for it and eliminate my cost argument, which in itself is a bit backwards, it opens up the question:
1) Is this an unreasonable search? Where is the probable cause? If there is no cause for the search, we're saying that people who need government assistance just lost some of their civil rights.

2)Couldn't this be extended to any sort of government benefit? If you receive a benefit, shouldn't you also be drug tested? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security?

I paid money into social security. I have to take medicare when I get old. There are no options. The government says so. Tyrants rule.

Welfare is a scam and you know it. If someone truly needs help then provide help. If they are druggies, no money. Our tax dollars are not there to provide druggies with a daily high.

Anygunanywhere