Baltimore Nesties
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Can someone explain something re: the drug tests and welfare
And I promise I am not trying to debate the topic or start a huge controversial post. I am just wondering if someone can explain to me what aspect of the proposed law is considered unconstitutional?
Re: Can someone explain something re: the drug tests and welfare
I think it's considered an unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment, especially since it's not really going to "do" anything - its not going to save any money (in fact, it will cost quite a bit of money, especially since various studies have indicated that most people who receive TANF funds are not on drugs and do not abuse the system, and since the funds will still be given out anyway, just to a designated beneficiary, and since we will reimburse people the cost of the test if they test negative) and it assumes that everyone on welfare is on drugs so we have to test them to make sure that they're not. All this indicates that it's a law that invades people's privacy* with very little result and I've read that it's actually going to cost lots of money to implement/enforce.
*the obvious counter-argument is that if you are receiving government funds then you should be okay with proving you are not on drugs and that you are not going to spend that money on drugs, which might carry some weight if not for the fact that loads of people out there receive government assistance in one form or another and dont have to prove that they are not on drugs - everything from disability to Medicare to grants/scholarships/loans for school.
And of course no one is testing the politicians to make sure they are drug-free.
ETA: one statute out there does authorize this type of testing (a federal statute) but i believe it has already been found unconstitutional when a state tried to enact it (I think michigan.)
ah, I was hoping you would chime in
so what about the argument that people use saying they have to get drug tested for government jobs, so how is that ok and this isn't? (obvy I am watching a FB thread go up in flames right now)
Well, first off, I have a government job and was not drug-tested. Neither was my mother. So it's not like everyone with a government job has been drug-tested. It depends on the agency and, I imagine, the nature of the job. So when people start ranting about needing to be drug-tested for a government job I kind of ignore them, because it's not true across the board.
so, that aside, the obvious answer is that the government isn't an employer in the welfare scenario. The government fulfills many roles. It can be an enforcer, an employer, and, in welfare situations, it provides assistance to those in need. So they are two different situations. When the government as an employer requires a drug test, its presumably to ensure that you can do your job without being influenced by illegal substances or that you wont sell state secrets to feed an addiction or something like that - its not because the government doesnt want to give you money if you are on drugs. Does that make sense?
and honestly, my problem with these types of laws is that they are knee-jerk responses to a basically non-existent problem. All anecdotes and personal stories aside, the data don't support the claims that everyone on welfare abuses it or is on drugs. but if you spend time on the bump you would sure think that.
There is a LOT of government waste and abuse of government assistance in this country. And sure, some people on welfare are on drugs or abuse it - but not the majority. By tackling an issue like this, you (general you) are basically sweeping aside all other forms of waste/fraude/abuse and saying "ZOMG the poor people are draining us dry!!!" when really thats so far from the truth its almost laughable.
Yes it does, thanks!
I am watching a thread of people say we need this in MD.....none of them seem to get the ginormous amount of manpower and resources it would take to enforce this. Oy.
Exactly! Even if you agree with it in principle as a way to prevent fraud/abuse (I don't personally but I can see where people would), the reality is this would cost so much money that I dont think it would even be a wash - it would just end up costing the government money.
My little liberal heart goes pitter patter.