HB 484 is titled "Food Stamp Program Eligibility; Random Drug Testing Required". Kevin Landrigan (Telegraph) did a write up of the pros / cons view; of course, Conservatives have the tack that recipients should not be doing drugs and that with testing, one can see the old Reagan mantra at work: Trust but verify.
The Liberal – what abuse are you talking about – THESE folk are VICTIMS mantra in full play.
The question: is it Constitutional under the Fourth Amendment (unwarranted search)?
Heh? Let’s see – so what is the difference between that (random drug testing) and that of random alcohol stops by police at "party times" (like Friday or Saturday nights, Fourth of July, New Year’s, and other "big" drinking times)?
- Both sets of testing are to be carried out by Government entities
- Social workers
- The universe of "testees" is bounded:
- welfare recipients
- Location is random, other than:
- Police stop you on the street
- Social workers stopping you in a building
- Timing is random:
- One probably at night (after a night out)
- One is probably during the day
- To be tested, you are participating in a government activity:
- The privilege of driving
- The privilege of being supported by society
When it comes down to it, please tell me what the difference is, other than one is perceived to be a protected class ("the most vulnerable") and the other one can be anyone (including that protected class)?
Sorry, but for me?
- If you are driving, remember it is a privilege – you are not entitled.
- If someone else is supporting you, it should be considered to be a privilege and not an entitlement.
What is good for one should be good for the other. The ONLY difference that I can see is that one is for public safety and the other is from public largesse. You give up certain rights to be able to drive and agree to follow certain regulations in doing so. Thus, while I know that some fight what they consider illegal stops, I think that if drivers have to put up with this, so should people who are supported by general society.