The only thing “unconstitutional” about drug testing welfare recipients is that there are government welfare programs that are funded from taxes I’m forced to pay.

I’m all for legalization of drugs, gambling, whoring and other vices, but I’ve long said the best way to handle it would be to check the ID of any participant in such against a database of welfare recipients. If you’re on the list, you can still buy your drugs, drink, lottery tickets, etc., but you lose your “checks”.

Any way to cut down on the entitlement programs. I’m for wholesale cuts in all of them, but a good way to start is by eliminating people who clearly are making poor choices with how to spend their money. “The borrower is slave to the lender” or some other truism applies well enough here.

Do all the drugs you want, but I’ve got my own (drug free) hobbies to finance before I fund yours.

It’s that simple. If you want to hold the gun barrel of government against my head and force me against my will to fund your lifestyle, then you’d better be prepared for me to get to have a say in how you live your life. If you want to be kept like a child, then prepare to get yourself some parenting.

And no, what I’m saying isn’t heartless. It is realistic. If you’ve got enough money to fund a drug habit, then perhaps you don’t really need my help after all. If you have a drug habit that has ruined your life and you need help to get back on your feet, fine, you’ll get it, but you’ll do it under strict rules and your condict had better be of a quality to indicate to me that my investment in you isn’t going to be ruined the moment you have enough extra cash to go buy your next 8 ball.

If you want to take my money, you’d better be prepared to live under my rules. Otherwise, you’re free to not take my money and leave me the hell alone.

Such a compulsory test is almost certainly unconstitutional anyway, regardless of out-of-pocket costs, under the takings clause of the fourth amendment. Then again, if the feds can require you to buy something from a corporation under the commerce clause, anything is possible.

What makes me wonder about legality though, is the idea of amendments. Amendments are added to the existing constitution, after it is written, that modify how the original document operates. In other words, they had the commerce clause, then they amended the constitution with the bill of rights, modifying the document. How, then, can one of the original document clauses overrule an amendment that altered the clause?

In this case, there’s a lot of speculation that the shooter was the 17-year-old girl’s dad. It does seem kind of strange that they made such a fuss about 17-year-old. There’s no mention of real, not statutory, rape in the article, but it’s early yet.

If it was more common for police to–rather forcefully–arrest one another, we might be in a better situation in this country. If enough cops dropped brutal or corrupt cops on their asses and cuffed them on street corners for all to see, this institution might be in better shape. As it is, it will be up to the people to hold police accountable. But this is how it always should have been, we just forgot who owns the police.

Y’all wish us luck!

http://news.yahoo.com/officer-shot-killed-fellow-police-calif-011712475.html

One of the sad things about how much money is spent on these programs is that writing software which will rigidly enforce the legislature’s “business rules” for these agencies is easy. Very easy. Anyone with about 2-5 years of business software experience could write software which would let various local and state agencies talk to each other, compare notes and enforce the law as written to prevent abuse.

If anything, there’s a much stronger argument for drug testing the people who write and vote on laws than there your average welfare recipient.
</blockquote

Only if they are required TO BE on drugs before making laws. No one stoned would kill so many or be so mean.

Power is the strongest and most addictive drug of all.