From my Blog 03 - 14 - 08
A recent thread on
www.downrange.TV was discussing requiring drug testing as a requirement for welfare benefits. While I agree that the system is abused by leeches and that WELFARE RECIPIENTS should be denied certain civil liberties (vote ) during the time they are not contributing to society, I have some major issues with drug testing in general, and made my opinions known. The following is a compilation of my posts on the subject, since most posts were written when I was tired (4am or so) and in answer to specific posts made by others, this has been edited for context and coherence.
Many companies now a days have have a MANDATORY drug screening policy that they say is for safety, most people don't care and believe them, they assume anyone who objects is probably on drugs, otherwise why would they complain about a "Safety policy". They are wrong, first, drug tests only detect a few substances, Alcohol, (which is legal) pot, and cocaine, sometimes opiates like morphine, heroin or poppy seeds. Poppy seeds ? Yes, your breakfast bagel can cost you your job, Advil will generate a false positive result for pot, these tests are not as accurate as advertised, and do not detect TRULY mind altering substances like LSD or Ecstasy or Meth Amphetamine, or Oxycontin,or steroids. Why would some one with nothing to hide care? I have a 4 part answer to that, 1) unless we are on welfare or retired we need our jobs, the job pays the bills and justifies your participation in other aspects of society, if you don't pay taxes what right do you have to express opinions on how tax money is spent? 2) A lot of people LIKE poppy-seed bagels, 3) Advil is a good headache remedy and we ALL know how modern society can give you a pain, sometimes in your head. 4) We like ALL our constitutional rights including the 4th and 5th amendments.
The truth is that the "War on Drugs" which has been in progress for 40 years is a very expensive failure in solving the so called "drug problem". First, drugs and alcohol have been used by people since civilization began, probably longer. Coca Cola got its name because it was made with Coca nut and Cocaine, Sigmund Freud prescribed cocaine for many ailments. The men who declared our Independence and wrote our constitution did so while drinking large amounts of ale, wine and brandy, the men who did the labor of building America used to send kids to get PAILS of beer for their lunch. Whats different now is that when someone has beer at lunch and then does something stupid while working we blame the beer, not the irresponsible ass who abused it, a person who uses any substance to the point where it affects his job performance is a danger to those around him, it does not matter whether he is to drunk, or stoned to operate his equipment, or has gorged on Twinkies to the point where he can not get close enough to operate the equipment because his fat gets in the way. It is not a problem with drugs, or alcohol, it is a problem with personal responsibility. A person caught for drunk driving always blames the booze, the booze is not to blame, the blame rests on that persons failure to act in a responsible manner. So we have established that the War on drugs is based on the false premise that the inanimate object is "BAD". this is the same foolish argument used by the Anti- Gun crowd to say that "Guns are bad", inanimate objects have no awareness or will, they are not "good" or "bad" beyond how they perform their designed function. If you are driving a nail and smash your finger, is it the hammers fault, or did you not apply it accurately enough?
The American government spends BILLIONS of YOUR tax dollars every year for the last 4 decades on what amounts to a subsidy program for lawyers, Cops, judges, and drug gangs, creating jobs, increasing profits and causing increased rates of violent crime. The ever increasing numbers of Cops, lawyers, and judges are obvious due to the constant demands for more and more "Enforcement" the increasing number of prison employees is less obvious but over half of Americas prison population are doing time on drug charges. What takes a little research and thought is how the supposedly ANTI drug budget subsidizes the very "criminals" it is aimed at eliminating, Through increased efforts at stopping the flow, the government creates artificially high prices on so called "recreational drugs" thus putting increased profits in the pockets of drug dealers, and all those previously mentioned Cops, lawyers , judges etc. have a vested interest in failure. If all illegal drugs simply vanished they would be out of jobs, NO drugs, who needs drug counselors, rehab centers etc, organizations like the DEA would go the way of buggy whip makers, and Ice cutters, as long as the drugs flow their paychecks are safe. OK, that makes a cynical kind of sense, but HOW, you ask, is the government responsible for gang violence ? Quite simply, by making what is essentially a service industry illegal the corporations engaged in it (Gangs) have no recourse to the courts to settle disputes involving territory, labor relations, and debt collection. Denied the "benefits" of arbitration, injunctions and small claims court in order to protect business interests that total Billions of dollars in untaxed profits, these organizations have no recourse except to murder and intimidation. If the governments efforts were working the street prices would climb, but they don't, increased manufacturing leads to ever increasing supply (more jobs in south and central America, production, processing , transportation etc..) to answer constantly growing demand, and there is the key to the whole scam. If the government did not have a vested interest, they would get far better results, at far less cost to the tax payers by attacking demand, if no one wanted to BUY these substances then the groups selling them would switch to things that WERE in demand, like Amway or vacuum cleaners. They are, despite the violent image, businessmen looking at the bottom line, their goal is profit, drugs are simply merchandise, no different than cars to Ford. We have learned nothing from Al Capone. America prohibited alcohol years ago, and that turned out real well, didn't it?
Where the "War on drugs is most effective is in giving the government an excuse to increase their control of the population infringe on previously inviolable portions of the constitution, and continue the creep toward dictatorship. Local, state, and federal lawmakers and courts are constantly telling us we "need" this law, we "need to reinterpret" that regulation, each time they are setting a precedent under cover of "We need to protect our children" (the last paragraph should have showed THAT for the lie it is ) Lets look at mandatory urine tests in relation to the Constitution, First we have all heard that American law is based on the "presumption of innocence" that means that it is the job of the courts to prove you did something wrong, you are not required to prove that you did not. Mandatory drug screening violates that by placing a burden on the job applicant to prove he (or she) does not use the substances tested for, this does not mean that the applicant is a safer worker, better qualified, or not using substances that ARE NOT tested for, it does not even mean the person doesn't use the substances that ARE tested for, it simply means that the person can beat the test. Mandatory means you have to, there is no search warrant, no court saying there is reason to suspect etc. the 4th Amendment says," The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure shall not be violated, and no warrant's shall be issued but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."I'm fairly certain that a urine specimen is covered either by "person" or "effects" (turning snow yellow is an "effect) no warrant is issued, employers have no reason to suspect that you ARE on drugs, (unless its a real crappy place to work), the only way that these policies DO comply with the 4th amendment is by telling you to supply a urine sample thereby fulfilling the requirement to identify the item to be seized. (I'm willing to give them a pass on the specific location clause ) Parts of the 5th amendment also applies, ( I will not quote the entire amendment as parts have no bearing and my finger is getting tired from typing) "No person shall be held to answer for a capital crime or otherwise infamous crime,unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury"....(the next part excepts active duty armed forces, then covers double jeopardy)..."nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." If bodily fluids do not constitute "private property" I don't know what does !
These violations of our civil liberties are relatively minor, an annoyance, but what about the RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) statutes, these basically say that if members of a group commit an offense then ALL members of that group can be held accountable for that offense, even if they had no knowledge of it. That is the way Rudy Giuliani applied it in Mafia trials as a Prosecutor in NY. How about how "the war on drugs" has been used as an excuse for twisting forfeiture and seizure laws to allow law enforcement agencies to seize multi million dollar homes and yachts after finding as little as 2 or 3 pot seeds (which are present in many types of bird seed) in areas the owners did not normally enter, such as crews quarters on a yacht. But the thing that gets me most angry with those who think "the war on drugs" is great, is that one of the primary excuses for the Clinton Assault weapon ban was to keep "these lethal weapons out of the hands of drug gangs." It was "for the children" HONEST
Some of the information I used here I learned reading Larry Elders outstanding book, Ten Things You Can't Say in America, it was a wealth of information on many subjects , the rest came from the Constitution of the United States, various history books and common sense, a resource sadly lacking in todays America.
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
Topic: I support Drug Testing for Recieving Government aid (Read 5527 times)