• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Compassionate Conservatives, all of them

Deacon923 said:
The reason several of us posted that the Tennessee law is unconstitutional is because we were aware of the existing precedent declaring the Florida law unconstitutional.

I like how at no point in the 5 or 6 posts since this actual, you know, LEGAL AUTHORITY was posted has jhmd addressed the substance of these cases or explained why his constitutional reasoning is superior to the 11th circuit. Hey jhmd, read the opinion and get back to us.
Click to expand...

From the link the very first post, verbatim: "Federal welfare rules have permitted drug testing since 1996, but states have struggled to come up with a method that can pass constitutional muster."

Let's not treat all possible implementations as facsimiles of the one type that was prohibited. I've proposed a permissible method and challenged someone to explain to me how it isn't Constitutional. No one has, despite repeated requests. In the law, you apply the law to the facts of the case before you. Your attempts to transport law premised on factual scenario A as dispositive of meaningfully different fact pattern B (Oh, why stop there? Why not C-through infinity? Why think? You've got an outcome you liked on a different set of facts once. Hooray!) proves only that you might have read the case on A but didn't understand it. Please move on to B and join the thread, already in progress.
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
From the link the very first post, verbatim: "Federal welfare rules have permitted drug testing since 1996, but states have struggled to come up with a method that can pass constitutional muster."

Let's not treat all possible implementations as facsimiles of the one type that was prohibited. I've proposed a permissible method and challenged someone to explain to me how it isn't Constitutional. No one has, despite repeated requests. In the law, you apply the law to the facts of the case before you. Your attempts to transport law premised on factual scenario A as dispositive of meaningfully different fact pattern B (Oh, why stop there? Why not C-through infinity? Why think? You've got an outcome you liked on a different set of facts once. Hooray!) proves only that you might have read the case on A but didn't understand it. Please move on to B and join the thread, already in progress.
Click to expand...

This is the answer. You can't be going all fact A on fact B. Piss test those ingrates.
 
jhmd2000 said:
From the link the very first post, verbatim: "Federal welfare rules have permitted drug testing since 1996, but states have struggled to come up with a method that can pass constitutional muster."

Let's not treat all possible implementations as facsimiles of the one type that was prohibited. I've proposed a permissible method and challenged someone to explain to me how it isn't Constitutional. No one has, despite repeated requests. In the law, you apply the law to the facts of the case before you. Your attempts to transport law premised on factual scenario A as dispositive of meaningfully different fact pattern B proves only that you might have read the case on A but didn't understand it. Please move on to B and join the thread, already in progress.
Click to expand...

Snort. I'm happy to leave this thread to you and whoever else wants to argue with you.
 
Deacon923 said:
Snort. I'm happy to leave this thread to you and whoever else wants to argue with you.
Click to expand...

Feel free to come back when you can articulate an argument that demonstrates how a consent test would a) violate the Constitution or b) be bad policy. We'd love to have you back.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Feel free to come back when you can articulate an argument that demonstrates how a consent test would a) violate the Constitution or b) be bad policy. We'd love to have you back.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for you to prove points a and b to demonstrate that a consent test doesn't violate the constitution and is a good policy.

You're a professional goal post mover, I know, but argumentation is difficult when one position is particularly (and one could argue, intentionally) obscure.
 
Strickland33 said:
Still waiting for you to prove points a and b to demonstrate that a consent test doesn't violate the constitution and is a good policy.

You're a professional goal post mover, I know, but argumentation is difficult when one position is particularly (and one could argue, intentionally) obscure.
Click to expand...

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizure. Its protections have been considered waivable since the 1790's. Most people who have been outside their parents' basement know this very, very well. Abusing illegal drugs is...illegal, and have a self-evident negative impact on getting back on one's feet. How many people have you placed in positions of trust who you knew presently used illegal drugs? Your arguments fail to match your actions. Again.

Your move, sweetie.
 
jhmd2000 said:
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizure. Its protections have been considered waivable since the 1790's. Most people who have been outside their parents' basement know this very, very well. Abusing illegal drugs is...illegal, and have a self-evident negative impact on getting back on one's feet. How many people have you placed in positions of trust who you knew presently used illegal drugs? Your arguments fail to match your actions. Again.

Your move, sweetie.
Click to expand...
Why is it a good policy?
 
As a hypothetical, are people opposed to having a more integrated database where a drug conviction results in the loss of federal public benefits?

Obviously part of the problem is that in State A marijuana is illegal and State B you're fine with a prescription and State C it's a free for all.
 
I've asked it twice now but a third can't hurt: what happens when a single mom tests positive for weed, has to go to rehab for a drug that isn't physiologically addicting, has no money because she's off welfare, and loses her kids? They go into the system and were carrying the burden of extra kids in the system.

Also in the time the Florida test was up and running they had over 6000 drug tests and under 3 percent came back positive.

This whole thing is just classist and racist warfare dressed up in "we care" garb.
 
I'm against tying public benefits to positive drug tests or convictions. I also view welfare for the impoverished as a basic provision of a civilized and advanced government which may explain part of it.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm against tying public benefits to positive drug tests or convictions. I also view welfare for the impoverished as a basic provision of a civilized and advanced government which may explain part of it.
Click to expand...

Sure. Make sure everyone is numbed into complete subjugation. No reason to risk upward mobility. Sounds legit.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm against tying public benefits to positive drug tests or convictions. I also view welfare for the impoverished as a basic provision of a civilized and advanced government which may explain part of it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I disagree or not, but isn't it then inevitable that the U.S Government subsidizes the purchase of illegal narcotics?
 
DeaconCav06 said:
I'm not sure if I disagree or not, but isn't it then inevitable that the U.S Government subsidizes the purchase of illegal narcotics?
Click to expand...

Should copyright protection be conditioned on the holder pissing in a cup? Because we're subsidizing Wiz Khalifa's habit by that
 
DeaconCav06 said:
I'm not sure if I disagree or not, but isn't it then inevitable that the U.S Government subsidizes the purchase of illegal narcotics?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where I stand either, but the US did kind of subsidize the losses incurred by illegal financial practices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top