SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
[censored]://[censored].huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/13/drug-testing-child-support-iowa-_n_1423489.html
Interesting topic to think about. No name calling, no creating fake names to debate.
|
NikkiL
addict
Reged: 06/03/05
Posts: 644
|
|
I didnt read the entire article. But my CS is paid by a pot smoker. My CS is high, one of those amounts that makes peoples head explode. He is educated, and makes a very good living. He smokes pot. Big deal. I drink wine. Which is worse? Matter of opinion, I guess. Bottom line, Im not his employee. I dont take piss tests for money. BS...all...the...way. IMO.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
All random drug testing is a violation of our fourth ammendment rights, one of the SPECIFIC reasons we left England's rule.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
I don't see an issue with it personally. My ex wanted me to piss in a cup for child support? Whatever. Now, I don't do drugs. I rarely, if ever, drink. So it's just not a concern for me.
I'm accepting money from the guy, that's SUPPOSED to be used for the child. If there's a concern about that money be used for drugs and NOT the child? I really don't see the issue with demanding testing. And those tests, if positive, should be a basis for change of custody quite frankly. Now I suppose that poses a quandary if BOTH the payee AND the payor are both druggies.
I've become pretty strict on the concept of people being accountable and not getting something for nothing etc etc. And I guess if you're not doing anything wrong (and yes, drug use IS ILLEGAL) then you've got no worries. If you are? Well.. not for nothing? You're doing something you're not supposed to be so why SHOULDN'T you be held accountable?
|
cutiepie
member
Reged: 12/10/11
Posts: 190
|
|
"All random drug testing is a violation of our fourth ammendment rights, one of the SPECIFIC reasons we left England's rule."
Do you favor welfare parents recieving $$$ to take a drug test before getting the check each month?
BTW, who is "we?" that left England based on drug testing?
|
MinnesotaMom
member
Reged: 01/05/11
Posts: 170
|
|
What really seems weird about this, is why tie CS to it?
It should be tied directly to custody...use drugs, fail drug test, lose child.
|
NikkiL
addict
Reged: 06/03/05
Posts: 644
|
|
I dont know about other states but the state charges me to collect my support. 2% and then random fees here and there. I am suppose to pay them, and then go take drug tests? Who pays for that? Me? Him? The state? I love it when people say be accountable for child support. Who keeps track of that? My ex is forced to pay CS. If it wasnt for the state just taking it from him, he wouldnt pay it willingly. He doesnt see our son, he contributes NOTHING but child support, but I should have to go pee in a cup? I wonder if these sort of things would have support if it was breathalyzers on the weekend? When he doesnt show up for his court ordered time, what is his consequence? When our son is scanning the crowd for him at school events and he is not there? What is his punishment? Oh yeah thats right there isnt one. But I should feel ok with taking a drug test? I dont do drugs. But when they start making him be a parent...I will consider letting him know where child support goes and to pee in a cup.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
"Do you favor welfare parents recieving $$$ to take a drug test before getting the check each month?"
I don't favor people receiving welfare for extended periods of time ANYWAY, but no, drug testing is a violation of our fourth amendment rights, and even welfare recipients have rights.
"BTW, who is "we?" that left England based on drug testing?"
Well, not DRUG TESTING, you idiot, PROTECTION FROM ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE with out PROBABLE cause or a WARRANT.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
The Fourth Amendment was put in place prior to the creation of welfare, which makes other people responsible for people who would otherwise NOT be their responsibility. Which is really veiled socialism. Which we were created a capitalistic society, not a socialistic one. Soooo, if we changed the rules of the basic concepts of what the country was founded on, why not modify other basic tenets?
If you're getting free money supplied by other citizens, FORCIBLY no less, why shouldn't those citizens have an expectation that who they give money to are drug-free?
So it's very simple. If you want free money? Then you, to GET that money, have to give something. You want a car? You have to give money. You rent an apartment? You have to sign a contract. In any other "get something from someone else" deal, you have to GIVE something. Why does welfare get a total bypass? Makes no sense.
And this is what has gone horribly wrong with our country.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26678
|
|
Anyone who receives benefits from any social programs would have to voluntarily agree to submit to drug testing, sort of like a condition of employment. There is a choice, and it seems reasonable to require drug testing. CS is not a voluntary program, many parents who pay it are forced to go through the state, as are the receiving parents. That is unreasonable.
bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220411pols_welfare_abuse_runs_deep/srvc=home&position=1
A convicted drug dealer — who cops said wanted to use cash from his taxpayer-funded EBT card to post bail — is the new face of welfare abuse, according to tough-minded lawmakers who are pushing the reform-resistant Patrick administration for a crackdown.
That is an article from Boston, and I do not know if he pays, or receives CS. It is just one example, it is not meant to represent all people who draw benefits, it is just one story out of millions. The majority of people who receive benefits probably do not use drugs, and testing should not be 100% monthly, just a random program that tests ten percent every month. It will not stop all fraud waste and abuse, but it will stop a lot. Yes there are ways to beat drug tests, the best way is abstinence, and we know that never works. But if the down side is the fourth amendment, I am not seeing it, no more than requiring insurance on your car is the same as requiring everyone to have health insurance.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
For the record, I don't believe in this. I can see it used as a tool for the NCP to withold CS until the CP is drug tested.
But, if something like this were put in place I do think the NCP should have to participate as well.
...and what kind of punishment/testing would there be when the NCP doesn't take their CO visitation for years and years?
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26678
|
|
Even if they could force the parent to do it, what kind of time would it be? Forcing a child to spend time with a parent that doesn't want to, not seeing any benefits to that.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
I could see some NCPs punishing the CP by saying they are doing drugs every time CS was due.
Perhaps base CS on visitation somehow? I don't have a specific answer, but if you go without seeing your kids for a year you should be held responsible.
Edited by SRS (04/19/12 06:19 AM)
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26678
|
|
Ha, include the cost of child care for the hours of parenting time missed....above and beyond CS
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Stupid. If the parent paying child support suspects the parent receiving it is using the money to purchase drugs instead of supporting the child, then you go to court for custody.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Why need to? If you have a drug test and it's positive? Make it an AUTOMATIC change. Why should it cost the parent paying, MORE MONEY to FIGHT for custody that should just, at that point, be handed over?
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
All random drug testing is a violation of our fourth ammendment rights.
---> Depends. If you were subject to drug testing to receive your tax refund...yes. But to apply for a job or to keep your job...no.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
[quote]All random drug testing is a violation of our fourth ammendment rights.
---> But to apply for a job or to keep your job...no. [/quote]
---------------->> And isn't being a CP a "job" of sorts? It certainly has more responsibilities and obligations than that of a NCP. Parenting in general is a "job". So why NOT get drug tested to receive funds to DO that job, from the other parent? What's the big issue? It's a "paycheck" of sorts, is it not? Didn't you pay your ex to raise your children? Yes. So why shouldn't you be entitled to ensure that your "employee" be drug-free, just like an other employer/employee situation?
I still stand by.. if you're not a user? ("you" by the way, not referring to you individually, referring to the "collective you") Then what's the issue? And if you're a drug user? Probably shouldn't be raising kids ANYWAY (yes I [censored]/ly believe this) and you deserve not to have them unless you're clean.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
Now define "drugs". Pot? Coke? Alcohol? Cigarettes? Tylenol? Sleeping pills? Is the parent that drinks a 12 pack of beer or a bottle of vodka a night somehow worse than the parent who smokes a joint once a month?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Anything illegal, any quantity of it. It isn't illegal to drink, in any quantity, AS LONG AS, you don't drive intoxicated. So, any drug defined as illegal, in any quantity of it.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Dumbest idea ever . Any wonder it was the " brainchild " of a Republican ?
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Any wonder it was the "brainchild" of a Republican?
---> Actually, it was the 'brainchild' of a parent who went to his State Senator and made a request. So perhaps you should find out the party affiliation of the parent.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
No , it was idiot constituent whining to idiot politician that his ex MAY have been using drugs instead of GOING TO COURT . The BILL was the idiot politician's idea .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7947
|
|
Since when do politicians listen to constituents anyways? The onus is on the dummy who actually puts forth the bill to enact it into law.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
OMG, what a SHOCK, gd taking a NON political topic and turning it into a Republican bashing session...whodathunk?
Anyone else about tired of it?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
"Anything illegal, any quantity of it. It isn't illegal to drink, in any quantity, AS LONG AS, you don't drive intoxicated. So, any drug defined as illegal, in any quantity of it."
So what you are saying is that the parent who spends the child support on ALCOHOL is okay, but the parent who smokes a little pot they bought themselves, say on the weekends the kids are with the NCP, shouldn't get child support? Seems kinda silly and not really in the best interest of the law.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Debbie_L
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/06/05
Posts: 2031
|
|
I agree with GR8. To lump pot in with the drugs like meth and heroin is silly. Pot is FAR less destructive than alcohol for example. Pot will never cause the social problems and destruction that alcohol has (and continues to). I smoked pot recreationally for years, held down a responsible job, never drove under the influence (of pot or alcohol), and was a fine parent to my daughter (now 19). And no, I never smoked pot around her.
Nobody ever smoked a joint and went home and beat the crap out of their loved ones (unless they would do so anyways without pot - in which case pot might still mellow them out a little). I can't say the same for alcohol. I've known many people who turn into absolute monsters when they drink and become violent.
Pot isn't a drug that someone is going to break into your house because they need their next "fix". It is non-addictive physically (can't say the same for alcohol - people can die from severe alcohol withdrawal).
The fact that pot is illegal is a stupid law IMO. Like I said, alcohol is FAR more destructive (and I'm not in favour of making alcohol illegal either).
I'd rather see tobacco be made illegal:) Horrible stuff that.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26678
|
|
I do not think you need to make any definitions or judgements, just follow the law as far as legality.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Right. And Democrats would never sponsor 'idiot' bills...like Democratic Congressman Bob Brady's bill to ban 'cross-hairs' maps or Democrat Nina Turner's bill that before getting a prescription for [censored] or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
Ah, so why not test EVERYBODY in the country, and JAIL those that fail?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26678
|
|
Or test no one..... it is easy to go from extreme to extreme. One of the reasons I do not like it for CS recipients or payers is because it is between two parents. The federal government regularly requires random drug testing as a condition of employment, that thing where you get money for doing something. You have the choice to not work there. Why not testing when you are getting money for doing nothing. The policy does not have to punitive in nature initially, you can have the three strikes concept. Just like employment for many areas, random urinalysis is required as one of the conditions.
You do not like the law in regards to drugs, but it is like immigration, should we enforce the laws on the books, or continually just nod our heads and look the other way. Change the law. It has been decriminalized in some states, and other states are reducing the severity of it. But do not ignore the law, work to change it. Would it be ok, if it was just opiates, or meth, or other drugs we don't like....This is not an argument about whether marijuana should be legal, it is about drug testing for CS, and people receiving assistance from the government, or drug testing in general, or the 4th amendment. One specific drug being illegal should not invalidate the concept.
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Purchasing and smoking weed IS ILLEGAL.
And to answer your later item, sure, why not? It's illegal, they shouldn't be doing it to begin with so sure, why not? Jailing wouldn't make sense, the jails would be overflowing, but hefty fines? Absolutely. Why not?
Now, I don't smoke weed. I rarely if ever drink and when I do nowadays if I finish half a glass of wine that would be a lot. I do smoke, but I'm down to 5 cigarettes a day and if they wanted to de-legalize it? Okay, I just won't smoke anymore. I'm not a "gotta smoke" smoker. Like when I go visit KK? We're there several days and I don't smoke at all for any of those days and I barely even notice it. I still smoke at all because I enjoy smoking, not because I "need" to smoke.
So fine, de-legalize all of it.. :)
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
"Jailing wouldn't make sense, the jails would be overflowing, but hefty fines? Absolutely. Why not?"
So build more jails, I am sure you would pay higher taxes, but you're okay with that, right? Because we are enforcing the LAW, right? Do you see the double edged sword? You only want it enforced if it doesn't cause a PROBLEM to enforce it.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
Hey, here is a better idea, lets start SEARCHING the HOUSES of CP's and NCP's, to see if they have stolen anything, or bought anything stolen, maybe have illegal cable, maybe have some money they stashed, etc. I mean if we are okay with randomly searching your BLOOD or URINE for something illegal, why not extend it to your HOME, or your CAR, is it really any different?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
No, jail doesn't make sense for that crime. Fines do.
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Not practical. Blood/urine test is very easy, and hard to hide. You aren't going to find usage most effectively your way :-)
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
Wait,. I am not talking about drug usage, I am talking about possibly stolen property, maybe illegal cable hook ups, maybe some hidden cash the IRS doesn't know about. I mean if we are going to start SEARCHING stuff, lets not limit it to ONE illegal act, lets encompass ALL of them.
Hey, we can call the group the "Special Services", maybe they could wear a little "SS" on armbands or something.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Right.
>>>>>>Yeah , I know , you were WRONG .
And Democrats would never sponsor 'idiot' bills...like Democratic Congressman Bob Brady's bill to ban 'cross-hairs'
>>>>>>>>> That should have the EXACT same effect as TWICE YEARLY drug tests for any CUSTODIAL PARENT .
maps or Democrat Nina Turner's bill that before getting a prescription for [censored] or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency.
>>>>>>>>>> Clever actually , in response to the GOP " war on birth control " .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
OMG, what a SHOCK, gd taking a NON political topic and turning it into a Republican bashing session...whodathunk?
>>>>>>>>> Yup , non-political , a story about a POLITICIAN submitting a BILL to the LEGISLATURE . Sure no POLITICS there .
Anyone else about tired of it?
>>>>>>>>>> I forgot , only whiny baggers are allowed to do it .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Hm... not a bad idea :)
About the whole "SS" reference. The Na'zis were targeting people not due to anything truly illegal. Look, it's illegal to use drugs. I'll be honest. If the na'zis HAD targeted illegal drug users? And exterminated them? I'd stand up and CHEER. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I'm a hardass though. I'm a HUGE HUGE HUGE believer in the death penalty. I'm a HUGE HUGE HUGE believer in appropriate punishment for crime. Take a life? Lose yours. Steal something? Maybe you don't really need that hand after all. Absolutely. We're wayyyyy too lenient in this society. WAYYYYYY. And as a result? We have what we have.. Which is pathetic. Can't say that enough.. what we have become? IS PATHETIC. Absolutely. We're a joke, as a society, and as a country. We're so busy trying not to "offend" anyone, god freakin' forbid, we've become a self-absorbed, namby pamby PU$$Y of a country with a sad sad sad lot of citizens.. which is getting WORSE all the time.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
"Look, it's illegal to use drugs."
Two points on that.
One, yes, it is, its also illegal to STEAL, and to NOT PAY TAXES, so I assume you wouldn't have a problem with them randomly searching your house or car just to SEE if you were stealing or not paying taxes on all of your money, right?
Two, drugs are illegal? Really? Nicotine? Alcohol? Painkillers? Sleeping pills? ALL of them are "drugs", the GOVERNMENT has just decided that SOME drugs are okay, and others are NOT. Also, you smoked pot, but now that you DON'T, you seem to feel that KILLING people for doing it is okay. Do you see how screwed up that is?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
finz
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/17/08
Posts: 6453
|
|
I think drug testing to recieve welfare benefits is reasonable. The government is already involved.
I think bringing the government (more) into EVERY custody situation would be a BIG mistake.
Personally, although I've never tried it, I think pot should be legal.
Any agency overseeing any such drug testing would need to consider that some people are LEGALLY using narcotics, amphetamines, pot, etc vs those that are using them illegally. Frankly, I wouldn't trust our government to keep that all straight. I could see quite a few kids being 'removed' from a parent who was prescribed a few Percocet after a surgical procedure and being put in an undesirable environment.
|
dadinva
newbie
Reged: 06/06/11
Posts: 47
|
|
From the perspective of a parent that once upon a time paid child support to a person I know used it for drugs, yeah, I had some moral dilemmas with that for sure. She spent not a dime of it on daughter, and I know that for a fact. Every red cent went to heroin. I had a major issue with a system that, quite literally, expected me to buy her drugs or put me in jail.
Do I think everyone should be randomly tested? Nope, but if a NCP who is paying support wants to make sure that s/he is not supporting the CP's drug habit, s/he should be able to request a random test. If positive, CP pays, if negative, NCP pays. That would keep NCP's from harassing their ex's with tons of drug tests.
|
Runswithscissors
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 05/29/04
Posts: 13381
|
|
Not in all states..there are medical exceptions.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
