Philadelphia Attorney Kenneth Rothweiler Debates Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

[Bickso]

to BVDEK,in response to your rant, ALL police ,and almost ALL of the government/public servants require a drug test, if you have ever applied for one of those jobs mentioned then you would know! I don't know what planet that you are from,let me know when you come back to earth! Your response can ONLY be attributed to the fact that YOU or someone in your family is on welfare and you or they don't want to do shit ,but sit back and get that check! You people crack me up!

[Bickso]

So its ok to WORK for your money and be drug tested but not ok to sit home on your ass and get FREE money,and get drug tested! WOW is thyis government fucked up!If you don't get tested you have that right just like someone who works for their money has the choice not to,and you will ALSO be denied money JUST like someone who works for it.It's that simple!

[bvdek]

@Bickso lol so every single job in the US has drug testing? i doubt it, just dangerous/high risk jobs like mining. does everyone who receives public/government money have to do a drug test? no bloody way! people who work DO have a choice, because only some jobs require drug testing. no one is forced to do so, only if u want (choose) that job! If everyone who receives public/gov money should be drug tested, then so should all gov/public servants & politicians, docs, teachers, police etc!!

[FineHawaiianArt]

The drug test itself is a taking of part of your body, which is in fact an unlawful detention without due process of law, it may also be a violation of some peoples religious free exercise rights, it is a violation of the presumption of innocence if refusal to test results in deprivation of other rights immunities or privileges or of employment, the tests themselves often have false positives, When testing is random there is no probable cause and I could go on with a hundred more ways its wrong.

[RiaRadioFMHD773]

Also Social Security and Unempolyment are paid into by those that work and "legal precident" is not law.  Judges should not legislate from the bench. Just because something has been decided in an individual case in the past should not have any bearing on what is decided in the present. THANK GOD I do not live in the states.

[RiaRadioFMHD773]

Allow Ken to give several hundred dollars to a crack addict and see if it is spent on food or crack. This is a no-brainer. If you want to be employed by a company that tests, fine, if you do not want to be tested you do not have to work there. Freewill goes both ways. There is nothing in the United States Constitution stating your federal government must support you. If you have enough money to support an addiction, then you do not need money for food. This is what is called priorities.