Ohio Drug Test
Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Outside World
Forum Name: News, Info and Happenings outside Middletown
Forum Description: It might be happening outside Middletown, but it affects us here at home.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4087
Printed Date: Dec 22 2024 at 5:57pm
Topic: Ohio Drug Test
Posted By: 409
Subject: Ohio Drug Test
Date Posted: Aug 25 2011 at 9:41pm
From the MJ:
http://www.middletownjournal.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2011/08/25/bill_would_require_drug_test_t.html - Bill would require drug test to get unemployment, other state helpBy http://www.middletownjournal.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2011/08/25/bill_would_require_drug_test_t.html#postcomment - William Hershey | Thursday, August 25, 2011, 03:10 PM State Sen. Tim Grendell, R-Chesterland, said Thursday that he will introduce legislation requiring Ohioans seeking government aid such as unemployment benefits and welfare to first submit to drug tests. “Hard working taxpayers of the state of Ohio should not have to pay for the drug habits of illegal drug users,” Grendell said in a press release. “This assistance from the state is for those who need these funds for food and shelter, not illegal drugs.” The proposal is patterned after a http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/05/scott-signs-bill-forcing-drug-tests-on-welfare-recipients.html - law already in effect in Florida , Grendell said. Those seeking state aid would have to pay for the drug tests but would be reimbursed if they pass, the release said. Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving aid for three years. Grendell currently is seeking cosponsors for the proposal. |
Replies:
Posted By: sunwyn
Date Posted: Aug 25 2011 at 9:59pm
| And it's working so well in Florida ( sarcasm alert). I just read an article it is costing Florida state government several times more than it is saving. And guess who is profiting there? The Govenor and his wife. I wonder whose pockets wI'll get lined here? |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Aug 26 2011 at 6:18am
| Let the applicant pay for the drug test, eliminating the problem you mention with the Florida program. Why does the state have to pay for the applicants drug testing? If they really need the assistance and can actually pass the drug tests, they will apply regardless of the fee. Should be no bitching from applicants as the benefits far outweigh the cost of the drug testing. No need to assume more cost in hiring extra people. Use the personnel already on board to administer the program as additional job duties. Those that want a job will stay. Those that think it is an additional job assignment and can't handle it will leave. |
Posted By: viper771
Date Posted: Aug 28 2011 at 3:10am
| If people who serve in the military have to take a drug test, the people who get handouts should have to take drug tests (and pay for them). There should also be a cap on how many children they have while on welfare. |
Posted By: sunwyn
Date Posted: Aug 28 2011 at 5:26am
| the applicants only pay for the drug if they fail. |
Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Sep 07 2011 at 5:21pm
|
Vet- Hate to say it like this; you're wrong!!! You simply cannot compel someone to testify against themselves, ask someone to incriminate themselves as a condition of assistance. These laws have already been ruled unconstitutional so the precedent has been set. Do I think welfare recipients should be using illegal drugs? No. There needs to be a better method than this because this is blatant government interference.
Viper - Are you going to be the person who monitors the sexual conduct of welfare recipients? How much more government interference in a persons life would you like? Sterilization of welfare recipients? Mandatory inspections of a persons home? Take away their citizenship and deport them? How far would you like to go?
|
Posted By: LMAO
Date Posted: Sep 07 2011 at 10:20pm
If im not mistaken there is already a Mandatory Inspection on people on section 8.I dont think its right that these people get this handout then they turn around and let every Tom,Dick and Harry move in with them and sell their drugs.Or let someone move in with them and charge them rent when there getting it for free.I like to see each person that is on WELFARE have to take a drugs test.I have to take one whenever the owner comes to me and says,"Piss in the jar." I work for my money if there going to lay around make babies and eat Bomb,Bombs then hell yes drug test them. Could go even deeper,Do like Michigan has on the table,4 years and your done.
 |
TonyB wrote:Posted By: viper771
Date Posted: Sep 07 2011 at 10:42pm
|
If the govt can tell you want can't/can do while in the military, they should be able to tell you want you can/can't do when you get taxpayer money from them to support your life. At least you are doing a service to the country while in the military, and not getting a handout. As far as sterilization... I would just put a limit on how many kids you have while under govt assistance. If you go over the limit, you lose your free ride. Simple as that.. Same goes for coming up positive on a drug test.
|
Posted By: Voleye
Date Posted: Sep 08 2011 at 6:59am
I have no problem with the goverement "interfering" with a persons life that gets free assistance from the goverement. If they take the money they should have to live by the rules set out by the people that give them the money. I would like to see it taken even further. Manditory drug testing if they have to visit the hospital. Thats the way most employer's drug testing is done. Then if they are on the assistance for over a year they should not be allowed to vote.
|
Posted By: middletownscouter
Date Posted: Sep 08 2011 at 8:53am
|
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issed by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school. After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it’s valuables thanks to the local police department. I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on middletownusa.com forums about how people getting assistance from the government should be forced to take drug tests. Better go find that cup to pee in! (Modified from a post I found several years ago, wish I could give credit where it is due but I don't know who originally wrote this.) |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Sep 08 2011 at 9:48am
|
TonyB......."Vet- Hate to say it like this; you're wrong!!! You simply cannot compel someone to testify against themselves, ask someone to incriminate themselves as a condition of assistance. These laws have already been ruled unconstitutional so the precedent has been set".
Well TonyB, then the laws need to be changed to reflect the correct course of action in this case. It is obviously the wrong way to go with recipients of government assistance. Tired of the coddling and kid-glove treatment of some of the low lifes in society who live their lives on the backs of the working taxpayers. I wouldn't try to "compel someone to testify against themselves". They wouldn't have a chance to do so. It is simple. Change the dam law to read "if you CHOOSE to use government assistance, here are the criteria for acceptance into the program". PERIOD. If you choose not to divulge this information, you don't qualify and you can fend for yourself. No coddling, no rules that are skewed to the side of the freeloaders, no advantages for the lazy people who may be among the applicants, no mercy for the ones who won't do their fair share. Part of the reason we are in such sad shape in the social program arena of government is because we allow bypassing the qualifications, creating the entry for drug dealers, drug users, people who sit on the couch for years without looking for employment, food stamp abusers, people creating babies the taxpayer takes care of, etc. Nope- I can't agree with this kinder/gentler, merciful crap until the people demonstrate a real need for the services. Sometimes, demonstrating a real need doesn't work either. Was just denied Medicaid from Hamilton. All I needed was a few hours per week from a program caregiver to run errands. Wife would have gotten Meals On Wheels too. Nope....too much money....too many assets to qualify. Been paying into the system for 43 years +. Wife paid into it for 30 years. Now that we need the service, they turned their back. If I was a scum bag drug dealer with a wife with a stroke and 10 kids living in my HUD house, I would have qualified. To hell with Jobs and Family Services. To hell with the system and to hell with the government people down in Hamilton. |
Posted By: viper771
Date Posted: Sep 08 2011 at 12:23pm
| Exactly vet... our own system has created lazy people who can live off of the working people. I can understand if you needed to use welfare to get back on your feet.. but as a lifestyle just is not right! |
Posted By: Eleven
Date Posted: Sep 08 2011 at 12:56pm
|
"People who have nothing to hide...hide nothing.
If people choose to use the "govt program" IE: our tax dollars, then they should have no problem agreeing to the conditions of the program that are put into place to HELP them get back on their feet. I would think the money saved on the people not able to participate, due to negative results, could be be put back into the program to administer the drug tests and other costs that would be used to utilize this.
Like it's been said before... I had to pee in a cup to get the job that supports my family...and others free lifestyles.
|
Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Sep 08 2011 at 2:58pm
|
Vet - which laws would you like changed; 5th Amendment to the Constitution? I agree that the requirements for assistance need to be changed to serve those in need but at what cost (and I'm not referring to monetary costs)? Drug tests are not foolproof and most drugs do not stay in a persons system for more than 72 hours. Would you rather feed the poor or have them out killing and stealing? Welfare as a lifestyle is an interesting choice of semantics; you think that most of the poor want to be poor? Give them jobs and a chance to get out of poverty and most would be grateful. You are always going to have those few that abuse any system, from the poor on welfare to the politician and campaign contributions. Perhaps we should have drug testing for elected officials before they are permitted to vote on legislation!!! Eleven - show me the honest man with nothing to hide!!! I also had to pee in a cup to get a job and I've also had a positive result on a drug test when I know that I was clean!!! Not only are drug tests unreliable, they are an invasion of privacy and a violation of due process and the 5th amendment. Most people are honest and hard working and those that aren't drag everyone else down; you'll get no argument from me on that point. My problem with this is once you start down this path, you open the door for abuse by government that can lead to the denial of civil and human rights. Quite frankly, I'm for the legailzation of all drugs because then only two things can happen; either someone will realize that drugs can't do anything for you that you can't do for yourself, or someone will do drugs until it kills them!!! Either way, problem solved!!! (Hey Vet, how's that for kinder/gentler! lol) |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Sep 08 2011 at 4:24pm
|
TonyB- alright, don't change the law about self-incrimination. Fine. But I see nothing wrong with setting up some qualification rules....ie....you will be drug tested before you qualify and be periodically drug tested, unannounced (eliminates the issue you mentioned about staying in the system for 72 hours so they can purge before the test) while you are on this program and taking taxpayer subsidized money until you are off of the program.....you will be investigated for criminal activity (ie drug dealer/user, food stamp abuser, failure to pay for dependents, etc.) before you are accepted.
You state... "Welfare as a lifestyle is an interesting choice of semantics; you think that most of the poor want to be poor? Give them jobs and a chance to get out of poverty and most would be grateful" A larger percentage than is reasonable won't take that job you are ready to offer them and wouldn't hold onto that job if they did take it. They are use to being poor. "Poor" is a lifestyle to them. Some don't know any better because of their upbringing. Are not interested in gaining more education to move up the social ladder. Content to mire in the poverty mud, don't want anything nice (car/house/nice neighborhood, etc.) and may never progress any further.Parents were poor.....they strive to maintain the life their parents indoctrinated them to. It would disqualify them for their freebee government handout if they actually tried and moved up the social ladder. This same group of handout abusers like being poor because it retains their lifestyle of max. benefits without any effort. Do you think these people would get up at 5am, like I do, get in the car and head to work? Do you think they would work to pay their bills like most of us do? Do you think they have an ounce of pride? Do you think they give a sh-- what other people think of them? To stereotype, check out the website "People of Wal-Mart" and tell me about it. TonyB.... "You are always going to have those few that abuse any system, from the poor on welfare to the politician and campaign contributions. Perhaps we should have drug testing for elected officials before they are permitted to vote on legislation!!" That is an excellent idea. All politicians should be periodically drug tested before they do the people's business be it local, state or fed level. (Although one could ask " Would they actually do a better job on or off the drugs?"  In the political world, with the disgusting performance we see each day, perhaps they would be able to reason better while on mind altering drugs. 
TonyB..... "Not only are drug tests unreliable, they are an invasion of privacy and a violation of due process and the 5th amendment" Not when I'm helping pay the cost to be the boss, it ain't. If I'm furnishing the money for YOU (welfare recipient) to live on, while I go to work each day, I have earned the right to call the shots and the shots I call is for the welfare recipient to be free of drugs. I'm not supporting their drug habit with the money they're pulling out of my paycheck each week. Tony, if I pay, I have the right to call the shots. JMO If the welfare people don't like that, then the money is cut off and they can fend for themselves for all I care. Bottom line, it's their choice, No one is holding a gun to their head making them use the programs. Let 'em starve if they can't consent to monitoring while on the programs. TonyB.... "My problem with this is once you start down this path, you open the door for abuse by government that can lead to the denial of civil and human rights". Tony, we are WAAYYYY past that point. For decades, the government has been abusing the rights of all people. Over the years, they have increasingly been sticking their noses in people's business from new techniques of phone/organizational membership/computer/financial/political monitoring to things as simple as telling us to wear seatbelts in our cars. Remember, not too long ago, the dam cops telling us that wearing seat belts would be a good thing for us to do? Then it ramped up to "we'll be doing spot checks to make sure you are wearing your seat belt". Then escalated to "we will be checking seat belt wearing IF you were stopped for another violation". It continued to "we will now stop you and ticket you for not wearing your seat belt". And voila, it became a law with no voice from the people. They are sneaky little sh--s. They start off with a mild intro. to the public with what they ultimately want. They ramp it up in increments until the facists finally get what they want using their "authority power play" on the public. There will be disagreement on this, but, IMO, bottom line....it ain't none of their business what I do in my car as to establishing my own safety. If I decide to bounce around in the car when I hit something, that's my choice. I don't need Timmy the Cop and Skippy the Legislator telling me how safe to be. But that's just me and my problem with authority that is out of control and trying to nipsh-- in my business. TonyB.... "Quite frankly, I'm for the legalization of all drugs because then only two things can happen; either someone will realize that drugs can't do anything for you that you can't do for yourself, or someone will do drugs until it kills them!!! Either way, problem solved!!! (Hey Vet, how's that for kinder/gentler! lol)" That's fine Tony. Let's legalize all drugs and "let "em run wild in the streets" How do you feel about giving more people the right to consume unlimited drugs, get in a car, come at you on a two lane highway at 60 MPH and hit you headon, knowing you sponsored that "anything goes" drug usage mentality? Heck, we may have more people drugged out of their minds, trying to break into houses, businesses, etc. But that's alright. I need to expend some rounds from my AK anyway (or give the old 12 gauge a workout) and what better way to do it than to protect your property, right?  Are you sure we wouldn't be sacrificing society civility by legalizing unlimited drug usage? Aren't we adding to the problems already building up as a society by legalizing all drugs? Wouldn't we be creating a totally out of control world in which to live by removing the drug laws? But hey, that might lead to a world where vigilantes prosper, which may be compatible for me.
|
Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Sep 08 2011 at 7:23pm
|
Vet - you make my point with the seat belt legacy. Once civil liberties are eroded in the slightest, the government goes to the extreme.
As to the "run wild in the streets" reference, just how many people (%) do you think actually use illegal drugs? Then we're not even talking about the "legal" drug users. No one has the right to endanger the life of another, whether in a car or trying to break into your house or business. However, you want to stay at home and do drugs, whether legal or not, I say "have at it!!!" ( See reference from above) The whole problem with drug use now is that the cultural reasoning and understanding of what drug use was meant for and how it was understood in society is lost on people. There are just not that many people who would want to stay home and do drugs all the time and those that would will come to the realization that they've wasted their life in the vain pursuit of pleasure. Now that relization may not happen until it's too late but that is what our country allows; "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I'm also curious as to the percentage of welfare recipients you think are abusing the system. Also, do you consider that % too high to continue the program?
|
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Sep 09 2011 at 6:49am
|
TonyB...
"As to the "run wild in the streets" reference, just how many people (%) do you think actually use illegal drugs" I think the twenty somethings of today have a greater percentage of drug use than any other age groups. The 30-40 year olds probably follow them in percentage of usage. Heck, there are probably a small percentage of old farts like me in the baby boomer generation who are remnants of the hippy culture and still carry some of that baggage that are grass, perhaps LSD users. Don't know. Overall percentage of population using???? I don't have a clue. 5-15% max? Judging by the amount of drug activity in this country and the money to be made by selling it, I might even go higher that that. Awfully active. We could get a small sampling of the number by asking the Middletown police force who have ID'd the drug users/dealers in town and use Middletown as an example of a typical small town and amplify the numbers for larger cities I guess. 
TonyB.... "I'm also curious as to the percentage of welfare recipients you think are abusing the system. Also, do you consider that % too high to continue the program" Clueless guess on my part..... again 5-15%??????? We will never know because there is nothing in place to monitor all of the recipients on a continual basis for confirmation/elimination. No, we should continue the welfare program because there are actually decent people in need for a number of reasons. I want to see changes to the welfare program as to qualifications, monitoring while on the program and a time limit for drawing benefits from the program. For example, after the applicant signs up, to qualify, they will have a review of their finances. They will have an unannounced home visit, 15 minutes before the visit to eliminate them configuring the residence to meet the criteria. (I want to catch them with that new big screen, high def. TV sitting in the living room and that new Playstation 3 with the 50 video games just out of the box and those designer clothes hanging in the closet). If residence does not meet the need, immediately eliminated from qualifying and name/address placed in nationwide database. They will have a mandatory drug test. If on drugs, immediately eliminated and name/address placed in a nationwide database so they can't go to another town and qualify. If qualified, they will be monitored by a home audit which will check the status of the work pursued, the living conditions of the home, children's living condition status, food in the house, upkeep on the property, food stamp usage, require grocery receipts to check on purchases with alcohol, cigarettes as an immediate removal from the program (same goes for that program that addresses pregnant woman on welfare also), any vehicle status as to meeting transportation needs for the family. This will continue, unannounced, at different intervals to reflect the true situation of the applicant. This may be more government intrusion than you would like TonyB, but I want this for the protection of the taxpayers who are supplying the money for this program and to see that taxpayer money is not wasted on some scumbag gameplayer of the system. It has a residual effect also. It will create more "taxpayer protection" jobs that will pay far less than the money saved keeping unqualified people out of the program. Because we have some people who want to run a game on the current system, we need unannounced home monitoring to eliminate these people from getting money for years who don't deserve it AND, when found, need to be taken off the freebie handout program IMMEDIATELY (as in the same day found) No appeals, no court tie ups, no mercy.....just fend for yourself from now on. You know.....kinder/gentler...
|
Posted By: Voleye
Date Posted: Sep 09 2011 at 7:12am
| middletownscouter I really disagree. Those are all things that were paid for by americans with tax money from people with jobs and incomes. To my knowledge those projects or standards were paid in full by taxes. Im talking about drug testing for people that can work and choose not too and recieve assistance that is supposed to be used to buy the essentials for living. I understand there are those that can not work for one reason or another and Ill bet those people for the most part would be ok with testing. Point blank there are more people taking money out of the pot than people paying into the pot. The pot isnt going to last very long |
Posted By: viper771
Date Posted: Sep 09 2011 at 7:38am
| plus all the illegals sucking the pot dry too... |
Posted By: middletownscouter
Date Posted: Sep 09 2011 at 2:37pm
|
I don't necessarily agree with your assessment that most people on public assistance programs are "people that can work and choose not too." Do you happen to have any actual statistics on this you could share?
If it is true I would agree with you but I believe that far more of the people on public assistance are those that are either unable to work or unable to find adequate employment to support themselves or their families. |
Posted By: Eleven
Date Posted: Sep 09 2011 at 4:30pm
| TonyB- Ahhh, Thank you. I love it when someone debates with "It's a slippery slope". LOL Pretty much ends the discussion there bc I could counter with anything. " Ahhh, they want me to tag and license my car now watch out, they're gonna want to follow me out to the parking lot to make sure I affix them properly to my vehicle" I just don't understand why you feel I should have to go to work to put a roof over someones head and feed them without any concessions on their part. Personally, I'd also like to have an automated call system in place to call everyone of them at 6am, when I have to get up, to make sure they're up and ready to go look for ways to help themselves... (sarcasim) And I truly feel bad for you if you can't name 1 honest man you know. I know 3 that immediately comes to my mind. That really does sadden me and I don't even know you. |
Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Sep 09 2011 at 5:28pm
|
Eleven - don't feel bad for me, sorry it saddens you so. Name those 3 honest men that you know. I don't know you either.
The "slippery slope" argument here is that once you give up civil liberties, you set the precedent for government to take all liberties. How about we put a tracker in your car and charge you with a crime if you drive anywhere but to work and back home? How about we take your health insurance when you eat fatty meat and processed foods?
I don't feel like you should have to do anything. That's on you. I don't have the time or the interest to monitor the behavior of others. I have plenty to do in monitoring my own behavior. And while we're on that, just how much of your taxes do you think go to feeding anyone else? More of your tax dollars go to pay the interest on the Federal debt than will ever be spent feeding anyone!
|
Posted By: ground swat
Date Posted: Sep 09 2011 at 6:10pm
| We walked out of the Clinton years in the black(so they say). We are now in the RED, what do we do NOW!!!! Civil liberties could be taken away? Forcing people to strap themselves in so they don't end up on the hood of their car is a right I wish I still had but it's worked out for the best. People shooting up herion(which or local law enforcement says is on the rise) while getting a check from the Taxpayers I don't get it. You don't want them in your life but they damn well better be there to HELP those in NEED. |
Posted By: Eleven
Date Posted: Sep 09 2011 at 6:11pm
Sorry, my bad, I didn't realize free food and housing was recognized under "civil liberties"
And you prove my point again... So now they are gonna put a tracker on my car??
 |
Posted By: Bocephus
Date Posted: Sep 09 2011 at 7:55pm
I don't have names but I would say that 80 or 90% of the people I know on public assistance could work if they had to.Its sickening to watch them sit outside all summer long drinking beer and grilling out,having drunken fights and to hear them laughing about the freebies that are coming up for them.And if a working person has a bit of bad luck just because they actualy work and have an income it disqualifies them from any help at all.Although there are lots of honest people getting public assistances the abusers make the system stink.
|
Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Sep 10 2011 at 9:25am
| Eleven, I guess you need a refresher course on civil liberties. If you'll note on my post to Viet Vet, what was written and has been so far upheld in court, is that you cannot compel someone to incriminate themselves as a condition of assistance. As for proving your point... what exactly IS your point that I'm somehow proving? |
Posted By: Eleven
Date Posted: Sep 14 2011 at 11:24am
|
I don't need a refresher course TonyB. Please tell me how free housing and food is covered under civil liberties. I'm not trying to compel someone to incriminate theirselves as a condition of assistance. I'm asking to weed out the people who "would" incriminate themselves while using assistance. And my point IS... you cannot debate or discuss issues with people who pull out the slippery slope argument. IE: I make the statement about people following me into the parking lot to make sure I put my sticker on correctly and you counter with this -- "How about we put a tracker in your car and charge you with a crime if you drive anywhere but to work and back home?"
 @ Bocephus... I agree. Not only do I know some honest men, I have also ran across these people also..
|
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Sep 14 2011 at 12:18pm
|
Perhaps TonyB's point of self-incrimination for the purpose of receiving assistance would be a moot point if we could do a surprise audit of the home of the recipient of the assistance to verify the real need and immediately remove said recipient from receiving the taxpayer handouts if found to be in violation of the program. IMO, people who receive taxpayer assistance money, and are in violation, have, in this situation, given up all civil liberties and have no rights. It would not be a debate if we could see the real intent of some of these people. More "kinder/gentler" crap from the bleeding hearts helping out the "one's in need", resulting in con games from some of the participants.
Government intrusion in your life can't be a good thing because everything the government touches turns into a cluster.... , no matter what the level. |
Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Sep 14 2011 at 12:20pm
|
Eleven, Evidently, you DO need a refresher course. If drugs are illegal, then asking them for a drug test is incrimination. You're asking them to provide evidence against themselves. If they are doing drugs, then they need to be arrested. Then they can be "assisted" while they are in jail. The "slippery slope" argument here happens to be the point of contention. Once you start violating civil rights, where does it end? No one followed you out to the parking lot, did they? If they start doing that, what's to stop them requiring everything else.
|