No. of Recommendations: 53
Huffington article: "Florida Law Mandating Drug Tests For Welfare Struck Down By Federal Judge"

Basically, the judge said that this Rick Scott bit of political genius violated constitutional protection against unreasonable searches. GOP Gov. Scott campaigned on a promise to expand drug testing. Scott, naturally, will appeal ASAP. He sees temporary assistance to needy families (TANF program), which is a fed/state program helping poor families with dependent kids to pay for food, shelter, and other basic necessities, as a frivolous theft of taxpayer money. U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven permanently halted enforcement of the law in Tuesday's ruling, arguing that..... "there is nothing inherent in the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion there is a concrete danger that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use...."

Luis Lebron is a Navy vet going to college with sole custody of his 5 y.o. daughter. He was denied TANF after refusing to be tested and filed suit. Mr. Lebron asserted in 2011 that..."the law assumes that everyone who needs a little help has a drug problem. It judges a whole group of people on their temporary economic situation."

During the time the law prevailed, only 2.6% of recipients tested positive for illegal drugs, mostly weed, according to court documents. This is a failure rate well below that of the general population, as affirmed by the Dept. of HHS. The TNAF applicants had to somehow cough up between $25-45 from their "wealth-building capital" to pay for testing to prove they were not guilty until proven innocent.

Rick Scott--a true Amerikan leader championing the downtrodden of the Sunshine State.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Not only do I agree with mandatory drug testing for welfare receiptients, I'd expand it to cover Government employees. And I'd start at the top. Mandatory testing for the President, Congress and their staffers. Include Governors, Judges and State Legislators as well. And make the testing of these "public servants" random so it's not so easy to escape getting caught.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
How about mandatory testing for you cjb. We should have mandatory testing for everyone with a driver's liscense.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Not only do I agree with mandatory drug testing for welfare receiptients

___________________________________

Heck, if someone comes to my representatives for help, it seems like a pretty reasonable request that they are doing the bare minimum to help themselves first

You would think even a marginally compassionate human being would want to give these poor folks an actual push in the right direction. Sure we want to help, we know you are having a hard time, you are trying right?

It is the height of cruelty not to want to help these people, and demanding they get off drugs is a step in the right direction.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



It is the height of cruelty not to want to help these people, and demanding they get off drugs is a step in the right direction.



Even though 97% of these recipients have been proven not to use drugs. It's equivalent to assuming that all wealthy people are cocaine addicts and must be drug tested every time they get in a car to drive.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Not only do I agree with mandatory drug testing for welfare receiptients, I'd expand it to cover Government employees.

Yup. If I have to get drug tested to earn the money to pay the taxes they're living off of (and I did have to get drug tested) then they sure as hell can get drug tested to receive that money. I don't care how few of them turn out to be on drugs (I'm quite happy it's a low number in fact!) but fair is fair. They should be happy they don't have to jump through all the hoops I had to to earn the money they rely upon!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1



Yup. If I have to get drug tested to earn the money to pay the taxes they're living off of (and I did have to get drug tested) then they sure as hell can get drug tested to receive that money. I don't care how few of them turn out to be on drugs (I'm quite happy it's a low number in fact!) but fair is fair. They should be happy they don't have to jump through all the hoops I had to to earn the money they rely upon!



You're saying that the Federal Government should have the same rights over you as your Employer?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Even though 97% of these recipients have been proven not to use drugs. It's equivalent to assuming that all wealthy people are cocaine addicts and must be drug tested every time they get in a car to drive.

_______

Maybe I'm just to tainted, but I'm not buying the number, although I get your comparison.

It's like all the politicians who claim you can't get rich without lying, cheating or stealing and anyone who has gotten rich has done so on the backs of poor people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Even though 97% of these recipients have been proven not to use drugs. It's equivalent to assuming that all wealthy people are cocaine addicts and must be drug tested every time they get in a car to drive.
_______________________________

Now that's not fair at all

Liberals assume most of these people are too stupid to know how to get an ID so they could vote. SO assuming they are smart enough to stay off drugs seems unreasonable, it is solely about compassion

Although I am find with having any rich people looking for money FROM the government, even contracts and such, to have to undergo testing. Then we can expand this to all getting money from the government.

If we want to do moronic comparisons let's expand this all the way.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



SO assuming they are smart enough to stay off drugs seems unreasonable



Assuming they're all drug addicts....

that's the point!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Interesting story. I don't like Rick Scott, at all.

I also know that an incredible amount of employers have done drug testing for a long time now. It's not exactly a secret that many on welfare or whatever aid are there due to drugs. The fact that this Navy Vet was part of the story is a tactic employed by nearly all authors nowadays.


The Liberal/Conservative slant to all stories of this nature tell me nobody is truly concerned about poverty, or the misuse of aid that's supposed to go to the truly needy.

It's almost at the point where a large segment of the populace is turning their backs on people due to reporting. If anyone really believes drug use is much lower amongst the TANF populace than the general population, come on man.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You're saying that the Federal Government should have the same rights over you as your Employer?

If they're paying me then they are my de facto employer, are they not? My goal is to have no reliance upon them at all. If you do rely upon them then, basically, they own you. Just call them "Massa" and call it a day I say.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3




If anyone really believes drug use is much lower amongst the TANF populace than the general population, come on man.

- HMALETTER

Once Florida’s
suspicionless drug testing law was enacted in 2011, only 2.6% of applicants failed the drug test and were unable to receive TANF benefits.
In regards to the fiscal implications of the Florida pilot program,
“A Florida State University researcher under contract to evaluate the pilot program did not recommend continuation or statewide expansion of the project. Overall research and findings concluded that there is very little difference in employment and earnings between those who test positive versus those who test negative. Researchers concluded that the cost of the pilot program was not warranted.”
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/EconomicIssues/VLRS%20Drug%20Testin...


According to the HHS, most studies have found that between 5.0% and 10.0% of welfare recipients abuse illegal drugs.
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/publications%5Cnotes%5C20...


Out of the
total applicants, 335 people, or 5.1%, failed the urine test.

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Publications/Notes/2012No...


Most studies of TANF recipients and persons receiving other types of means-tested government 
assistance find rates of substance abuse that are somewhat higher than those in the general population 
not on assistance, though not greatly so.  Typical among these is a 2002 analysis of substance abuse 
among persons in families receiving government assistance conducted by the Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).6
 That analysis found that past month illicit drug use 
was reported by 9.6 percent of persons age 12-64 in families receiving government assistance (including 
Medicaid, SSI, cash assistance, non cash assistance, and Food Stamps), compared to 6.8 percent of 
persons in families not receiving assistance

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/DrugTesting/ib.pdf

Of course, Alcohol & Gambling are legal. These addictions foster far more problems for the TANF recipient population than Weed which is the most common illegal drug to test positive.

When you make these judgments that most people on TANF or assistance are drug addicts it’s not different than judgements that Blacks are lazy, Mexicans are thieves, homosexuals are perverts & pedophiles, Muslims are terrorists, Wall Street Traders are cocaine addicts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 21



My goal is to have no reliance upon them at all.



Good for you, then stop driving your car, stop buying food inspected in this country, stop drinking the water, stop flying on airplanes, lock yourself in you house and be free.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Of course, Alcohol & Gambling are legal. These addictions foster far more problems for the TANF recipient population than Weed which is the most common illegal drug to test positive.

_______________________

Can we test for alcohol or gambling abuse? Because frankly, I would agree that if someone was wasting their welfare on those two (Tobacco as well) I'd consider getting lowering or getting rid of their benefits as well. Clearly you can't test for a gambling.

Heck, food stamps shouldn't be spent on M&Ms or soda. Some certain restrictions for help aren't exactly out of line.

And why does it matter what illegal drug they test positive for? Why downplay how bad marijuana is for you?

However as a caveat to my cutting off assitance to those addicted to drugs/alcohol or gambling I would first offer them assistance to break the addiction. If refused, I would stop the checks.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"When you make these judgments that most people on TANF or assistance are drug addicts it’s not different than judgements that Blacks are lazy, Mexicans are thieves, homosexuals are perverts & pedophiles, Muslims are terrorists, Wall Street Traders are cocaine addicts."
________________________

I didn't make that assertion. I made this statement.


If anyone really believes drug use is much lower amongst the TANF populace than the general population, come on man.
- HMALETTER
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"When you make these judgments that most people on TANF or assistance are drug addicts it’s not different than judgements that Blacks are lazy, Mexicans are thieves, homosexuals are perverts & pedophiles, Muslims are terrorists, Wall Street Traders are cocaine addicts."
_____________________

I did not see anyone make a judgement that most on TANF or assistance are on drugs, let alone addicts.

But we need to drum up some umbrage, so this seemed like an interesting roll

Just another I really have nothing to say of any use at all, let me see if I can cause some strife.

Folks wanting welfare should have a responsibility to be as well functioning as can be, to lessen their chances of remaining in such a sorry state. Those who are not on drugs have nothing to worry about, those that are on drugs will have their chance of success improved

Those who are aggrieved at the violation of their rights, can get off welfare. No test required.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



And why does it matter what illegal drug they test positive for? Why downplay how bad marijuana is for you?



Compared to Heroin? Compared to Meth? Comparatively speaking, as one of many illegal drugs, marijuana is harmless. It's become quite obvious that marijuiana is not a lethal drug when you compare it to legal drugs. Almost all legal drugs are lethal.


However as a caveat to my cutting off assitance to those addicted to drugs/alcohol or gambling I would first offer them assistance to break the addiction. If refused, I would stop the checks.

TANF = Mostly single women with children. Food Stamps goes to a broad segment of Americans, mostly employed. It's pretty hard to prove that someone is addicted to drugs, or alcohol, or gambling cost effectively. You'll spend so much in resources in "catching" the 10% that proves it ineffective.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



I didn't make that assertion. I made this statement.



True, I'm not trying to personalize my comments, but I am guilty of saying , "When You... when I should have said, "when one assumes that all..."

However, the point is that multiple pilot programs have shown that there is no difference between the general pop. and the TANF pop. in drug use. The judge's ruling is that test all means assuming all.

For example, you can't randomly test workers for public safety without an indication that there is drug use. You can prescreen employees, but you have to have a reason to drug test. Further, I would say that it's been well shown that the Florida drug screen program is a personal enrichment program for Gov. Scott
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 40
Folks wanting welfare should have a responsibility to be as well functioning as can be, to lessen their chances of remaining in such a sorry state. Those who are not on drugs have nothing to worry about, those that are on drugs will have their chance of success improved.

But they do not have a responsibility to give up their Fourth Amendment rights.

This thread has drifted away from the legal issue presented in the case. There is no question that the government has the legal right to deny welfare benefits to someone who is using drugs (the wisdom of such policy is another question). The issue here is whether government can force people to submit to a Fourth Amendment search without probable cause as a condition of receiving welfare benefits, and the court ruled that was barred by the Constitution.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The issue here is whether government can force people to submit to a Fourth Amendment search without probable cause as a condition of receiving welfare benefits, and the court ruled that was barred by the Constitution.
___________________________

Agreed, that is why I believe most who thought the test was OK said unconditionally, that unless one wanted a check from the government the test should be OK

I would think, if say the Supreme Court can see a tax from something called a fee, that another court could see a condition for a benefit not as something mandatory.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 24
Agreed, that is why I believe most who thought the test was OK said unconditionally, that unless one wanted a check from the government the test should be OK

I would think, if say the Supreme Court can see a tax from something called a fee, that another court could see a condition for a benefit not as something mandatory.


Not really. This case involves a legal doctrine known as "unconstitutional conditions." In a nutshell, the government is limited in its ability to require citizens to give up a constitutional right as a condition to receiving a benefit. The fact that someone can "choose" not to take a check they would otherwise be entitled to doesn't eliminate the constitutional problem - the government is de facto imposing a financial penalty on them just because they exercised a constitutional right.

Thus, the government cannot require as a condition of welfare benefits that you agree not to ever own a gun, or that you will refrain from voting, or that you will not publish article critical of Democrats. You have a right to engage in those activities, and the government cannot penalize you by witholding money just if you don't 'voluntarily' give them up.

Note that the legal right at issue here is not any claimed right to use illegal substances, but the right to be free from a Fourth Amendment search (here a drug test) absent probable cause.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Comparatively speaking, as one of many illegal drugs, marijuana is harmless.

______

We're not talking about relative to anything. Marijuana is not harmless. It's a dangerous drug, but those that enjoy it's use have been downplaying the dangers for generations.

As for proving addiction, no need to prove addiction. Just prove use. Use and addiction are two different things.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The issue here is whether government can force people to submit to a Fourth Amendment search without probable cause as a condition of receiving welfare benefits, and the court ruled that was barred by the Constitution.

________

Past rulings from SCOTUS could lead you to think otherwise. How many times have we seen the government place restrictions on funding and it was OK under their tax and spending power? Remember when the Feds decided that States "should" have a uniform drinking age of 21? They dedcided to tie it to highway funds and it was upheld.

I think SCOTUS might overturn this on similiar grounds. It's not a random drug test, it's a requirement to get a government benefit. Of course it has to be across the board. They can't just test certain people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



As for proving addiction, no need to prove addiction. Just prove use. Use and addiction are two different things.



So families who receive food stamps can't have a beer when they're watching the Superbowl...


Of course what I was responding to was your comment where you clearly said addiction:

However as a caveat to my cutting off assitance to those addicted to drugs/alcohol or gambling I would first offer them assistance to break the addiction. If refused, I would stop the checks.
- cjb44
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Past rulings from SCOTUS could lead you to think otherwise. How many times have we seen the government place restrictions on funding and it was OK under their tax and spending power? Remember when the Feds decided that States "should" have a uniform drinking age of 21? They dedcided to tie it to highway funds and it was upheld.

Right - because that does not require an individual to forego a constitutional right that they otherwise would have under the Constitution. It's a wholly different analysis. The Spending Clause cases deal with whether Congress has the power to do something indirectly (via conditioning spending) that exceeds their enumerated power to regulate. The Court has held that it's generally permissible to do so (but see the ACA decision that held that there are limits even to that). That's analytically different from whether government can take action that it is forbidden from doing (here, require people to submit to searches without probable cause) as a condition of receiving benefits.

I think SCOTUS might overturn this on similiar grounds. It's not a random drug test, it's a requirement to get a government benefit. Of course it has to be across the board. They can't just test certain people.

Whether it hits everyone or not is beside the point. The government cannot (generally) search you when there is no probable cause to support that search. They (generally) cannot make you give up that right if you want to get some sort of government benefit, any more than they could require you to allow them to search your home if you want to claim the mortgage interest deduction.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 48
I do find it interesting, that those on the right want to impose some sort of test to be able to qualify for a program that we all pay into, and is there if we need it, but refuse to have a test for someone to own a handgun.

So a mentally ill person, who may have a drug problem can't get welfare, but they can get a gun. Interesting.....

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So families who receive food stamps can't have a beer when they're watching the Superbowl...

_____________________

Sucks don't it. But if you're on the dole, there should be restrictions. How about instead of that beer, you spend the money on healthy food for the kids or school supplies.

Beer (contrary to the belief of many) is a luxury, not something you need.

You want an acception for the Super Bowl...go ahead and grant the waiver. I won't protest.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The government cannot (generally) search you when there is no probable cause to support that search. They (generally) cannot make you give up that right if you want to get some sort of government benefit, any more than they could require you to allow them to search your home if you want to claim the mortgage interest deduction.

______________

Sure they can. If you want to work for certain government agencies you need to get a full background check including drug tests. Getting a pilot's license requires testing as well even without probably cause.

No probable cause required for lots of government benefits.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They (generally) cannot make you give up that right if you want to get some sort of government benefit, any more than they could require you to allow them to search your home if you want to claim the mortgage interest deduction.

____________

On that note, Section 8 housing has many similiar restrictions.

As for the mortgage deduction, they can search your home if you claim a home office to make sure there is an actual home office. They can even check to make sure the home is actually your home and not a rental property. If you're claiming a home is your primary residence then can check on that.

Although I believe there is a difference between a deduction to reduce your payment to the government and actually receiving a check from them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The government cannot (generally) search you when there is no probable cause to support that search. They (generally) cannot make you give up that right if you want to get some sort of government benefit, any more than they could require you to allow them to search your home if you want to claim the mortgage interest deduction.
_______________________________________

???

So the government can not look into my finances if I want welfare?
They can not check my references for deductions or income on my taxes?
Or are some searches different than others?
My privacy does not extend to ???
This particular situation is totally voluntary. You do not want the condition you actually can opt out.
That they can check related information for a benefit is pretty standard stuff. The fact that you are disabling your ability to work to a degree would certainly put the ability to check that in line with checking my finances for either a mortgage or welfare.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Sure they can. If you want to work for certain government agencies you need to get a full background check including drug tests. Getting a pilot's license requires testing as well even without probably cause.

No probable cause required for lots of government benefits.


But only in limited contexts - where the specific job or license involves some characteristic which might be compromised by drug use. That provides the rational nexus between the forfeiture of the right and the governmental activity. That's absent when it comes to a general program like welfare.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
So the government can not look into my finances if I want welfare?
They can not check my references for deductions or income on my taxes?
Or are some searches different than others?
My privacy does not extend to ???
This particular situation is totally voluntary. You do not want the condition you actually can opt out.


They can require you to provide information necessary to the functioning of the program - and of course they can conduct any investigation that doesn't require you to give up Fourth Amendment rights.

The fact that the situation is voluntary does not exempt it from Constitutional review. I think we all would agree that the government could not force you to agree to waive your right to secret ballot and only vote Democratic as a condition to receiving a driver's license, even though that also would be voluntary. The legal reasoning is the same - government is limited in its ability to penalize your exercise of constitutionally protected rights, both directly and indirectly.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's absent when it comes to a general program like welfare.

_________________

The nexus would be that you are getting assistance for your daily needs. If it turns out you are spending money the government is giving you for rent, food and utilities on drugs, alcohol, tobacco or gambling isn't there a connection? It's a misuse of funds.

If you want to end the drug testing, would you approve of cutting off welfare receiptients who are arrested for drug possession or use? DWI? Or something similiar?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This thread has drifted away from the legal issue presented in the case. There is no question that the government has the legal right to deny welfare benefits to someone who is using drugs (the wisdom of such policy is another question). The issue here is whether government can force people to submit to a Fourth Amendment search without probable cause as a condition of receiving welfare benefits, and the court ruled that was barred by the Constitution.

It seems like there's a slippery-slope argument to be made here. They can't mandate drug testing for welfare but they can for people who work for the government? Yes, I get the argument that in one instance they're acting as an employer and in the other as the government but in both cases they're still the government, we just let them use an exception in one case but not the other. That's fine and all, but WHY is there only an exception in one case but not the other? If there are exceptions there are exceptions, why can't testing welfare recipients just be another exception then? Why is giving someone money for not working given more Constitutional/legal protection than paying someone to actually work for the government?

Not to mention the other Pandoras boxes that reasoning opens up. I want to go buy a gun... why do I have to submit to a blanket background check (as I do if I buy a gun from an FFL) per se? If we can't do blanket drug tests for welfare recipients because of the Fourth Amendment how is it ok for us to do blanket background checks for gun buyers without probable cause? We're talking about TWO Constitutional Amendments here (2nd and 4th), no? "Well, there's an exception for the safety of society." Alright, but, again, if we can have an exception for a check in reference to TWO Amendments then why can't we have one in reference to just one? See what I'm saying?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



Sucks don't it. But if you're on the dole, there should be restrictions.



You're talking about millions of Americans that have full time jobs.



Anyway, there is no such restriction, as was pointed out, you don't have to give up your constitutional rights to get government assistance, hundreds of thousands of Wall Street Bankers & Brokers didn't give up any constitutional rights in order to receive a Trillion Dollar Welfare Check.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0




Sure they can. If you want to work for certain government agencies you need to get a full background check including drug tests. Getting a pilot's license requires testing as well even without probably cause.



This is a public safety issue, as the courts have ruled over and over, the same reason you have to submit to a search to fly on a plane, as well produce proper ID.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If you want to end the drug testing, would you approve of cutting off welfare receiptients who are arrested for drug possession or use? DWI? Or something similiar?

That's generally the case - not on arrest, but on conviction. Most federal support programs disqualify folks who have been convicted of drug felonies.

Again, the problem is not with conditioning qualification for federal assistance on a requirement that the person abstain from illegal substances - it is in requiring them to consent to a search that would otherwise be prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's not a random drug test, it's a requirement to get a government benefit. Of course it has to be across the board. They can't just test certain people.

Thus, everyone would have to be tested every day--or more frequently.

Tell us who does *not* voluntarily use public services or benefits--directly or indirectly--every day.

People use govt every day--fact, not opinion.
People use food every day (that is very much govt in action).
People use transportation every day (themselves OR the goods they have/get are transported via public transportation means--such as a road, bridge).

You are advocating for massive nationwide mandatory drug testing for everyone--daily or more often. And here we thought conservatives were opposed to govt intrusion in peoples' lives....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1



If you want to end the drug testing, would you approve of cutting off welfare receiptients who are arrested for drug possession or use? DWI? Or something similiar?



I think you're polemicizing. It's been pointed out that drug testing is valid if there is an indication of use, i.e., Driving funny leads to a drug test.
Is it ok for an officer to pull you over for no reason and search you?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1




Not to mention the other Pandoras boxes that reasoning opens up. I want to go buy a gun... why do I have to submit to a blanket background check (as I do if I buy a gun from an FFL) per se? If we can't do blanket drug tests for welfare recipients because of the Fourth Amendment how is it ok for us to do blanket background checks for gun buyers without probable cause? We're talking about TWO Constitutional Amendments here (2nd and 4th), no? "Well, there's an exception for the safety of society." Alright, but, again, if we can have an exception for a check in reference to TWO Amendments then why can't we have one in reference to just one? See what I'm saying?



Public Safety, the same reason you must submit to a search to fly on a plane.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
It seems like there's a slippery-slope argument to be made here. They can't mandate drug testing for welfare but they can for people who work for the government? Yes, I get the argument that in one instance they're acting as an employer and in the other as the government but in both cases they're still the government, we just let them use an exception in one case but not the other. That's fine and all, but WHY is there only an exception in one case but not the other? If there are exceptions there are exceptions, why can't testing welfare recipients just be another exception then? Why is giving someone money for not working given more Constitutional/legal protection than paying someone to actually work for the government?

The limits apply in both cases - unlike private employers, government employers do not have the ability to simply require drug tests for their employees. Indeed, Governor Scott had previously imposed a drug testing requirement for state employees, which was struck down by the federal courts. In order to have drug tests for public employees without individualized suspicion, the job in question has to be in a safety-sensitive position:

http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/FederalResources/Pages/State...

Not to mention the other Pandoras boxes that reasoning opens up. I want to go buy a gun... why do I have to submit to a blanket background check (as I do if I buy a gun from an FFL) per se? If we can't do blanket drug tests for welfare recipients because of the Fourth Amendment how is it ok for us to do blanket background checks for gun buyers without probable cause? We're talking about TWO Constitutional Amendments here (2nd and 4th), no? "Well, there's an exception for the safety of society." Alright, but, again, if we can have an exception for a check in reference to TWO Amendments then why can't we have one in reference to just one? See what I'm saying?

Because the government is just doing a background check, not conducting a Fourth Amendment search. It would be equally unconstitutional if they required you to do a drug test as a condition of buying a gun, or if they required you to allow them to search your house or papers. The federal background check, by contrast, pings a number of databases that are already accessible by the government, and thuse does not involve a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Not only do I agree with mandatory drug testing for welfare receiptients, I'd expand it to cover Government employees. And I'd start at the top. Mandatory testing for the President, Congress and their staffers. Include Governors, Judges and State Legislators as well. And make the testing of these "public servants" random so it's not so easy to escape getting caught.

Why stop there? Why not make drug tests mandatory for everyone?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Your position on drug testing contradicts all you've ever said about individual freedom, liberty and constitutional rights.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"My goal is to have no reliance upon them at all."

"Good for you, then stop driving your car, stop buying food inspected in this country, stop drinking the water, stop flying on airplanes, lock yourself in you house and be free."

And stop posting on the internet.

Just sayin......
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Your position on drug testing contradicts all you've ever said about individual freedom, liberty and constitutional rights."

This thread is another great example of those who claim to always be for freedom, liberty and constitutional rights are really for big intrusive government who sticks their noses in people's lives and takes away their rights.

If a law was passed that said you cannot get a credit card, own a car, or buy property if you own a gun these same people would be screaming from the rooftops about the unconstitutionality of such a law.

I am quickly come to the realization that when people say that they are libertarian or for smaller government they really only mean that when it comes to taxes, the 2nd amendment, or government surveillance under a Democratic president.

Otherwise they are all for a big intrusive government.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 33
Here's what's being misunderstood in all this (and thanks, spl421 for posting this!): Agencies have been doing substance abuse *screening* for a long time. With evidence-based interviews and questionnaires that get into the nitty-gritty. Not just "does the lab say there's TCH in your urine?" but "Let's see how you score on how substance abuse has impacted your life?"

I promise more people are identified by interviews than purchased lab testing. Even without purchased lab drug tests, there were always a few people every month who were sick and tired of being sick and tired, and were willing to try recovery.

And then testing was done as part of a treatment program, where it belongs.

There is no substitute for someone trained in substance abuse/addiction talking with an applicant. Peeing in a cup is just not as good. And it costs more.

What would happen, with mandatory purchased lab testing, is people who really did have addiction/abuse problems might pass such testing. And then their addiction/abuse gets minimized and they sure don't get incentive for treatment.

I became anti-for-profit drug testing after hearing person after person tell me about their drug use...and then they passed a drug test with flying colors. What they couldn't pass is how substance abuse had screwed up employment and relationships. And for-profit drug tests don't screen for that.

In some cases, the company making the money off the tests never see the person being tested AT ALL. They "train" welfare workers to collect and label urine, so the main labor cost--collection--is handed off to taxpayers. Then they pick up and ship off specimens.

That's some driving, some shipping, some record-keeping, some reporting...and then they sock the applicant with the $25-40 bill, which, if negative, gets picked up by the taxpayers again.

That kind of drug testing is a racket, pure and simple, and it makes owners of drug-testing labs rich because working people will take money out of their pocket in order to express anger at the poor. Or at the government that seems to be supporting the unworthy poor.

Maybe the buzz of feeling like you support something that makes people on welfare uncomfortable is its own kind of addiction. I've seen people give up crack with less angst.

cm
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4



Otherwise they are all for a big intrusive government.



esp. watching what you do with your penis.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1




That kind of drug testing is a racket, pure and simple, and it makes owners of drug-testing labs rich because working people will take money out of their pocket in order to express anger at the poor. Or at the government that seems to be supporting the unworthy poor.




Solantic Corp. charges $35 for drug tests and does the majority of drug testing for public employees in Florida, and is the chosen center for the Welfare Recipient Drug Testing Program. Although, you can go to a center of your choice. Rick Scott does not own Solantic Corp. "technically;" his wife does.

A few days before he took office in January, Scott moved his shares in Solantic Corp., a chain of 32 urgent care centers, to the Frances Annette Scott Revocable Trust. Scott co-founded Solantic in 2001 and was involved in its operation until last year. His wife's trust now holds enough stock in the private company to control it.
Tampa Bay Times Friday, April 1, 2011


http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/gov-rick-scott-solanti...

Interesting that they published the article on April Fool’s Day. I guess that’s how Rich Scott views voters.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I am quickly come to the realization that when people say that they are libertarian or for smaller government they really only mean that when it comes to taxes, the 2nd amendment, or government surveillance under a Democratic president.

The funniest line I've heard about this phenomenon recently is "the Tea Party wants government to be small enough to fit in a woman's vagina." Wish I could credit it.

Anyway, you're right about most so-called libertarians. My quick test for them is to ask: "Should heroin be legal?"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
FL Judge Sides With The Beaten-Up

I was expecting this to be related to George Zimmerman.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I love these arguments from the "less gubmint" crowd.
Are all you guys are invested in drug testing companies?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In our little Big city, we have some enterprising youths. They stand around at many different times of day on the sidewalk across from their Section 8 house. The same house that's been the site of multiple police stops over many years. The last call was from two cops, attacked by the kids ages 14 - 17. The mom had 6 kids, the calls were usually for vandalism, loud noise, you name it.

Every kid has a cell phone, and most use them to do whatever across the street.

They are here in the land of us, doing what the stereotypical welfare family does.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Might I suggest an island, if you don't want any part of a government.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0




They are here in the land of us


That pretty much says it all...


They... Us

Like some foreign virus that needs to be excised with a scalpel.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Cabinsmama, you seem like such a lovely person. Every time I read one of your posts you add to my hope, which is generally very small, that most human beings are primarily good.

Happy New Year!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why stop there? Why not make drug tests mandatory for everyone?
---
In our little Big city, we have some enterprising youths. They stand around at many different times of day on the sidewalk across from their Section 8 house. The same house that's been the site of multiple police stops over many years. The last call was from two cops, attacked by the kids ages 14 - 17. The mom had 6 kids, the calls were usually for vandalism, loud noise, you name it.

Every kid has a cell phone, and most use them to do whatever across the street.

They are here in the land of us, doing what the stereotypical welfare family does.


Interesting anecdote. What does it have to do with the subject in hand?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Getting a pilot's license requires testing as well even without probably cause.

This is not correct. Drug testing is not a component of pilot licensing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Maybe I'm just to tainted, but I'm not buying the number, although I get your comparison.

So in other words, facts and evidence have no meaning to "conservatives." Only their own pre-conceptions matter. If you ever wonder why you are not taken seriously by thinking people, its this!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So the government can not look into my finances if I want welfare?
They can not check my references for deductions or income on my taxes?
Or are some searches different than others?
My privacy does not extend to ???
This particular situation is totally voluntary. You do not want the condition you actually can opt out.
That they can check related information for a benefit is pretty standard stuff. The fact that you are disabling your ability to work to a degree would certainly put the ability to check that in line with checking my finances for either a mortgage or welfare.


Which part of "probable cause" is so hard for you wingnuts to understand?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Which part of "probable cause" is so hard for you wingnuts to understand? "

Is probable cause objective or subjective?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



I would say it's the educated/legal, subjective opinion of a judge who can apply the Exclusionary Rule.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Is probable cause objective or subjective?

Probable cause is an objective standard, not a subjective one. See Whren v. U.S.:

We described Robinson as having established that "the fact that the officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer's action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action."

We think these cases foreclose any argument that the constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops depends on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved. We of course agree with petitioners that the Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race. But the constitutional basis for objecting to intentionally discriminatory application of laws is the Equal Protection Clause, not the Fourth Amendment. Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.



https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/517/517.US.806.95-...

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Another objective standard, subjectively determined?

Ken
Print the post Back To Top