"If Floridians want welfare".....

[Beco]

I-95 and I-75 will be jammed for the next month or so with druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida , because this is the first state in the union to require drug testing to receive welfare!

Good for Florida! In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free."

Applicants must pay for the drug test, but are reimbursed if they test drug-free. Applicants who test positive for illicit substances, won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment. Those who fail a second time will be banned from receiving funds for three years!

Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional.

How is this unconstitutional? It's a legal requirement that every person applying for a job has to pass drug tests in order to get the job, why not those who receive welfare?

 

[Sean]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article IV of a rather famous US document.

 

[bronzeage]

I-95 and I-75 will be jammed for the next month or so with druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida , because this is the first state in the union to require drug testing to receive welfare!

Good for Florida! In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free."

Applicants must pay for the drug test, but are reimbursed if they test drug-free. Applicants who test positive for illicit substances, won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment. Those who fail a second time will be banned from receiving funds for three years!

Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional.

How is this unconstitutional? It's a legal requirement that every person applying for a job has to pass drug tests in order to get the job, why not those who receive welfare?

How much you want to bet the drug testing labs are owned by relatives of Florida politicians?

 

[unregistered]

 

[SeaDaddy1]

I think that's fair.

 

[mercury14]

How much you want to bet the drug testing labs are owned by relatives of Florida politicians?

Rock Scott and his wife own the controlling share of Solantec, the drug testing company doing Florida's welfare recipient drug testing. He gets rich while having the rest of his state's employees take a 4-year freeze on pay.

 

[mercury14]

I-95 and I-75 will be jammed for the next month or so with druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida , because this is the first state in the union to require drug testing to receive welfare!

Good for Florida! In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free."

Applicants must pay for the drug test, but are reimbursed if they test drug-free. Applicants who test positive for illicit substances, won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment. Those who fail a second time will be banned from receiving funds for three years!

Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional.

How is this unconstitutional? It's a legal requirement that every person applying for a job has to pass drug tests in order to get the job, why not those who receive welfare?

College kids with student loans are getting government benefits too. Should we test them for drugs as well? Why not be consistent and take away their ability to pay tuition if they smoked a joint?

 

[VegasBornWolf]

Counterpoint

Your argument is that Article IV of the Constitution would see this as "unreasonable". However, I don't believe it is unreasonable at all to require those requesting assistance to provide reasonable evidence they are not using that assistance to support or supplement an illicit drug habit.

Additionally, this is not a mandatory search. No one is being stopped on the streets and being subjected to random drug testing. It is a condition of requesting assistance. Don't want to provide the sample, don't ask for the money.

I believe the Supreme Court will uphold this decision, based on the simplified facts I've mentioned, but time will tell, because it's definitely going to be challenged.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article IV of a rather famous US document.

 

[SeaDaddy1]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article IV of a rather famous US document.

True, but that's not the case here. If people are asking for government assisted living, then they should be subject to limited scrutiny. Search and seizure is not the issue here.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Wasn't this in 2011, and found unconstitutional in 2012.


Besides being found to cost more to do the testing than was saved?

 

[mercury14]

Why are taxpayer dollars being used to drug test American citizens who aren't suspected of using drugs?

 

[VegasBornWolf]

Rock Scott and his wife own the controlling share of Solantec, the drug testing company doing Florida's welfare recipient drug testing. He gets rich while having the rest of his state's employees take a 4-year freeze on pay.

Now, I do have an issue with the conflict of interest here, and if a Florida Politician is voting for this bill and has financial interests in any company that would benefit from it's passage, either that company be excluded from consideration, or that politician must sequester himself from the vote.

 

[evesdream]

It only protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

Testing employees and poor people for no reason seems Byzantine to me. Then again I wasn't raised in the Land of the Free and am not accustomed to that much corporate control of my person.

 

[SeaDaddy1]

Why are taxpayer dollars being used to drug test American citizens who aren't suspected of using drugs?

I don't like it anymore than you do, but I think it's better than the long term costs of supporting people's drug habits in the long run at taxpayer's expense. Of course, not everyone who has had to rely on welfare is a drug addict, but there's too much of that shit going around.

 

[VegasBornWolf]

Why are taxpayer dollars being used to drug test American citizens who aren't suspected of using drugs?

Good question. As it states in the article, the individual is responsible for paying for the test initially, and only if they are found to be in compliance, are they reimbursed. And it's not about "suspected", it's about random. Employees all over the US are subject to random testing every day, not because they are "suspected" of using drugs, but to safeguard against it. I was subject to random testing for 23 years while I served in the military (drawing a government check) and never had a fear of a test coming back positive, because I never used drugs. I knew the risks and the consequences, should I ever get caught. Why should that same expectation be put on those requesting government aid?

Now that I've played Devil's Advocate, though..let me put this forward. Why don't we shut down the federal welfare system completely and return that money to the taxpayers and allow private charities to tend to the poor, needy, and drug abusing segment of society. I would much rather donate money to my LOCAL shelter that provides aid and care to those in my community, rather than my hard earned money going to support people in other areas. Take care of our own, in our own backyard. Just a thought

 

[mercury14]

Testing employees and poor people for no reason seems Byzantine to me. Then again I wasn't raised in the Land of the Free and am not accustomed to that much corporate control of my person.

In the eyes of many conservatives, black people - especially the poor ones - are automatically suspected of being criminals and drug abusers. That's the only rationale they have. Poor black people are probably criminals.

 

[doctor_insanus]

This is just another attempt to make the knuckle-draggers happy. It's already been established that the percentage of welfare recipients on drugs is miniscule, and all that testing is going to cost the state millions.

The only benefit from this will go to Rick Scott and his cronies.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

I don't like it anymore than you do, but I think it's better than the long term costs of supporting people's drug habits in the long run at taxpayer's expense. Of course, not everyone who has had to rely on welfare is a drug addict, but there's too much of that shit going around.

That's not really happening though. I'm sure a small amount of welfare recipients are really heavy addicts and that's not good. But if someone buys $20 of weed per month it's not any different than buying a few beers. Why should that disqualify anyone? Is smoking pot (now legal in two states and soon to be legal in many more) really that bad?

Secondly, college kids smoke pot and buy vodka. And their government student loans support that habit. So I think you need to be consistent and advocate for every single college student to be regularly tested as well.

 

[mercury14]

Trail lawyers and legal liability guide policy in the United States. Everyone in the country is put upon daily by an ever increasingly oppressive regulatory administrative state. Shit runs downhill and those folks are on the bottom.

Nothing you said justifies taxpayer-funded tests for citizens who aren't suspected of using drugs.

 

[VegasBornWolf]

In the eyes of many conservatives, black people - especially the poor ones - are automatically suspected of being criminals and drug abusers. That's the only rationale they have. Poor black people are probably criminals.

While that may be part of the issue...you have to consider the overall statistics and what the welfare state has become. Those who are in poverty, and have become dependent on aid are statistically less inclined to take positive action to change their circumstances. And the percentage of those on welfare in the US is 4%. 40 states have welfare programs that pay more than a minimum wage job. Why the hell would I work if I can get more government money by not working? Incentive to get off of welfare is probably one of the biggest problems.

Oh..and by the way...just for the record:

Percentage of welfare recipients that are white: 38.8%
Percentage of welfare recipients that are black: 39.8%

Not a statistically significant difference.

 

[AvgGuy01]

.......

 

[JohnnySavage]

November 2, 2012:

Last year, Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed a law requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening. At the time, he said it was "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," CNN reports. Florida was the first state to pass such a requirement.

A year later, data released by the state showed that the law resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to The New York Times.

Not that it matters; the requirement was enjoined last year.

This week, a three-judge panel from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether a preliminary injunction against drug test requirement should remain in place.

The Florida law requires welfare applicants to pay for and pass a drug test to receive benefits through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. A federal judge enjoined the drug testing requirement last October, finding that it might violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, The Associated Press reports.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is challenging the law, claims that drug testing is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and makes unfair and baseless assumptions that welfare recipients use drugs at a higher rate than the rest of the population. The state maintains that drug tests do not amount to unreasonable searches because welfare applicants consent to the test by applying for the program.

The appellate court's ruling on the injunction will be based on the ACLU's likelihood of success in its constitutional claim, and the likelihood of irreparable harm from allowing the state to continue enforcing the testing law. Regardless of the Eleventh Circuit's ruling on the preliminary injunction, this case will be in court for a long time to come. The district court -- and, no doubt, the appellate court -- still have to decide the ultimate issue: Whether or not drug testing for welfare applicants violates the Fourth Amendment.

For now, it looks like the ACLU is prepared to remain a fixture on Florida federal court dockets: Hours after arguing against the Florida welfare drug screening requirement, the ACLU of Florida announced a separate federal lawsuit in Pensacola, Fla. on behalf of a city employee fired for refusing to take a random drug test. The lawsuit challenges a city ordinance requiring city employees to submit to random urine tests in order to keep their jobs, Sunshine State News reports.


Beco is about 2 years behind in his news reading.

 

[AvgGuy01]

........

 

[unregistered]