Florida requires drug testing for welfare starting July 1st.

[Bill Mattocks]

no that court decision does not make this unconstitutional.
look at it again.

Oh, I see what you're getting at. I thought you were insisting that mandatory drug tests in order to get Welfare benefits was constitutional, and that to me seemed beyond belief, since a federal circuit court ruled EXACTLY that.

You mean it's different this time around. Well, we'll find out. Different courts rule differently.

The difference is that the drug test is done by a third party and the results are never given to the government unless the person voluntarily hands the results over. Since they will know that the results are negative they would not have to hand it over and then not have anyone know they are drug users. This is a different approach to the same thing.
besides the court case you mentioned needs to be relooked at anyways since its a lower court decision that only was upheald because when reviewed had a 6-6 tie and therefor nothing was done.
I think that a court challenge on this will come across quite different this time.

Could be. The 11th Circuit is very different than the 6th Circuit. However, if this comes down as anti-Fourth Amendment, it could well end up in front of SCOTUS.

 

[Scott T]

Yeah, lets take everyone's kids and throw 'em in Foster care. Its wonderful growing up without your parents.
Sean

Well, if the biologics are teaching their healthy kids that collecting welfare is a good thing because the world owes them a living, foster care is most likely the better option.

Also better than living with drug-addled parents.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Well, if the biologics are teaching their healthy kids that collecting welfare is a good thing because the world owes them a living, foster care is most likely the better option.

Also better than living with drug-addled parents.

Foster care has its share of night mares.
Sean

 

[Scott T]

Foster care has its share of night mares.
Sean

Absolutely, if the foster parents aren't vetted properly.

 

[Big Don]

Do you work for the government? I don't recall any federal laws that make drug testing of employees mandatory for private employers who are not government defense contractors.

And let's take it again to its logical conclusion. 45% of the US pays NO taxes at the end of the year. None, zero, zippo. They get government services, though; just like me, and I pay taxes. So let's subject them to drug testing too. I mean everyone who had a net zero tax bill last year. How's about it, Bob?

Don't know about Bob, but, fine with me.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Do you work for the government? I don't recall any federal laws that make drug testing of employees mandatory for private employers who are not government defense contractors.

And let's take it again to its logical conclusion. 45% of the US pays NO taxes at the end of the year. None, zero, zippo. They get government services, though; just like me, and I pay taxes. So let's subject them to drug testing too. I mean everyone who had a net zero tax bill last year. How's about it, Bob?

My last several employers insisted on them. We had 'discussions'.

As to the other part, sure. Test everyone with a net zero tax bill.
Won't include me. I pay taxes. I don't get refunds. I'm a contributor. Tax-payer rather than 'funds loaner at no interest'.

 

[hongkongfooey]

Why don't we make them wear signs on their clothing, like a big yellow patch or something, so everyone knows they are a Welfare recipient?

Do you have a problem with making someone actually earn the assistance they are given? It's pretty low of you to try and equate a person preforming community service in order to collect government assistance to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany.:disgust:

 

[hongkongfooey]

Another option, it seems. So long as the intent is clear - we want people on Welfare to be publicly shamed for being recipients of public assistance, right?

No! I want it so they have to give something back to their communities for the assistance they are provided, instead of sitting back waiting for payday.

 

[hongkongfooey]

The recommendation was to pick up trash by the side of the road. I was responding to this: "Lots of trash to pick up on the side of our roads."

As to workfare itself - it exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare-to-work

The state of Michigan requires it, as do many others:

http://www.michigan.gov/mdcd/0,1607,7-122-1679_1822---,00.html

People who rail against Welfare are commonly unfamiliar with what it is or how it works. They just have the notion of people "smoking Newports" (by the way, how is that not an ethnic commentary?) and "watching Maury."

Before being against something, perhaps it would be good to know what it is one is against. Just sayin'...

And yes, I'm not a fan of Welfare. I'm just a bigger fan of the Constitution, and not so much into shaming people who receive public assistance, and yes, I think that's a component of the anger people who are 'against lazy bums getting Welfare' think should happen.

Just remember idle hands are the Devil's tools. By the way, a whole lot of white people smoke Newports so stop trying to frame my comment as racist.

 

[Flea]

The law is a bad idea. Speaking from my own experience, at my agency we serve a lot of people on the brink of homelessness or already homeless. Public assistance is a crucial and usually indispensable part of getting out of that cycle, regardless of whether drugs figure in one's situation.

In applying for SSI ("welfare") you can usually get an instant answer as to whether you qualify based on your assets. But if you qualify it takes several weeks for that first deposit to come in. That's a big enough burden for most of our clients, but adding another $50 charge (or whatever it is) puts SSI out of reach for most people. Think about it: are you going to sink a precious sum of money into something that might pay off .. several weeks later .. if you need lots of critical things in your life right now? Things like diapers, medication, a bus pass, or groceries if you're lucky enough to have a kitchen? It's a no-brainer how that decision is going to go for most people.

A fee like that is one thing if you have some resources, but for many people it will make the difference between a new life or staying on the streets. Which in turn will put them at a much higher risk for drug use and other crimes. Yet another example of pandering and myopic public policy.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

But, all they have to do is, not do drugs and obey the law to pass.

That can't be that hard can it?

 

[Big Don]

But, all they have to do is, not do drugs and obey the law to pass.

That can't be that hard can it?

Apparently it is just too arduous for some.

 

[Flea]

No, coming up with the testing fee is too much for some. Again, if it came down to baby formula today, or going hungry for something that might pay off several weeks down the road, what's it gonna be? People don't apply for SSI because they have spare cash to throw around. They do it because they're desperate.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Simple solution. Do the tests in real time, no waiting for results.
Pass, here's your money back.
Fail, here put these shiny bracelets on and go with the nice man with a badge.

Hell, I'm sure NY or California would even qualify for bulk rates on the kits.

 

[Mark Jordan]

It's about time and I hope the rest will follow.

 

[Big Don]

Simple solution. Do the tests in real time, no waiting for results.
Pass, here's your money back.
Fail, here put these shiny bracelets on and go with the nice man with a badge.

Hell, I'm sure NY or California would even qualify for bulk rates on the kits.

I don't know if there is an instant test for marijuana, I do know there is one for opiates...

 

[Flea]

Nothing with Social Security happens in real time. Pass, here's your money several weeks later. Your reimbursement may or may not come with your initial check.

Fail, I'm no attorney but don't police have to catch you in the act of drug use in order to make an arrest? have some grudging respect if there were some mention of help offered to those who fail the test, but that's not in the article. No, it's just another brick wall for those who are struggling the hardest to climb over.

Now if FL or any other state mandates drug testing for CEOs whose corporations get welfare, then I'd be all about it. They also would, of course, have to pay for their own tests as well. Fair is fair.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Nothing with Social Security happens in real time. Pass, here's your money several weeks later. Your reimbursement may or may not come with your initial check.

Fail, I'm no attorney but don't police have to catch you in the act of drug use in order to make an arrest? have some grudging respect if there were some mention of help offered to those who fail the test, but that's not in the article. No, it's just another brick wall for those who are struggling the hardest to climb over.

Now if FL or any other state mandates drug testing for CEOs whose corporations get welfare, then I'd be all about it. They also would, of course, have to pay for their own tests as well. Fair is fair.

No, they don't. Convoluted logic coming.
By entering a government facility, you agree to be searched.
By agreeing to this search, it becomes legal.
By applying for aid, you agree to comply with the terms.
The terms say 'you take drug test'.
By -failing- the test, you justify the arrest for -use-, the proof of which is the test results.

Now, Bill will cite Amendment IV.

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.

The key word here is 'unreasonable'.
I personally find it entirely reasonable that someone applying for tax payer assistance be a law abiding citizen.

But the IVth is irrelevant having been removed from consideration by the Patriot Act, which authorized secret courts who authorize secret warrants to allow any search for any reason without any notice and no you can't see it or tell anyone about it.

So, with the 4th removed, regardless if it is reasonable or not, you can do it.



Of course, my personal take is eliminate all drug laws period, and make it a non issue. Legalization would eliminate the black market, remove much of the reason for existence of drug gangs, drastically shrink their profits, and reduce prison populations and court burdens as minor offenders no longer are run through the system. LEO's would also be freed up to handle much more pressing matters than busting someone for a couple of joints.
But that is another long article to post when I don't have this nagging migraine.

 

[Twin Fist]

what the **** is so hard to understand about "we dont want you to BREAK THE DAMNED LAW with the tax dollars we are giving you"????

which idiot moron judge doesnt like that simple idea?

 

[Cryozombie]

I can't wait until the next thread about some government incursion that doesn't only affect poor people when many of you will be furious at the intolerable loss of freedom our government has perpetrated.

4th Amendment. Look into it.

How 'bout this... I'll give two ****s about some crackheads right to free money when my right to Carry a weapon to protect myself from said crackhead is respected.

The Second is just as valid as the Fourth.