Florida mandates drug tests for welfare recipients

[a.bentonab]

Florida recently introduced legislation that would mean drug tests for those applying for welfare. The tests are paid for by the applicant. If failed, the money could be designated to another person on behalf of a dependant child so that the child need not suffer for their guardians drug habit.

The ACLU has jumped in on welfare recipients side saying that this only legitimizes a stereotype that welfare recipients are drug users. Others say it is an unconstitutional search without probable cause.

Earlier legislation which would have made public employees take drug tests was deemed unconstitutional for being an unreasonable search without probable cause.

I am usually pretty left-leaning when it comes to social issues but I see no issue with this newest law and it should have been in place long ago. Taxpayer money shouldn't fund peoples illegal drug habits. I see enough of a difference between this and the public employees that it could stand up in court. I certainly hope it does.

http://m.cnn.com/primary/_onBvh0-i9kqx0WtPe

 

[K_W]

Good idea, bad plan. State will lose for having the recipients pay for it and for the "guilty until proven innocent" factor this creates. The Constitution protects against unreasonable search. Searching a person's fluids just because he is down on his luck or disabled and needs help is unreasonable.

Should have made the tests random. (Or at least "random")

 

[edsinger]

As a condition of getting the help, you should be drug free so I like it and wonder why it hasn't happened sooner. As far as constitutionality, well they don't have to take the test, but if they want the government money, they should prove they are clean.

I have to submit to have the privilege of having a job so I can give tax money to those in need. Fine, they should be clean as I have to be.

 

[Bond 281]

Good idea, bad plan. State will lose for having the recipients pay for it and for "guilty until proven innocent". The Constitution protects against unreasonable search. Searching a person's fluids just because he is down on his luck or disabled and needs help is unreasonable.

Should have made the tests random.

Randomness would have zero effect on the constitutionality of the legislation. Regardless, seeing as how welfare is a privilege, not a right, I don't know that the claim of unreasonable search necessarily is relevant. It's a voluntary program they can opt into, subject to qualifiers. If they need to prove their income to get welfare, is that also not an unreasonable search into their personal finances? Or asking them to provide ID? All these things done to a random person for no reason would certainly constitute unreasonable searches, yet when a person wants to sign up for a government program, I don't see how they would be.

 

[a.bentonab]

Good idea, bad plan. State will lose for having the recipients pay for it and for the "guilty until proven innocent" factor this creates. The Constitution protects against unreasonable search. Searching a person's fluids just because he is down on his luck or disabled and needs help is unreasonable.

Should have made the tests random. (Or at least "random")

I thought about the applicat paying for it too. Supposedly you get reimbursed by the benefits if you pass. I see your point about the "guilty before proven innocent." Random tests would probably have a better chance in court and be more effective too. My guess is they didn't do that because of the trouble of who pays for it and it is probably more expensive that way.

 

[Keyser Soze]

This pisses me off! What an outrage!

Welfare receipts don't have to take this kind of harassment! Having their fluids tested.....the balls the government has!

They should organize a massive boycott of the welfare system! Don't sign up! Refuse benefits! That will show them!

 

[Oliver]

I agree with Bond. It seems to be a voluntary service. One that a person can CHOOSE to apply for or not. Just like when we apply for a loan from a bank. They have the opportunity, and intelligence, to run our credit report. It seems as though the government would at least want to have the intelligence to drug test.

 

[gunman41mag]

Good idea, bad plan. State will lose for having the recipients pay for it and for the "guilty until proven innocent" factor this creates. The Constitution protects against unreasonable search. Searching a person's fluids just because he is down on his luck or disabled and needs help is unreasonable.

Should have made the tests random. (Or at least "random")

If you're taking STATE money, you should have to take a **** test for drugs.

 

[45fan]

I hope for for Floridas sake that it gets through the courts, and possibly saving the state money.

My question is when can we get something like this going in Indiana? Not so much a just to get on welfare, but more along the lines of the military, or many other jobs. Test at random at least once a year, and give authority for the caseworkers to flag individuals for consideration based on behavior and suspicious activity.

 

[K_W]

Let me clarify... I agree completely that those seeking help from the government should not be junkies and those that are need weeded out. But requiring everyone to submit to fluid testing is just asking for an ACLU suit and subsequent overturning by a judge because of "guilty until proven innocent" factor. They (Florida) should have found a better way to detect those few and remove them. i.e. Three strikes you're out, family/acquaintance statements like in foster homes / adoptions, public records, ect...

Three strikes you're out example would be: "Dave" goes on welfare for whatever reason, a year later, he gets busted for drug possession, he gets a strike. He now has to get tested monthly. 3 months later he tested positive, strike 2. Then he gets arrested for stealing, strike 3, no benefits. (Felony, automatic DQ until sentence and probation is completed.)

Statements: If I decide to adopt/foster a kid the agency/state will talk to those who know me and decide from that if I'm a decent person and worthy of the privilege.

Public records: Self explanatory.

 

[gunman41mag]

Let me clarify... I agree completely that those seeking help from the government should not be junkies and those that are need weeded out. But requiring everyone to submit to fluid testing is just asking for an ACLU suit and subsequent overturning by a judge because of "guilty until proven innocent" factor. They (Florida) should have found a better way to detect those few and remove them. i.e. Three strikes you're out, family/acquaintance statements like in adoptions, public records, ect...

Three strikes you're out example would be: "Dave" goes on welfare for whatever reason, a year later, he gets busted for drug possession, he gets a strike. He now has to get tested monthly. 3 months later he tested positive, strike 2. Then he gets arrested for stealing, strike 3, no benefits.

I don't want to see these welfare takers spend the tax payers money on drugs & booze

 

[PatriotPride]

This pisses me off! What an outrage!

Welfare receipts don't have to take this kind of harassment! Having their fluids tested.....the balls the government has!

They should organize a massive boycott of the welfare system! Don't sign up! Refuse benefits! That will show them!

Well knock me over...I stand in amazement. We agree on something

Test them. If I have to be tested to WORK for my paycheck, then those who get a free ride should be tested as well. Fair is fair. Time to hold everyone to the same standard.

 

[E5RANGER375]

hey heres an idea ..... how about we dump welfare all together and people stop having kids they cant afford or go get a ****ing job instead of making others pay for their ****?

oh wait what am I thinking, that would make sense. we cant allow the world to make sense. who knows what might happen.

drugs should be legalized anyways, and no one should get welfare either. there, i fixed 2 problems at once. i ****ing amaze myself sometimes. im gonna go measure my penis, i might get lucky again and have it grow an inch.

 

[orange]

Cost for testing is $35. Refundable if one passes, big whoop. How long until the refund check arrives? I've had times in my life when thirty-five bucks meant whether I would pay my bills on time, or get to work, or eat, and people ask for gov't assistance because they are poor.

The governor Rick Scott is heavily invested in the company that will perform the testing. Link. Smells like conflict of interest.

These are tests for marijuana which can be grown by the user at no cost, and is often shared with friends. Its various metabolites are detectable for roughly a month. Meanwhile drugs like cocaine, like methamphetamine, like opiates, far more damaging and far more addictive, are out of one's system in under a week...and of course the user is free to drink themselves stupid, which is apparently acceptable.

Finally, unconstitutional. Fifth amendment could be argued; self-incrimination. Fourth is being violated. Rifling through someone's personal belongings would be unacceptable as condition of employment or benefits, but examining their body is somehow acceptable? And then of course there's the presumed guilty, prove your innocence thing.

Just another law that makes sense on an emotional level. I mean who DOES want to see public money going to drugs? But it reads to me like another law that's a pure appeal to emotions, falling apart when one looks a bit closer.

 

[PatriotPride]

hey heres an idea ..... how about we dump welfare all together and people stop having kids they cant afford or go get a ****ing job instead of making others pay for their ****?

oh wait what am I thinking, that would make sense. we cant allow the world to make sense. who knows what might happen

Logic...can't have that. You racist.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Logic...can't have that. You racist.

 

[PatriotPride]

Finally, unconstitutional. Fifth amendment could be argued; self-incrimination. Fourth is being violated. Rifling through someone's personal belongings would be unacceptable as condition of employment or benefits, but examining their body is somehow acceptable? And then of course there's the presumed guilty, prove your innocence thing.

Just another law that makes sense on an emotional level. I mean who DOES want to see public money going to drugs? But it reads to me like another appeal to emotions, falling apart when one looks a bit closer.

Wrong. Read the Amendment: "UNREASONABLE SEARCH". You want my money---and it IS MY money, in the form of tax dollars? Don't do drugs, and be prepared to certify that you are clean as a condition of recieving FREE money that is being handed to you out of the public's pocket.

 

[PatriotPride]

 

[E5RANGER375]

you know me in real life, thats not fair

 

[orange]

Wrong. Read the Amendment: "UNREASONABLE SEARCH". You want my money---and it IS MY money, in the form of tax dollars? Don't do drugs, and be prepared to certify that you are clean as a condition of recieving FREE money that is being handed to you out of the public's pocket.

You know, you have a very good point, and that's the only part of what I posted that I'm divided on.

Some dude approaches me at a gas station, says he's starving, asks for money. I tell him no man, but I'll take you to the McDonald's across the street and buy you a meal, I could use a cheeseburger myself. He walks away. Guess he wasn't hungry after all? Maybe I should've offered the liquor store down the street instead?

Someone giving alms is free to put conditions on those alms. HOWEVER..I have a problem with the government doing this as a systemic thing. There will be problems with false positives, or legitimate use of opiates or methamphetamine as prescribed medication. There will be a problem with people switching to harder drugs and turning to crime to support addictions, or turning to crime as they fail and benefits are cut off. Some benefits such as disability are contigent on money already paid into the social security system through taxes, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that being conditional. I have a problem with the fact only SOME drugs being tested for, and others being perfectly acceptable. I have a problem with drug testing in general, consider it insulting and invasive; someone is perfectly free to drink however they want, but is punished for losing control and screwing up while drunk, and I believe this philosophy should be extended to other drugs. Might as well toss this particular objection onto the pile of other reasons why I think it's bad law.

And then, really, what's unreasonable? Once upon a time it was reasonable that a black guy counted for 3/5ths of a person when counting population. Once upon a time it was reasonable you couldn't vote if you didn't own a penis. Just saying reasonable is subject to interpretation and to change. My interpretation says the state may have the power to force me to **** in a cup so it can sniff it, but it doesn't have the moral right.