Florida mandates drug tests for welfare recipients

[dross]

I don't understand how some people think that testing for drugs is a worse assault on freedom than taking money by force from one person and giving it to another.

 

[rambone]

Somebody else having a party on my dime.

Have the party, more power to them..... don't expect me to
work to pay for it though.

This won't stop them from partying. Alcohol costs money too. How will this address alcohol? And how will one drug test prove that they aren't partying with drugs? Would it be better to test them daily?

Let me introduce you to the renters that live on my block.

A few government checks are keeping a whole band of scum of the earth types in all the crappy food and dope they want. They party all day by the pool while my sorry *** goes to work.

Sounds like welfare breeds bad behavior. I bet everyone on the street would act exactly the same way with this lame-ass law in place. Lets end welfare and quit deluding ourselves with feel-good restrictions. The welfare turds are going to continue being welfare turds, as long as you keep giving them your money.

Theft is theft. I don't feel any better about my money being stolen by people who are stoned or sober. This totally ignores the real problem. And creates new ones, in my opinion.

 

[Armed Eastsider]

I like the idea of the program, but I doubt it will be very effective. Im 22, I could call 10 people right now my age and ask them to how pass a drug test no matter what. These kinds of people know how to get around drug tests.

 

[rambone]

I don't understand how some people think that testing for drugs is a worse assault on freedom than taking money by force from one person and giving it to another.

Why should one assault on freedom beget another?

The bottom line is that the government never establishes Probable Cause of a crime already committed before these searches are imposed. This is on par with setting up checkpoints to frisk people, just because they desire to get to the other side.

 

[dross]

I like the idea of the program, but I doubt it will be very effective. Im 22, I could call 10 people right now my age and ask them to how pass a drug test no matter what. These kinds of people know how to get around drug tests.

I heard that in the Army from so many guys I can't even remember how many. What I DO remember is that every single one of them eventually got busted.

And those companies advertising in the back of High Times don't give refunds.

 

[rambone]

I like the idea of the program, but I doubt it will be very effective. Im 22, I could call 10 people right now my age and ask them to how pass a drug test no matter what. These kinds of people know how to get around drug tests.

Exactly. This law is feel-good nannyism that will condition droves of people that their body samples belong to the government.

 

[mrjarrell]

Do you think it should be unconstitutional?

Yes, I do think it should be unconstitutional. And so do the courts. I also think welfare should be done away with and it should be left in the hands of private charities.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Doesn't matter what the drug warriors want or think. This is going to hit the courts and likely end up just like it has in other states. It will be declared unconstitutional and that will be that.

Being declared unconstitutional, HAHAHA.


Being extended the chance of getting welfare is not a right, it is a privilege, and just like having the privilege of being employed, having to pass a drug test is allowable.

If you think that it has a snowballs chance downunder that it will be declared unconstitutional, present your argument to one of our many fine lawyers on here and see if it holds water. You will find that there will be no bottom in the bucket to hold the water in.

 

[XMil]

I don't understand how some people think that testing for drugs is a worse assault on freedom than taking money by force from one person and giving it to another.

!!!

 

[dross]

Why should one assault on freedom beget another?

I can't see how this is an assault on freedom. If we're going to bestow tax money on someone for doing nothing, why can't we put whatever conditions on that we want?

I can understand saying you don't agree with it as a policy, I can't see how it's an issue of freedom.

 

[rambone]

I can't see how this is an assault on freedom. If we're going to bestow tax money on someone for doing nothing, why can't we put whatever conditions on that we want?

I can understand saying you don't agree with it as a policy, I can't see how it's an issue of freedom.

The assault on freedom comes from the searches performed without Probable Cause. Searches just because they think that they can. The Florida constitution addresses it, as does the U.S. constitution.

Participating in an established government program does not constitute PC of a crime. If this is not an assault on freedom, then neither is searching every child's backpack as he enters a public school.



Florida State Constitution

SECTION 12. Searches and seizures.—The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

[dross]

The assault on freedom comes from the searches performed without Probable Cause. Searches just because they think that they can. The Florida constitution addresses it, as does the U.S. constitution.

Participating in an established government program does not constitute PC of a crime. If this is not an assault on freedom, then neither is searching every child's backpack as he enters a public school.

Florida State Constitution

Wouldn't it be consensual in the case of welfare? There are already certain restrictions in the program. You have to give proof of need, I assume. Aren't you consenting to the drug testing by requesting the welfare payment?

 

[88GT]

Yes, I do think it should be unconstitutional. And so do the courts. I also think welfare should be done away with and it should be left in the hands of private charities.

On what justification do you believe it is unconstitutional? I'm not asking for the sake of arguing. Honest, serious question.

The assault on freedom comes from the searches performed without Probable Cause. Searches just because they think that they can. The Florida constitution addresses it, as does the U.S. constitution.

Participating in an established government program does not constitute PC of a crime. If this is not an assault on freedom, then neither is searching every child's backpack as he enters a public school.



Florida State Constitution

UNREASONABLE is the key word, not just 'a' search, but an unreasonable search. What about this is unreasonable? Never mind that, as dross already pointed out, it's also voluntary.

 

[Kutnupe14]

UNREASONABLE is the key word, not just 'a' search, but an unreasonable search. What about this is unreasonable? Never mind that, as dross already pointed out, it's also voluntary.

It's not unreasonable as long as it is applied to everything. You receive any type of govt assistance, you get tested.

 

[mrjarrell]

On what justification do you believe it is unconstitutional? I'm not asking for the sake of arguing. Honest, serious question.

It's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, as the courts upheld when Michigan tried the same thing. They were struck down. Welfare recipients are no more likely to do, or not do drugs than the rest of the population. If we allow this then where does it end? You willing to **** in a cup to get your unemployment benefits? Or SS? Or even a tax refund? How about a test when you have to buy a gun, since the 4473 asks if you use drugs? You willing to prove it, because some bureaucrat wants it as a condition of a transaction? Marchwinski v. Howard settled the matter. Florida's just wasting taxpayer dollars on this.

 

[mrjarrell]

It's not unreasonable as long as it is applied to everything. You receive any type of govt assistance, you get tested.

I think everyone at all levels of government should be tested every payday. Military, politicians, cops, firefighters, trash guys, whomever. Even the people who get a tax refund or SS check or government pension. That would put paid to this nonsense.

 

[dross]

It's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, as the courts upheld when Michigan tried the same thing. They were struck down. Welfare recipients are no more likely to do, or not do drugs than the rest of the population. If we allow this then where does it end? You willing to **** in a cup to get your unemployment benefits? Or SS? Or even a tax refund? How about a test when you have to buy a gun, since the 4473 asks if you use drugs? You willing to prove it, because some bureaucrat wants it as a condition of a transaction? Marchwinski v. Howard settled the matter. Florida's just wasting taxpayer dollars on this.

The difference in welfare and your examples is that welfare is a needs based program. While I don't agree that it makes good sense, I don't find a natural or Constitutional rights issue here.

I don't understand why it's not reasonable for the taxpayers to require anything they wish of a program like this. I might oppose this on lots of different grounds, but I just can't see how it's a freedom issue.

 

[dross]

What if to get welfare you had to prove that you had:

1. Cancelled your cable.
2. Stopped smoking (if you can afford tobacco, you don't need help)
3. Stopped all other luxury spending

I don't think drugs should be illegal, but why should we pay for someone's help when they can afford recreational drugs?

When you ask to recieve the money taken by force from someone else so that you may live, I don't think it's unreasonable to give up some of your prerogatives.

 

[rambone]

Wouldn't it be consensual in the case of welfare? There are already certain restrictions in the program. You have to give proof of need, I assume. Aren't you consenting to the drug testing by requesting the welfare payment?

UNREASONABLE is the key word, not just 'a' search, but an unreasonable search. What about this is unreasonable? Never mind that, as dross already pointed out, it's also voluntary.

The state wanting my body fluids is not reasonable without a warrant. I don't want to live in a world where these control freaks think that my blood, spit, and **** are all up for grabs. What does a health screening have to do with welfare anyway?

If this is consensual, then so are petdowns as you enter the BMV. Wanting to drive your car on the king's roads is a mere privilege that already has many conditions on it. What's the harm in just one more measly little search?

It's not unreasonable as long as it is applied to everything. You receive any type of govt assistance, you get tested.

There is nothing stopping the government from doing this as a condition of any interaction with them... Except the right of the people from searches and seizures.

Want to carry a gun? First give us your fingerprints.
Want to drive on this road? First give us your breath sample.
Want to go to public school? First let us check your lunch for unauthorized snacks.
Want to get your social security check? First give us your financial records.
Want to attend the Colts' game? First let us search your pockets.
Want to use the internet? First let us examine your hard drive.
Want to participate in Obamacare? First give us your blood.

Its all consensual right? Who cares if there is no active investigation of a crime? What do you have to hide? Nobody forced you to leave your house and interact with the government...

 

[mrjarrell]

What if to get welfare you had to prove that you had:

1. Cancelled your cable.
2. Stopped smoking (if you can afford tobacco, you don't need help)
3. Stopped all other luxury spending

I don't think drugs should be illegal, but why should we pay for someone's help when they can afford recreational drugs?

When you ask to recieve the money taken by force from someone else so that you may live, I don't think it's unreasonable to give up some of your prerogatives.

Why do you assume that all welfare recipients are using drugs? That's what all this boils down to. This law, and its supporters, assume that these people are drug users. Welfare doesn't equal drug use. And they shouldn't have their 4th Amendment rights violated because of someones erroneous assumptions. We presume innocence in this country (or at least we used to) and it had to be proven otherwise, in a court of law. Many people on welfare have paid into the system through their taxes over the years and now someone tries to make the case that this is different than getting a SS check? BS. They're just getting back what they paid in.