Drug testing for welfare recipients

I'm in favor of this.
Does anyone object?
If so, why?

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-01/news/29627456_1_aclu-objects-welfare-recipients-rick-scott
Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs law requiring welfare recipients to take drug test, ACLU objectsBY ALIYAH SHAHID
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free.
Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill on Tuesday that requires benefit recipients to undergo drug testing.
Applicants for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program 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 would be banned from receiving the funds for three years.
"While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Scott said. "This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars."
If welfare candidates pass the drug screening, they'll be reimbursed for the test.
The legislation instantly came under a barrage of criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union and several of the Sunshine State's Democrats. They argued the bill is an invasion of privacy.
"The wasteful program created by this law subjects Floridians who are impacted by the economic downturn, as well as their families, to a humiliating search of their urine and body fluids without cause or even suspicion of drug abuse," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

Works for me.

If I need a drug test to get paid to do a job, they should be subject to one to receive $$.

KarenT wrote:

Works for me.

If I need a drug test to get paid to do a job, they should be subject to one to receive $$.

Yeah, well I respectfully disagree. Just because private industry does something that is questionable is not a justification for the government to engage in behavior that is contrary to the Constitution of the United States

happy jack wrote:

That's pretty much the way I see it, too.
The ACLU frames it as an invasion of privacy, but that is a bogus argument. I maintain that if someone wants free money from me, they get it on my terms or not at all.

Really? What exactly is "bogus" about the 4th Amendment?

Quote :

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.

There is no question in my mind that any effort by the government to impose drug testing on citizens without probable cause is clearly unconstitutional.

They can refuse the drug test.

KarenT wrote:

They can refuse the drug test.

Which excludes them from applying for benefits.
This is clearly unconstitutional.

So what about other drug testing programs required by the government? Are they also unconstitutional, in your opinion?

Robin Banks wrote:

So what about other drug testing programs required by the government? Are they also unconstitutional, in your opinion?

Exactly what "other drug testing programs" are you talking about? Could you be more specific?

The DOT requires CDL license holders to be tested.

Robin Banks wrote:

The DOT requires CDL license holders to be tested.

That's a public safety issue.

Why?

Robin Banks wrote:

Why?

You're kidding,right? Semi trucks weighing thousands of pounds,filled with fuel,barreling down the highway or trains and buses loaded with innocent passengers. You don't think it's a good idea to make sure the operators are not using drugs?

I wonder how these same people who think it's a good idea testing welfare recipients for drugs without any probable cause, would feel about having to get drug tested themselves before getting a drivers license issued to them.

What if the only penalty for failing a drug test is you don't get this month's $$?

KarenT wrote:

What if the only penalty for failing a drug test is you don't get this month's $$?

So they should be tested monthly?

And of course, alcoholics get a pass.

Artie60438 wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

Why?

You're kidding,right? Semi trucks weighing thousands of pounds,filled with fuel,barreling down the highway or trains and buses loaded with innocent passengers. You don't think it's a good idea to make sure the operators are not using drugs?

I wonder how these same people who think it's a good idea testing welfare recipients for drugs without any probable cause, would feel about having to get drug tested themselves before getting a drivers license issued to them.

So by your reasoning if you have a CDL and don't drive a semi or a bus then you should not be required to get tested?

Robin Banks wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

Why?

You're kidding,right? Semi trucks weighing thousands of pounds,filled with fuel,barreling down the highway or trains and buses loaded with innocent passengers. You don't think it's a good idea to make sure the operators are not using drugs?

I wonder how these same people who think it's a good idea testing welfare recipients for drugs without any probable cause, would feel about having to get drug tested themselves before getting a drivers license issued to them.

So by your reasoning if you have a CDL and don't drive a semi or a bus then you should not be required to get tested?

Where did I say that?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Really? What exactly is "bogus" about the 4th Amendment?

Quote :

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.

There is no question in my mind that any effort by the government to impose drug testing on citizens without probable cause is clearly unconstitutional.

There is nothing bogus about the 4th amendment - it just doesn't apply in this case. The government is not imposing "drug testing on citizens without probable cause".

That's exactly what the government is doing in this case.

happy jack wrote:

The government is merely making drug-testing a condition in the furtherance of receiving free money from one's fellow taxpayers, a privilege which said citizen may decline at any time without penalty. As the receipt of welfare is not a constitutional right, there is nothing unconstitutional about this proposal.

All citizens who have an economic need for these benefits do indeed have a right to them.

happy jack wrote:

If a potential welfare recipient cannot pass a drug test in order to obtain welfare, it follows then that that person would not be able to pass a drug test in order to gain employment, either.

That statement assumes that the "potential welfare recipients" are already presumed guilty of using drugs. Where's the "probable cause" for that presumption? It's frickin' important, because we're talking about suspending the protections of the 4th Amendment.

happy jack wrote:

If the true purpose of welfare is, as many claim, a safety net and a temporary means of assistance for someone who is down on his luck, then those who make that claim must also acknowledge that someone who continues to have drugs in his system is not someone who is seriously seeking employment, but rather is someone who merely wants to remain on welfare as long as he can possibly get away with it.

I see. So not only is your opinion tainted by your assumption that those who receive welfare are a bunch of drug users, but also by your sick stereotypical view of welfare recipients as a bunch of "layabouts" who have no interest in bettering themselves.

Sounds like "collective punishment" to me. Sorry, but I can't sign onto any plan to take away constitutional rights from fellow citizens just because they are not as fortunate as me. If this "law" was based upon probable cause, then it would most likely be constitutional. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

You can try to rationalize this all you want, but any way you slice it, what you're really advocating is the elimination of the 4th Amendment rights of the less fortunate among us.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I see. So not only is your opinion tainted by your assumption that those who receive welfare are a bunch of drug users, but also by your sick stereotypical view of welfare recipients as a bunch of "layabouts" who have no interest in bettering themselves.

I never said anything of the sort, and you know it.
I very simply and clearly maintain that those who are drug users and layabouts should not demand the right to use drugs and lay about while using my money.

No, actually what you said was that anyone who needs public assistance must be willing to waive their "bogus" 4th Amendment rights in order to be eligible to receive benefits. You make no distinction between those who are drug users and those who are not drug users. You specifically said that if "they" want "your" money, then it must be on your terms. You've even gone so far as to say that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to those seeking public assistance.

As I said, if there is probable cause to suspect that a welfare recipient is a drug user, then that is an entirely different question.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

I wonder how these same people who think it's a good idea testing welfare recipients for drugs without any probable cause, would feel about having to get drug tested themselves before getting a drivers license issued to them.

[bAny licensed driver is already liable to be subjected to a mandatory intoxicating substance test every time he gets behind the wheel of a car (or be penalized for refusal to submit, depending on the state). All it takes is the whim of a police officer to put that into motion. If you happen to zig-zag while fumbling with the radio dial, that is probable cause
So, if you do not want to be susceptible to a test for any sort of impairment, don't get behind the wheel of a car, and don't stand in the welfare line.[]

Once again you miss the point. In your scenario the only people that would be tested are those pulled over for probable cause. I'm talking about having to pass a drug test in order to obtain a drivers license the same way you want people applying for public aid to do.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Just because private industry does something that is questionable is not a justification for the government to engage in behavior that is contrary to the Constitution of the United States

The government already engages in such behavior. Try getting a job of any substance in virtually any facet of the government - municipal, county, state, or federal - without first having to pass a pre-employment drug test.

So what? Those practices are also being challenged all over our country. Coincidentally, the latest challenge is also in Florida.

Florida governor retreats on worker drug tests

Quote :

Florida Governor Rick Scott has suspended an order requiring all state workers undergo drug testing, pending resolution of a lawsuit that called the tests an illegal search of workers' bodies.
The Republican governor quietly signed the suspension memo on June 10 but it received little public notice until the American Civil Liberties Union obtained and circulated copies on Thursday.

The ACLU sued Scott last month in a federal court. It said mandating drug tests for workers who were not suspected of wrongdoing violated their constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizure, and robbed them of due process.

I really don't understand how any American who has even a basic knowledge of the Constitution can support the implementation of any of these practices. Any argument that uses "I have to submit to drug testing, so everyone else should too" as some sort of "justification" for abusing the rights of others totally misses the point.