• Welfare Drug Test Law Ruled Unconstitutional
    103 replies, posted
[release]Florida and Missouri have passed into law, bills that require recipients of welfare to submit to blood, urine or hair sample tests in order to claim their checks. Thirty-six states have bills pending and many Republican dominated state houses are eager to test those that are “living off the generosity of the real taxpayers.” I’ve been told that as the taxpayers, we are, in effect, their employers and as such, demanding drug tests should be no different than those demanded by many employers in the “real work force.” Or so goes the reasoning for these tests. And so goes thousands of posts and comments on websites by conservative supporters with mini-celebrations announcing the states that have passed these testing requirements: “Two down, 48 to go.” Florida won the race for passing the first Welfare Recipients Pee in a Cup law and then became the first to face a challenge on the constitutionality of it. These bills are directed strictly at welfare recipients (aka [I]“the poor”[/I] or the purportedly poor) and exempt those receiving student loans or individuals employed by the government at the local, state or federal level. They also exempt homeowners who claim a deduction for their mortgage interest, which in all fairness, is welfare. (I enjoy that deduction and would like to think that I’m not using a “welfare” feature but all-in-all, deductions of this kind are a federal and state “gift”–aka “welfare” to help homeowners deflect the costs of home ownership.) Additionally, contractors that bid and receive state contracts that are subsidized for many reasons such as helping minorities or women seeking small business loans are also exempt from peeing in the cup. Corporations, although “people” under Citizens United as well as farmers and Big Oil, who receive subsidies are exempt as well. Basically, only the poor seeking welfare assistance are peeing in cups. Numerous polls (or at least those posted by the Republican governors in the states with or contemplating said Welfare Peeing Laws) would indicate that taxpayers are “FED UP!” with the lazy, drug addicted, crack dealing, drug smuggling welfare recipients in their states and want an immediate end to this practice and support drug testing. (This is not an endorsement of Rick Perry’s book and while I understand that there is no bill pending in Texas, a group calling itself “The People of Texas” has been circulating a petition to present to Governor Perry upon his return to the state–said petition demanding drug testing of welfare recipients). Well the day of reckoning has come and Governor Rick Scott has been told to go pee in his own cup. Or words to that effect. According to [B][URL="http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/judge-rick-scott-piss-welfare-drug-test"]Mother Jones[/URL][/B]: [L]ate Monday night, federal court Judge Mary Scriven put a halt to the tea party Republican’s marquee plan, concluding that “the wholesale, suspicionless drug testing of all applicants” for Florida’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the 4th Amendment. The article went on to quote Judge Scriven: “Though the State speaks in generalities about the ‘public health risk, as well as the crime risk, associated with drugs’ being ‘beyond dispute,’ it provides no concrete evidence that those risks are any more present in TANF applicants than in the greater population,” Scriven wrote in her ruling against Florida’s government. “It is not enough to simply recite a governmental interest without any evidence of a concrete threat that would be mitigated through drug testing.” The suit was filed on behalf of Luis Lebron by the Florida Justice Institute and the state’s ACLU. Mr. Lebron, according to the[B] [URL="http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/victory-florida-no-illegal-drug-testing-welfare"]ACLU website[/URL][/B] , wasn’t concerned about testing positive, but did not believe he should have to submit to this invasive test when he qualified for the program. Luis, 35, is a U.S. Navy veteran and a single father who fought to establish paternity of his son. He goes to college full-time and cares for his disabled mother. Recently, his veterans’ benefits ran out; he was living day to day on student loans and grants, teetering on the brink of poverty, so he asked the state of Florida for a helping hand and qualified for food stamps and Medicaid. Luis also qualified for TANF, but there was a catch. Under a new Florida law, Luis had to pay for and pass a drug test before he could get TANF. He would have to give a sample of his urine to a lab and acknowledge that the state would share any negative results with Florida’s Child Abuse Hotline. Luis knew he’d test negative because he doesn’t use illegal drugs, but that wasn’t the point: he also knew that he shouldn’t have to submit to an invasive search to prove it. [B]The USDC opinion[/B], in its entirety, has been made available by the [URL="http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/2011-10-24-ACLUTanfOrder.pdf"]ACLU (PDF)[/URL].[/release] [I]Source: [url]http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/27/the-federal-court-tells-floridas-governor-scott-to-go-pee-in-his-own-cup-law-found-unconstitutional/[/url][/I]
No shit
This is good news. Being poor doesn't mean you should have to submit to invasive examination of your personal life. My state recently passed a law requiring drug tests for anyone seeking unemployment benefits or job search assistance. Way to pick on the people who definitely don't deserve to be in that situation...
Heh. Combat poverty and unemployment by ensuring more people remain in poverty and unemployed.
And taking a drug test as a term of your employment is not? If you're going to use the money i give to the government for your own needs you best be getting tested before you get that check or welfare put in place. I think it is nonsense to have a good amount of people wasting money on drugs when using welfare. The whole system is fucking broke too, the people that need it don't get it and the people who are on it are so lazy they don't bother getting a job. It is pretty sad that I can make more money on welfare then actually working and put in 40 hours a week. It isn't hard to piss in a cup and submit a test. If you're doing drugs while on benefits then it sucks to be you, better get them priorities straight. I can't go about smoking crack or doing weed (I'll lose security clearance if i do) then you shouldn't be while on welfare.
Eh I dunno, anyone paying attention to what I post here knows that socially I tend to lean left, but I can't see the harm in drug testing welfare applicants. [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;33004081]My state recently passed a law requiring drug tests for anyone seeking unemployment benefits or [B]job search assistance[/B]. Way to pick on the people who definitely don't deserve to be in that situation...[/QUOTE] Ok now THAT'S ridiculous. People who are just looking for work shouldn't be harrassed at all.
[QUOTE=MR-X;33004100]And taking a drug test as a term of your employment is not? If you're going to use the money i give to the government for your own needs you best be getting tested before you get that check or welfare put in place. I think it is nonsense to have a good amount of people wasting money on drugs when using welfare. The whole system is fucking broke too, the people that need it don't get it and the people who are on it are so lazy they don't bother getting a job. It is pretty sad that I can make more money on welfare then actually working and put in 40 hours a week. It isn't hard to piss in a cup and submit a test. If you're doing drugs while on benefits then it sucks to be you, better get them priorities straight. I can't go about smoking crack or doing weed (I'll lose security clearance if i do) then you shouldn't be while on welfare.[/QUOTE] Drug tests as a term of employment should be illegal as well.
[QUOTE=MR-X;33004100]If you're doing drugs while on benefits then it sucks to be you, better get them priorities straight.[/QUOTE] It can take months - or even years - to safely and effectively get out of an addiction. [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;33004174]Drug tests as a term of employment should be illegal as well.[/QUOTE] They are in Canada.
Wasn't this proved unconstitutional a long time ago? In a different case?
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;33004101]Eh I dunno, anyone paying attention to what I post here knows that socially I tend to lean left, but I can't see the harm in drug testing welfare applicants. Ok now THAT'S ridiculous. People who are just looking for work shouldn't be harrassed at all.[/QUOTE] I imagine it's fairly expensive to drug test everyone. As a recent study found only ~2% of welfare recipients used drugs, the cost of testing probably outweighs any hypothetical gains. And why should people on welfare be harassed? If you see it as harassment for job seekers, then it's harassment for those on welfare as well.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;33004221]I imagine it's fairly expensive to drug test everyone. As a recent study found only ~2% of welfare recipients used drugs, the cost of testing probably outweighs any hypothetical gains. And why should people on welfare be harassed? If you see it as harassment for job seekers, then it's harassment for those on welfare as well.[/QUOTE] How it is harassment asking for your piss to gain benefits? In the U.S most employers require a piss test as a term of employment. If you can't get a job because you're a crackhead then why should you get benefits?
[QUOTE=MR-X;33004240]How it is harassment asking for your piss to gain benefits? In the U.S most employers require a piss test as a term of employment. If you can't get a job because you're a crackhead then why should you get benefits?[/QUOTE] because i'd rather the crackheads have some money than be completely, inescapably homeless
Why is the government focused on so many "fuck you over" laws.
how will putting thousands upon thousands of drug addicts out on the streets be beneficial for this country? [editline]27th October 2011[/editline] ed: continuation of previous post
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;33004101] Ok now THAT'S ridiculous. People who are just looking for work shouldn't be harrassed at all.[/QUOTE] [url]http://completedrugtestingsolutions.com/blog/workplace-testing/indiana-first-state-to-require-drug-test-for-unemployed-job-assistance[/url] [url]http://www.theindychannel.com/news/28404552/detail.html[/url] It's a twofold thing, first you will lose your benefits if you fail a drug test for a prospective employer, since they decided to take that as a "voluntary refusal of work". Ha. Second, they require you to go in for a drug test in order to participate in ANY state-funded job training programs, like computer classes or resume/interview workshops or any other services to help you find work. All this is targeted at people who DIDN'T CHOOSE to be made unemployed. People who are facing mortgage defaults or eviction or not being able to feed their families as a result of being forced out of work by a shitty economy that wasn't their fault. [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;33004174]Drug tests as a term of employment should be illegal as well.[/QUOTE] Agreed, there should be more regulation to prevent employer intrusion into their employee's lives.
[QUOTE=MR-X;33004240]How it is harassment asking for your piss to gain benefits? In the U.S most employers require a piss test as a term of employment. If you can't get a job because you're a crackhead then why should you get benefits?[/QUOTE] i consider it harassment as a term of employment too.
Honestly you shouldn't need a drug test to get a job I understand the principle behind it, but why not just fire shitty workers? If someone is doing coke or smoking weed but they work like any other employee, what is the issue? At least, what business of the employer is that issue?
i mean i can guess that you're not gonna to go for the whole "we shouldn't treat poor people like criminals" angle so lets take this from a purely pragmatic "legislation like this would be responsible for the biggest increase in the homeless population since the reagan administration" angle
The only time drug testing should be permitted in regards to employment is if the employer has reasonable suspicion that the person is coming to work drunk or high, or if there was some type of at-fault accident. (Drove a bulldozer through a porta-potty, etc)
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;33004221]I imagine it's fairly expensive to drug test everyone. As a recent study found only ~2% of welfare recipients used drugs, the cost of testing probably outweighs any hypothetical gains. And why should people on welfare be harassed? If you see it as harassment for job seekers, then it's harassment for those on welfare as well.[/QUOTE]If your number is accurate, then yes, it wouldn't be cost effective to drug test welfare applicants and that would just defeat the purpose. The only reason I noted the difference between those using just job search assistance and those on welfare is that those on welfare are accepting and living on tax dollars and like any person/entity accepting tax dollars for any reason, are subject to more stringent evaluation by the public than normal. As an example: if it were up to me, any corporation accepting tax dollars for any reason would have to run with open books so the public can ensure their money is being spent in the best possible manner. If they don't like it, they better not accept government contracts. I think when dealing with human beings however, a little more privacy is due (public doesn't need to know if someone is buying adult diapers or something) but I think making sure they're not using illegal drugs is fair.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33004174]Drug tests as a term of employment should be illegal as well.[/QUOTE] This. An employee should be judged for his capabilities, not what he does in his spare time.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;33004284]If your number is accurate, then yes, it wouldn't be cost effective to drug test welfare applicants and that would just defeat the purpose. The only reason I noted the difference between those using just job search assistance and those on welfare is that those on welfare are accepting and living on tax dollars and like any person/entity accepting tax dollars for any reason, are subject to more stringent evaluation by the public than normal. As an example: if it were up to me, any corporation accepting tax dollars for any reason would have to run with open books so the public can ensure their money is being spent in the best possible manner. If they don't like it, they better not accept government contracts. I think when dealing with human beings however, a little more privacy is due (public doesn't need to know if someone is buying adult diapers or something) but I think making sure they're not using illegal drugs is fair.[/QUOTE] But everyone in the country, to some degree, lives on tax dollars. Should you be subject to drug tests in order to use government-funded public transportation or send mail?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33004306]But everyone in the country, to some degree, lives on tax dollars. Should you be subject to drug tests in order to use government-funded public transportation or send mail?[/QUOTE]I think we're jumping a few hoops here. These are not direct-to-the-consumer subsidies: government subsidizes the services as a whole and people still have to pay for them, like bus passes or shipping fees. That is a long way away from living almost entirely on government money. I guess what I'm getting at is people who are living primarily/totally on welfare should be responsible to the tax payer. Now I'm not saying that they should just get cut off if they're on drugs. I think at that point they should be offered rehabilitation and if they accept, they can continue recieving their payments. Only those unwilling to try should be left behind. I don't feel that it is the government's responsbility to help those who don't want to help themselves.
you wanna send timmy to public school? piss in/on this cup/my face. if youre gonna use the system the government has so graciously given you access to, you'd better expect to play by some of it's rules/make it rain
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;33004344]I think we're jumping a few hoops here. These are not direct-to-the-consumer subsidies: government subsidizes the services as a whole and people still have to pay for them, like bus passes or shipping fees. That is a long way away from living almost entirely on government money.[/QUOTE] Being on welfare doesn't itself imply that you're living almost entirely on government money.
[QUOTE=MR-X;33004240]How it is harassment asking for your piss to gain benefits? In the U.S most employers require a piss test as a term of employment. If you can't get a job because you're a crackhead then why should you get benefits?[/QUOTE] Unless it's demonstrably necessary, how is it not harassment? Any arbitrary test could be made up as a requirement for welfare - what makes being clean of drugs at a particular time a necessity for receiving welfare? Crackheads need to live too. They're not somehow subhuman or undeserving of existence just because they're addicted to a drug.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;33004350]you wanna send timmy to public school? piss in/on this cup/my face. if youre gonna use the system the government has so graciously given you access to, you'd better expect to play by some of it's rules/make it rain[/QUOTE]Education is a right in Canada, I wouldn't take that away from anyone. Seriously think about what I'm saying as opposed to spouting off lines like this that are irrelevant to the subject. [QUOTE=Thy Reaper;33004396]Crackheads need to live too. They're not somehow subhuman or undeserving of existence just because they're addicted to a drug.[/QUOTE]I totally agree. That's why I think anyone willing to get help for their addictions should be allowed to recieve benefits. People make mistakes, shit happens... no need to punish people who are already rock bottom. But welfare shouldn't be a haven for drug users just trying to ride the system.
[QUOTE=MR-X;33004100]And taking a drug test as a term of your employment is not? If you're going to use the money i give to the government for your own needs you best be getting tested before you get that check or welfare put in place. I think it is nonsense to have a good amount of people wasting money on drugs when using welfare. The whole system is fucking broke too, the people that need it don't get it and the people who are on it are so lazy they don't bother getting a job. It is pretty sad that I can make more money on welfare then actually working and put in 40 hours a week. It isn't hard to piss in a cup and submit a test. If you're doing drugs while on benefits then it sucks to be you, better get them priorities straight. I can't go about smoking crack or doing weed (I'll lose security clearance if i do) then you shouldn't be while on welfare.[/QUOTE] I remember a study taken recently that the people abusing welfare is pretty much nil. I'll see if I can find it.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;33004284]The only reason I noted the difference between those using just job search assistance and those on welfare is that those on welfare are accepting and living on tax dollars and like any person/entity accepting tax dollars for any reason, are subject to more stringent evaluation by the public than normal.[/QUOTE] Anyone that uses roads, buys food, has a house loan, has children in schools, etc. receives tax dollars indirectly. Why shouldn't they be required to show that they aren't on drugs?
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;33004404]Education is a right in Canada, I wouldn't take that away from anyone. Seriously think about what I'm saying as opposed to spouting off lines like this that are irrelevant to the subject.[/QUOTE] I don't see what's wrong with his argument. Should I be subject to drug tests because I got a tax credit cheque from the government of Saskatchewan last quarter?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.