- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 2,166
- Reaction score
- 1,692
- Location
- Southeastern USA
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
A Florida law requiring people seeking welfare benfits to take a drug test has been blocked by a US federal court.
The judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional and infringes a ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
Since the law was introduced in July, nearly 1,600 people have refused to take the test, according to reports.
Under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families scheme those who pass receive $180 (£113) a month, while a family of four receives $364 a month.
While 32 people have failed the test, some 7,000 have passed since the testing began in mid-July, the Associated Press reports......
Judge Mary Scriven ruled on a complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of Luis Lebron, a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who applied for the welfare benefits but would not take the drugs test. He applied for benefits while attending university and cares for his four-year-old son and disabled mother./QUOTE]
BBC News - Florida welfare benefit drug test law blocked
Guess this is finally going to start winding its way toward the SCOTUS.
A Florida law requiring people seeking welfare benfits to take a drug test has been blocked by a US federal court.
The judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional and infringes a ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
Since the law was introduced in July, nearly 1,600 people have refused to take the test, according to reports.
Under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families scheme those who pass receive $180 (£113) a month, while a family of four receives $364 a month.
While 32 people have failed the test, some 7,000 have passed since the testing began in mid-July, the Associated Press reports......
Judge Mary Scriven ruled on a complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of Luis Lebron, a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who applied for the welfare benefits but would not take the drugs test. He applied for benefits while attending university and cares for his four-year-old son and disabled mother./QUOTE]
BBC News - Florida welfare benefit drug test law blocked
Guess this is finally going to start winding its way toward the SCOTUS.
Funny how if you want to get money from the tax payers by working for it IE a government job it is not unconstitutional for them to require you to pee in a cup.But if you want to get money from the tax payer and not do anything to earn it then its unconstitutional to require you to pee in a cup.
I didn't know a corporation has the ability to urinate.Or if you're a huge corporation and get a lot of subsidies and/or tax write offs. They don't make you pee for that one either.
I didn't know a corporation has the ability to urinate.
BTW - do you have to pee in a cup to take a home mortgage deduction, charitable gift deduction, standardized deductions, etc.? Why should a company have to pee in a cup to take a legal tax deduction?
I am just kidding, I get it, you hate capitalism.
Or if you're a huge corporation and get a lot of subsidies and/or tax write offs. They don't make you pee for that one either.
Sure the CEO and BoD and Stock Holders do.Be an intelligent investor and management will not piss on you.
Should the individual be required to pee in a cup to take a legal aid package?
No, legal counsel is provided for in the Constitution....you know, one of those legal rights things.
How am I wrong?Well that was a stupid and completely worthless statement.
I didn't know a corporation has the ability to urinate.
BTW - do you have to pee in a cup to take a home mortgage deduction, charitable gift deduction, standardized deductions, etc.? Why should a company have to pee in a cup to take a legal tax deduction? I am just kidding, I get it, you hate capitalism.
Be an intelligent investor and management will not piss on you.
No, legal counsel is provided for in the Constitution....you know, one of those legal rights things.
How am I wrong?
Funny how if you want to get money from the tax payers by working for it IE a government job it is not unconstitutional for them to require you to pee in a cup.But if you want to get money from the tax payer and not do anything to earn it then its unconstitutional to require you to pee in a cup.
Requiring people to get drug testing in order to receive life saving benefits is entrapment because it is forcing them to choose between survival and foregoing their 4th Amendment rights. Given the economic problems and the huge unemployment rate, I find this especially unethical.
The Federal judge got it right. FA has no business intruding into people's lives this way, especially since the number of incidents involving drug abuse is so small.
You give the government an inch and they take a mile. No more.
Funny how if you want to get money from the tax payers by working for it IE a government job it is not unconstitutional for them to require you to pee in a cup.But if you want to get money from the tax payer and not do anything to earn it then its unconstitutional to require you to pee in a cup.
Apples and Oranges.
But nice try.
I don't think either one is right.Funny how if you want to get money from the tax payers by working for it IE a government job it is not unconstitutional for them to require you to pee in a cup.But if you want to get money from the tax payer and not do anything to earn it then its unconstitutional to require you to pee in a cup.
It's a feel good solution. It keeps people like us debating stuff like this while getting a pass on the real stuff they can't solve.This whole thing was a ruse to begin with. All it was doing was putting a band aid on a problem that needs surgery. Like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty/Great Society has failed epically, the only solution to the welfare problem is nixing it entirely.
The difference, IMO, is public vs private. While I question the legitimacy of "guilty until proven innocent" to begin with, I can (grudgingly) accept that private business can do it, but believe that the government should never be allowed to adopt that mindset.Not to mention that many private-sector employers require drugs testing.
I have to say that I am not terribly inclined to defend drug testing as a practice, outside of any credible, probable cause to believe that a given person is using drugs and by doing so, creating a danger to others.
But there is something very twisted about the idea that one can be required to submit to drug testing as a condition of earning a living through honest work, but not as a condition of living as an unproductive parasite at taxpayer expense.
That's not helpful. Could you expand on that and explain *why* it's apples and oranges?Apples and Oranges.
But nice try.
The myth that there are a lot of drug addicts on welfare has been debunked. You can do a simple search on DP to see the thread I posted citing a study that proves this.
Requiring people to get drug testing in order to receive life saving benefits is entrapment because it is forcing them to choose between survival and foregoing their 4th Amendment rights. Given the economic problems and the huge unemployment rate, I find this especially unethical.
The Federal judge got it right. FA has no business intruding into people's lives this way, especially since the number of incidents involving drug abuse is so small.
You give the government an inch and they take a mile. No more.
It's a feel good solution. It keeps people like us debating stuff like this while getting a pass on the real stuff they can't solve.
Your first sentence questions why it should matter to people, implying that it shouldn't, then you go on to explain why it should matter to people. Which is it?I don't see why it would matter to people. It's not unconstitutional. No one is forcing people to provide urine, they are setting guidelines for assistance. If your not on drugs, urinating in a cup is a small price to pay to feed your children. Rather than being upset that they have to follow guidelines to get the free money they should be grateful that they are getting money/food/rent/utilities all for nothing. Requiring welfare recipients to be drug free is just plain smart. Chances of getting off of welfare are going to be much better if your not smoking meth every afternoon.
Translation: :dohYou can dwell over the wording if you'd like. I don't play that game. What I said is pretty clear. If your having problems with comprehension, please consult a local community college.
I heard on the radio that it wasn't tha straightforward. Apparently, the results are not treated as medical records and are forwarded to the police.Funny how if you want to get money from the tax payers by working for it IE a government job it is not unconstitutional for them to require you to pee in a cup.But if you want to get money from the tax payer and not do anything to earn it then its unconstitutional to require you to pee in a cup.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?