Pass drug test to get assistance...???

SmarterthanYou said:
unreasonable search and seizure? unless you want to classify all assistance recipients as suspected drug users.
Click to expand...
yes. targeting a class of ppl, with no resonable cause other then public assistance.

the decision
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...er-to-drug-test-employees-is-unconstitutional
"U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro for the Southern District of Florida said the drug testing of about 85,000 state employees would violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and sided with a motion by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 79, which represents about 40,000 of the employees.

"But because the union didn't address new hires in its motion, the court 'does not reach the issues of whether such prospective employees can be subjected to pre-employment testing and subsequent random drug testing pursuant to the executive order,' the judge said."

The New York Times reports that in a statement Scott disagreed with the ruling.
"As I have repeatedly explained, I believe that drug testing state employees is a common-sense means of ensuring a safe, efficient and productive work force," he said . "That is why so many private employers drug test, and why the public and Florida's taxpayers overwhelmingly support this policy. I respectfully disagree with the court's ruling and will pursue the case on

Scott can't see that retroactive targeting of a clas of ppl is unconstituional, and conflates it with prospective employees.
I wish the judge had ruled out, and futer actions, but this being 21st century America where the "Constitution is just a piece of paper", it's at least a finger in the dyke, until the eventual loss of "presummed innocence" is finally flooded away. a holding action at least.
 
"From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us...ests.html?_r=1

That's interesting. I am totally and completely against this nonsense because the only people on welfare these days are mothers with dependent children. So let's say you find someone who tests positive for pot use...yeah cut off her kid's food money. It's such bullshit, especially for pot, you have got be kidding me. For people who say, oh they're spending tax money on pot, get a clue. Someone on welfare really doesn't have the money for pot, which has gotten pretty damned expensive. I pay 400 an ounce. Do you know what welfare recipients collect? Come on. Put everyone, even welfare recipients have friends and we all pass around joints, BFD.

This policy does nothing but hurt children. It is like when we "sanction" other countries - that is shorthand for "starve their children to death". What kind of people do that?

And now of course it comes out that it's all a big joke anyway, costing the tax payer more money than just paying the damned benefits. Figures. No one ever said righties were smart.
 
STY did you groan me because I didn't add in "and the 4th amendment!"? From now on I am going to add "and the 4th amendment!" to all of my posts. It'll be just for you.
 
Darla said:
STY did you groan me because I didn't add in "and the 4th amendment!"? From now on I am going to add "and the 4th amendment!" to all of my posts. It'll be just for you.
Click to expand...
No, I groaned you because of your complete bullshit statement "because the only people on welfare these days are mothers with dependent children."

I know a handful of families, with MEN as the head of household, that are on public assistance. You should really stop trying to pull facts out of your ass, you only come up with shit.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
No, I groaned you because of your complete bullshit statement "because the only people on welfare these days are mothers with dependent children."

I know a handful of families, with MEN as the head of household, that are on public assistance. You should really stop trying to pull facts out of your ass, you only come up with shit.
Click to expand...

I should have said single parents with dependent children. Are these men fathers?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
yes, fathers. even MARRIED fathers.
Click to expand...

Well most of them are single mothers, I should not have excluded fathers who are raising their kids alone. Married couples on welfare? As long as they have children I believe you. The point is since welfare reform I don't think you can receive any welfare cash assistance (Medicaid and food stamps are different) if you're not a parent. I'd like to see someone who was pulling that off. The larger and most important point is that it's the children who would get hurt if you cut the assistance off.
 
Howey said:
I'm proud to say our esteemed governor of Floriduh, Rick Scott, led the way in requiring drug tests for welfare recepients. A plan that has yielded less than 1% positive tests, cost billions of wasted state money, and made millions for the drug testing companies he's sleeping with. Including his own. The plan was ruled unconstitutional duh! just like most of his other schemes.

Like a similar plan to drug test state employees. Oh, but not high level state rmployees like himself or the state legislature...
Click to expand...

And there it is.
 
Darla said:
Well most of them are single mothers, I should not have excluded fathers who are raising their kids alone. Married couples on welfare? As long as they have children I believe you. The point is since welfare reform I don't think you can receive any welfare cash assistance (Medicaid and food stamps are different) if you're not a parent. I'd like to see someone who was pulling that off. The larger and most important point is that it's the children who would get hurt if you cut the assistance off.
Click to expand...

to date, i've never come across single or childless couples on welfare. and I didn't mention 4th Amendment about your post because your claim didn't really have anything to do with the 4th, although it is indeed the children that would be hurt most, what would hurt them most? being removed from the home because of drug using parents or remaining in a penniless home with drug using parents?
 
ekg said:
Have at it.. why should my state be the only retard-central..




it doesn't work, it's a bullshit scam by the gov to funnel state money into his medical conglomerate since they got the testing contract.. er sorry, his wife's company I mean, it costs more than just paying the damn benefits and it infringes on the individuals constitutional rights..

IOW it's GOP dream.. what more could they ask for?

The irony of the GOP will never end....Screaming for "Rights of the people" except the ones on welfare-fuck them.. Screaming for 'no gov't intrusion/Big gov'r' except when it intrudes on minorities and the poor-fuck them... Screaming about Obama's 'open purse-strings' except when they are funneling money to their own interests...yeah, fuck them.
Click to expand...

Quid pro quo
 
SmarterthanYou said:
to date, i've never come across single or childless couples on welfare. and I didn't mention 4th Amendment about your post because your claim didn't really have anything to do with the 4th, although it is indeed the children that would be hurt most, what would hurt them most? being removed from the home because of drug using parents or remaining in a penniless home with drug using parents?
Click to expand...

You know what, someone smoking some pot is not indicative of a strung out drug freak who can't function or care for children. So I reject the premise of your question.

Further, considering our foster care system, it's a real tough question to answer about ANY case, unless there is physical or sexual abuse. And even then, physical and sexual abuse happens in foster care. I would never want to be the one who had to make that call.

And over marijuana use? You have got to be kidding me. If not me, you're kidding yourself.
 
Darla said:
Well most of them are single mothers, I should not have excluded fathers who are raising their kids alone. Married couples on welfare? As long as they have children I believe you. The point is since welfare reform I don't think you can receive any welfare cash assistance (Medicaid and food stamps are different) if you're not a parent. I'd like to see someone who was pulling that off. The larger and most important point is that it's the children who would get hurt if you cut the assistance off.
Click to expand...

I know several married couples WITHOUT children on welfare.
 
Darla said:
You know what, someone smoking some pot is not indicative of a strung out drug freak who can't function or care for children. So I reject the premise of your question.
Click to expand...
while I am not a MJ smoker, I don't condone it except for medical purposes. However, I am also on the side of decriminalization because I can't fathom the founding fathers giving government power to regulate a naturally occurring weed.

Darla said:
Further, considering our foster care system, it's a real tough question to answer about ANY case, unless there is physical or sexual abuse. And even then, physical and sexual abuse happens in foster care. I would never want to be the one who had to make that call.
Click to expand...
makes two of us.

Darla said:
And over marijuana use? You have got to be kidding me. If not me, you're kidding yourself.
Click to expand...
again, medical use of marijuana, to me, is not an issue. Over use? most likely. But I have to believe that sane and logical parents would spend money on diapers and baby food instead of pot. but that's just me.
 
Darla said:
You know what, someone smoking some pot is not indicative of a strung out drug freak who can't function or care for children. So I reject the premise of your question.

Further, considering our foster care system, it's a real tough question to answer about ANY case, unless there is physical or sexual abuse. And even then, physical and sexual abuse happens in foster care. I would never want to be the one who had to make that call.

And over marijuana use? You have got to be kidding me. If not me, you're kidding yourself.
Click to expand...

It's the same old story. If the Repubs can find any way to not help the poor/needy they will do so. Any reason. Any excuse.
 
RazorX said:
LOL

Billions spent???? Millions made???

Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.


The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.


The state's net loss? $45,780.
Click to expand...

Did the article go on to say how much money was saved, by removing those drug users from the Government teat?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
unreasonable search and seizure? unless you want to classify all assistance recipients as suspected drug users.
Click to expand...

Untrue.
No one is forcing them to apply for the assistance; just like no one forces someone to work for a company that requires drug testing.
In both instances, the person has the ability to refuse and do something else.

And now let's add in that even if I agreed with your premise; just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it "unreasonable".
What is "unreasonable" about it?
 
Darla said:
Well most of them are single mothers, I should not have excluded fathers who are raising their kids alone. Married couples on welfare? As long as they have children I believe you. The point is since welfare reform I don't think you can receive any welfare cash assistance (Medicaid and food stamps are different) if you're not a parent. I'd like to see someone who was pulling that off. The larger and most important point is that it's the children who would get hurt if you cut the assistance off.
Click to expand...

Instead of pointing out that it's the children who get hurt, why aren't you condemning the parents for putting their children in harms way?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Untrue.
No one is forcing them to apply for the assistance; just like no one forces someone to work for a company that requires drug testing.
In both instances, the person has the ability to refuse and do something else.

And now let's add in that even if I agreed with your premise; just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it "unreasonable".
What is "unreasonable" about it?
Click to expand...

government assistance and private employment are two different entities. the 4th Amendment prevents unreasonable search and seizure from government, and there are numerous court cases that require some sort of PC or RAS before a search can be legal. demanding a UA or blood draw before government assistance is completely unreasonable because there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime is being committed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top