Duh- FL welfare/drug testing law ruled unconstitutional

[EVT1]

Yet FL continues to waste tax dollars to fight for it, even though it was already shown to be a failure.  Guess that is what happens when the governor has a stake in drug testing companies.

     “The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied,” she wrote. The ruling made permanent an earlier, temporary ban by the judge

     Mr. Scott, who had argued that the drug testing was necessary to protect children and ensure that tax money was not going to illegal drugs, said that the state would appeal the ruling

     State data in Florida also showed that the measure produced few results. Only 108 out of 4,086 people tested — 2.6 percent — were found to have been using narcotics. State records showed that the requirement cost more money to carry out than it saved.

 www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0

[chiver78]

duh is right. wow.

[Tennesseer]

May it continue to be ruled unconstitutional.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Florida passed the measure in 2011, and the case was being closely watched by several other states, including Georgia, which passed similar legislation in 2013 but found it dogged by legal challenges. State data in Florida also showed that the measure produced few results. Only 108 out of 4,086 people tested — 2.6 percent — were found to have been using narcotics. State records showed that the requirement cost more money to carry out than it saved.

Narcotics are not the only drugs out there.  I'd be curious about other illegal drugs, meth in particular.

[jkapp]

Ah yes...the left still fighting against abuses of social programs.  Funny how they care so much to create the programs, but care so little when they are abused, isn't it?  And then they denounce the Tea Party, you know, the ones against government waste and abuse.  So I guess we see what they stand for?

[EVT1]

So the Constitution is all great and wonderful except when it comes to poor people and the 4th amendment.  Tell me again why the Constitution loving GOP patriots are on the other side of this?

Also- are you saying a proven failure of a program (costs more than it saves) is not waste and abuse somehow in this instance?

These people get their knickers in a twist over the NSA or the TSA, but have no problems jamming a probe up a woman or searching the bodies of people without any suspicion.  Hypocrisy as usual.

[EVT1]

Ironic that the king of Medicare fraud is behind this.

[chiver78]

Dec 31, 2013 22:26:34 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Ah yes...the left still fighting against abuses of social programs.  Funny how they care so much to create the programs, but care so little when they are abused, isn't it?  And then they denounce the Tea Party, you know, the ones against government waste and abuse.  So I guess we see what they stand for?

just curious, do you know the rate of "discovery of drug abuse" for this testing? it's been shown in a few studies (I will find later if you need me to do so) that it is much less efficient to drug test for benefits than to screen in other ways.

there's plenty of fraud, but drug testing of recipients is about as efficient as asking flyers to remove their shoes at TSA checkpoints - this shit testing is reactionary. if the reaction to drug abuse was what it is to alcoholism - that it's a disease that should be treated medically - perhaps we'd be in a different place today.

[workpublic]

“The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied,” she wrote

then why do i have to pee in a cup for every damn contract job i get, matter how long it is?

is the difference due to me actually working for the money?

[Tennesseer]

Jan 1, 2014 9:40:49 GMT -5 workpublic said:

“The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied,” she wrote

then why do i have to pee in a cup for every damn contract job i get, matter how long it is?

is the difference due to me actually working for the money?

Work for a  non-pee contractor or a different profession.   Street mimes don't have to pee for pay.  

[Shooby]

Jan 1, 2014 10:05:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 1, 2014 9:40:49 GMT -5 workpublic said:

“The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied,” she wrote

then why do i have to pee in a cup for every damn contract job i get, matter how long it is?

is the difference due to me actually working for the money?

Work for a  non-pee contractor or a different profession.   Street mimes don't have to pee for pay.  

So, why shouldn't this be Unconstitutional as well?  Funny how you can hold 2 completely opposite opinions on the SAME subject.  It either IS unconstitional or it isn't.  We could say the same thing to Welfare recipients.  If you don't want to pee on a stick, then go find another means of support.  So, why should WE then be subject to this?  I am subject to background checks, fingerprinting, child abuse clearances, lab work and on and on for my job.  So, why should it be constitutional to test ME and not them?  I am the one supporting the damn govt. 

[mmhmm]

There's a difference in the two situations, workpublic.  In one situation (yours), you're applying for a job.  You need to be able to do that job well.  The company feels you can't do that job well if you're impaired.  Therefore, they have a right to insure the person they're going to hire doesn't use.  That's insuring their future investment and seeing to it the job they need done will be done.

People applying for welfare aren't applying for work with a private industry.  They're not promising a company they're going to do a job and do it well.  Now, if we actually started insisting those applying for welfare who are able to work actually work, we might just be able to test for drug use.  Otherwise, Tenn has the answer to your question.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 1, 2014 10:25:14 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Jan 1, 2014 10:05:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Work for a non-pee contractor or a different profession.   Street mimes don't have to pee for pay.  

So, why shouldn't this be Unconstitutional as well?  Funny how you can hold 2 completely opposite opinions on the SAME subject.  It either IS unconstitional or it isn't.  We could say the same thing to Welfare recipients.  If you don't want to pee on a stick, then go find another means of support.  So, why should WE then be subject to this?  I am subject to background checks, fingerprinting, child abuse clearances, lab work and on and on for my job.  So, why should it be constitutional to test ME and not them?  I am the one supporting the damn govt. 

You and Workpublic should sue your employers.  I have no problem with you doing so.  If you win, we won't to hear you whine, whine, whine any more.

[Shooby]

So, welfare recipients not wanting to be tested is not "whining". Oh, ok. You can't even have a real discussion without devolving into your usual nastiness.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 31, 2013 22:26:34 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Ah yes...the left still fighting against abuses of social programs.  Funny how they care so much to create the programs, but care so little when they are abused, isn't it?  And then they denounce the Tea Party, you know, the ones against government waste and abuse.  So I guess we see what they stand for?

a) there is no evidence that drug use equates to abuse of social programs any more than, say, NPD
b) drug testing conflates use with abuse, even though over 90% of all drug use is recreational
c) whether a person uses drugs or not is nobody's business, so long as they are not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other.  one might imagine that conservatives could get behind that idea, but it would appear that this is where they side with the nanny state.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 1, 2014 9:40:49 GMT -5 workpublic said:

“The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied,” she wrote

then why do i have to pee in a cup for every damn contract job i get, matter how long it is?

beats the crap out of me.  i consider such policies a total intrusion on my rights, and i would never work for an employer that required such testing.

is the difference due to me actually working for the money?

it is unclear to me why an employer should have say over what you do in your private life, so long as you are not harming the person or property of non-consenting others doing it.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 1, 2014 10:26:12 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

There's a difference in the two situations, workpublic.  In one situation (yours), you're applying for a job.  You need to be able to do that job well.  The company feels you can't do that job well if you're impaired.  Therefore, they have a right to insure the person they're going to hire doesn't use.  That's insuring their future investment and seeing to it the job they need done will be done.

People applying for welfare aren't applying for work with a private industry.  They're not promising a company they're going to do a job and do it well.  Now, if we actually started insisting those applying for welfare who are able to work actually work, we might just be able to test for drug use.  Otherwise, Tenn has the answer to your question.

the problem i have with random drug screening is that it no more proves that you can do a job well than, say, screening for viewers of internet porn.

here is the syllogism that all of this drug testing is built on:

a) drug abuse causes major losses in productivity in the work place
b) employers have the right to ensure that they have productive employees
c) random drug testing can detect drug abuse
d) therefore, random drug use is within the rights of business

can you see where the logic breaks down?

[The Captain]

Because employers can be sued for the actions of their employees.

djAdvocate - do you honestly believe not a single company, such as a trucking company, does not have the right to screen their employees for drug use

[djAdvocate]

Jan 1, 2014 11:28:51 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Because employers can be sued for the actions of their employees.

djAdvocate - do you honestly believe not a single company, such as a trucking company, does not have the right to screen their employees for drug use

of course not.  heavy equipment operators should be totally clean.  that is a TOTALLY different standard tho- one that involves public safety.

here is how the standard breaks down for me:

if an employee can be judged on performance without causing undue harm to himself or others if he is plowed, then that should be the measure he is judged by, not whether he spent his weekend smoking pot and eating cheetos.

if not, the employer has every right to randomly test.  in most cases, there is a LAW which allows for it.  for example, the FAA requires pilots to have their system drug free for 24 hours prior to flight.

[mmhmm]

Jan 1, 2014 11:28:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 1, 2014 10:26:12 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

There's a difference in the two situations, workpublic.  In one situation (yours), you're applying for a job.  You need to be able to do that job well.  The company feels you can't do that job well if you're impaired.  Therefore, they have a right to insure the person they're going to hire doesn't use.  That's insuring their future investment and seeing to it the job they need done will be done.

People applying for welfare aren't applying for work with a private industry.  They're not promising a company they're going to do a job and do it well.  Now, if we actually started insisting those applying for welfare who are able to work actually work, we might just be able to test for drug use.  Otherwise, Tenn has the answer to your question.

the problem i have with random drug screening is that it no more proves that you can do a job well than, say, screening for viewers of internet porn.

here is the syllogism that all of this drug testing is built on:

a) drug abuse causes major losses in productivity in the work place
b) employers have the right to ensure that they have productive employees
c) random drug testing can detect drug abuse
d) therefore, random drug use is within the rights of business

can you see where the logic breaks down?

You're preaching to the choir, dj.  I agree with you.  That's why I said "The company feels ...".  Heck, I'm well aware it doesn't work.  Still, it's the way things are at present, and that provides the answer to workpublic's question.

[grits]

I would much rather states use the money to bring about work/study programs. Also, the states do have the right to require physically able adults to provide some type of community service in return for the benefits they receive. The budgets of states, counties, and cities has been stretched to the limit. There is no reason you couldn't help clean up the roadsides, ditches, vacant lots, and help do work that is going undone. Also, you could volunteer with Habitat for Humanity, and help winterize, and repair homes of the elderly poor.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 1, 2014 11:42:32 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jan 1, 2014 11:28:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the problem i have with random drug screening is that it no more proves that you can do a job well than, say, screening for viewers of internet porn.

here is the syllogism that all of this drug testing is built on:

a) drug abuse causes major losses in productivity in the work place
b) employers have the right to ensure that they have productive employees
c) random drug testing can detect drug abuse
d) therefore, random drug use is within the rights of business

can you see where the logic breaks down?

You're preaching to the choir, dj.  I agree with you.  That's why I said "The company feels ...".  Heck, I'm well aware it doesn't work.  Still, it's the way things are at present, and that provides the answer to workpublic's question.

i know where you stand, mmhmm.  i was just adding my own 2 cents.  happy new year, btw.

[mmhmm]

To you and yours, as well, dj!  I hope you all have a wonderful 2014!

[jkapp]

Jan 1, 2014 11:20:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 31, 2013 22:26:34 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Ah yes...the left still fighting against abuses of social programs.  Funny how they care so much to create the programs, but care so little when they are abused, isn't it?  And then they denounce the Tea Party, you know, the ones against government waste and abuse.  So I guess we see what they stand for?

a) there is no evidence that drug use equates to abuse of social programs any more than, say, NPD
b) drug testing conflates use with abuse, even though over 90% of all drug use is recreational
c) whether a person uses drugs or not is nobody's business, so long as they are not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other.  one might imagine that conservatives could get behind that idea, but it would appear that this is where they side with the nanny state.

1) if they have money for drugs, then why do they need welfare?
2) if they are using the welfare to buy drugs, I don't see that as a proper usage of a social safety net, do you?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 1, 2014 12:26:30 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jan 1, 2014 11:20:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

a) there is no evidence that drug use equates to abuse of social programs any more than, say, NPD
b) drug testing conflates use with abuse, even though over 90% of all drug use is recreational
c) whether a person uses drugs or not is nobody's business, so long as they are not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other.  one might imagine that conservatives could get behind that idea, but it would appear that this is where they side with the nanny state.

1) if they have money for drugs, then why do they need welfare?

if they are addicted, then the answer is really simple.  if they are NOT, why should i care?

2) if they are using the welfare to buy drugs, I don't see that as a proper usage of a social safety net, do you?

i get that you don't want "your money" going to drugs.  fine.  but i think there is a big problem with this argument.  it has to do with micromanaging the affairs of others.  i think that the "no strings attached" approach is far better for a lot of reasons.  would it bother me that someone was buying crack with their food stamps?  of course.  but i don't really see what can be done about it without throwing out the guy who buys one six pack a week, or some seeds from Holland.  and since the evidence that giving welfare recipients the anal probe is totally cost-ineffective, there is no economic justification for it- only a "moral" one.  and since my morals inform me that it is none of my business, this issue disappears for me.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 1, 2014 12:26:30 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jan 1, 2014 11:20:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

a) there is no evidence that drug use equates to abuse of social programs any more than, say, NPD
b) drug testing conflates use with abuse, even though over 90% of all drug use is recreational
c) whether a person uses drugs or not is nobody's business, so long as they are not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other.  one might imagine that conservatives could get behind that idea, but it would appear that this is where they side with the nanny state.

1) if they have money for drugs, then why do they need welfare?
2) if they are using the welfare to buy drugs, I don't see that as a proper usage of a social safety net, do you?

Determine who is spending welfare money on drugs (not just doing drugs as you have no idea how they obtained them) and deal directly with them. Leave everyone else alone.

[sesfw]

May it continue to be ruled unconstitutional.

Why?

Many companies require drug testing for employment, why can't the government require drug testing for hand outs?

I'm all for it ..... and instead of a urine test make it a hair test.  I'm very sure some smart scientist can figure out how to get results of a hair test within 10 minutes (or less).

I also believe people collecting hand outs should be required to work for them.  Roads always need trash picked up, weeds pulled from public parks, graffiti cleaned off, etc.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 1, 2014 14:21:04 GMT -5 sesfw said:

May it continue to be ruled unconstitutional.

Why?

Many companies require drug testing for employment, why can't the government require drug testing for hand outs?

i know this probably sounds funny, but the public sector has higher civil rights protection than the private sector.

I'm all for it ..... and instead of a urine test make it a hair test.  I'm very sure some smart scientist can figure out how to get results of a hair test within 10 minutes (or less).

i am against it, and i am sure you are wrong.

I also believe people collecting hand outs should be required to work for them.  Roads always need trash picked up, weeds pulled from public parks, graffiti cleaned off, etc.

i believe we already have that.  it is called workfare.  if you want more of it, that's fine by me.  but it will leave them less time to find gainful employment, if that is also an objective.

[EVT1]

Jan 1, 2014 14:21:04 GMT -5 sesfw said:

May it continue to be ruled unconstitutional.

Why?

Many companies require drug testing for employment, why can't the government require drug testing for hand outs?

I'm all for it ..... and instead of a urine test make it a hair test.  I'm very sure some smart scientist can figure out how to get results of a hair test within 10 minutes (or less).

I also believe people collecting hand outs should be required to work for them.  Roads always need trash picked up, weeds pulled from public parks, graffiti cleaned off, etc.

To clear this up- it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Constitution does not apply to private companies- only the actions of the government.

You do not have free speech at work, no right to bear arms, etc. etc. etc.

Even government jobs can drug test- IF there is a compelling interest that can overcome the 4th amendment- such as public safety, people that fly planes, carry firearms, etc.

There is ZERO compelling interest- and none has been shown- that would allow the government to bypass the 4th amendment and search your body because you apply for some benefit.  Not going to happen. Nothing but a giant waste of tax dollars by right wing politicians so they can pump up their welfare hating base.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 1, 2014 16:33:41 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jan 1, 2014 14:21:04 GMT -5 sesfw said:

May it continue to be ruled unconstitutional.

Why?

Many companies require drug testing for employment, why can't the government require drug testing for hand outs?

I'm all for it ..... and instead of a urine test make it a hair test.  I'm very sure some smart scientist can figure out how to get results of a hair test within 10 minutes (or less).

I also believe people collecting hand outs should be required to work for them.  Roads always need trash picked up, weeds pulled from public parks, graffiti cleaned off, etc.

To clear this up- it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Constitution does not apply to private companies- only the actions of the government.

You do not have free speech at work, no right to bear arms, etc. etc. etc.

Even government jobs can drug test- IF there is a compelling interest that can overcome the 4th amendment- such as public safety, people that fly planes, carry firearms, etc.

There is ZERO compelling interest- and none has been shown- that would allow the government to bypass the 4th amendment and search your body because you apply for some benefit.  Not going to happen. Nothing but a giant waste of tax dollars by right wing politicians so they can pump up their welfare hating base.

i have to ask you, EVT, out of sheer academic curiosity, do you think that private employers SHOULD be able to behave differently than public ones?