Duh- FL welfare/drug testing law ruled unconstitutional

[jkapp]

Jan 1, 2014 12:45:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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

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.

Well, there's a simple fix to that...take the cost of the test out of the next welfare check. That makes it cost-neutral...problem solved.

[jkapp]

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.

And there's nothing in the constitution that requires the government to pay any such benefit. But if the government decides to do so, then I believe there should be at least SOME protections in how well that money is used. I don't see any benefit in giving people money to buy drugs, booze, lottery tickets, or any other such luxury/illegal bullshit.

[EVT1]

Jan 1, 2014 17:51:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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

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?

Well there is no small discussion    I think employees should be protected by law from unreasonable searches by employers- but there is no Constitutional reason to do so, so it will be seen as an intrusion into freedom of contract, etc.

I say big deal- so is FSLA and shitload of other laws governing the employer/employee relationship.

And in the end we are back to politics with it- Phil and his free speech for example.  One particular pickle the right wing got itself in the middle of is the right of an employee to have guns vs. the right of an employer on private property to ban them, and even require employees to submit to searches of vehicles- which a lot do- on condition of employment.

So what you have as a result is some confused tea party member that will scream about the 2nd and 4th amendment because private company X bans guns in employee cars, yet back drug testing someone that applies for food stamps- which is 100% ass backwards.

It will never fly- and if you want to read what a real Constitutionalist should sound like on drug testing read some of Scalia's dissents.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I'm glad to hear this.  I am not in favor of drug testing, 'community service', or any of these other fascist state welfare 'reforms'.  I'm for phasing welfare OUT altogether.  I think we ought to set our sights on the goal of ending welfare entirely within two decades.  Within 5 years- no new cases.  A lifetime limit of two years- then out.

[workpublic]

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.

unfortunately i don't have that academic luxury. i live in the real world. no pee. no work(1984 was a long time ago. big brother's policies are now fully ingrained in our society). 

[djAdvocate]

Jan 1, 2014 20:55:22 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jan 1, 2014 12:45:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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.

Well, there's a simple fix to that...take the cost of the test out of the next welfare check. That makes it cost-neutral...problem solved.

you really don't get it, do you?  the cost of doing the test on EVERYONE is greater than the savings for kicking positives off the roles.  your idea doesn't save anything, and deprives the 97% that don't do drugs of their right to privacy.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2014 8:18:26 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I'm glad to hear this.  I am not in favor of drug testing, 'community service', or any of these other fascist state welfare 'reforms'.  I'm for phasing welfare OUT altogether.  I think we ought to set our sights on the goal of ending welfare entirely within two decades.  Within 5 years- no new cases.  A lifetime limit of two years- then out.

it might surprise you to learn that i have no issue with that idea, except in cases where the government caused the disability.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2014 9:24:56 GMT -5 workpublic said:

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.

unfortunately i don't have that academic luxury. i live in the real world. no pee. no work(1984 was a long time ago. big brother's policies are now fully ingrained in our society). 

i don't believe you.  sorry, i just don't.  mandatory drug testing is only done by 84% of employers, and random drug testing only by 39%.  you can find one that doesn't require it, if it is a priority for you.

which brings me to another point: you can make your own reality, broham.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 1, 2014 21:38:18 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jan 1, 2014 17:51:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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?

Well there is no small discussion    I think employees should be protected by law from unreasonable searches by employers- but there is no Constitutional reason to do so, so it will be seen as an intrusion into freedom of contract, etc.

I say big deal- so is FSLA and shitload of other laws governing the employer/employee relationship.

And in the end we are back to politics with it- Phil and his free speech for example.  One particular pickle the right wing got itself in the middle of is the right of an employee to have guns vs. the right of an employer on private property to ban them, and even require employees to submit to searches of vehicles- which a lot do- on condition of employment.

So what you have as a result is some confused tea party member that will scream about the 2nd and 4th amendment because private company X bans guns in employee cars, yet back drug testing someone that applies for food stamps- which is 100% ass backwards.

It will never fly- and if you want to read what a real Constitutionalist should sound like on drug testing read some of Scalia's dissents.

this is a really smart reply.  i have another question for you: why is such a fundamental debate not made in the public?

seriously!  this gets to the HEART of our constitution, right?  if rights are unalienable, then why should employers have the "right" to remove them?

[sesfw]

deprives the 97% that don't do drugs of their right to privacy.

If I am giving (welfare) my hard earned funds to people I think I have the right to know what is being done with the money.  And because of discrimination laws the drug testing would be 100%.

Many years ago I worked for a small public company and they had to issue an annual financial statement that included the compensation for the white collar set.  The hourly workers had to take a 10% pay cut while the uppers received raises.  That didn't sit too well and one of the uppers complained to me about it.  Wrong thing to say.  I told him if he wanted me to invest in the company then I had the right to know and have a say in what the funds were used for.

If someone receives funds from someone else, their right to privacy just went out the window.  When they get a job and actually earn their funds, they can purchase what they wish with their own labor.

[workpublic]

i don't believe you. sorry, i just don't.

the only jobs available for my skill are contracts these days. every contracting company requires whiz quizes. it's that simple. every not for profit employer that offers full time positions, that i've applied for require pre employment drug testing. ditto the private corporations. every public sector job in my area requires them. i'm behind the velvet rope, i have no insider connections.

can't have the person who knows how to deploy, setup, configure, troubleshoot and show you(the smart person) how to use your computer and fix it after you break it, smoking weed on the weekends. we might go berserk.

[EVT1]

Jan 2, 2014 12:10:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 1, 2014 21:38:18 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Well there is no small discussion    I think employees should be protected by law from unreasonable searches by employers- but there is no Constitutional reason to do so, so it will be seen as an intrusion into freedom of contract, etc.

I say big deal- so is FSLA and shitload of other laws governing the employer/employee relationship.

And in the end we are back to politics with it- Phil and his free speech for example.  One particular pickle the right wing got itself in the middle of is the right of an employee to have guns vs. the right of an employer on private property to ban them, and even require employees to submit to searches of vehicles- which a lot do- on condition of employment.

So what you have as a result is some confused tea party member that will scream about the 2nd and 4th amendment because private company X bans guns in employee cars, yet back drug testing someone that applies for food stamps- which is 100% ass backwards.

It will never fly- and if you want to read what a real Constitutionalist should sound like on drug testing read some of Scalia's dissents.

this is a really smart reply.  i have another question for you: why is such a fundamental debate not made in the public?

seriously!  this gets to the HEART of our constitution, right?  if rights are unalienable, then why should employers have the "right" to remove them?

One man's Constitution is another man's onerous set of regulations.
 
How far does the first amendment go when it comes to work?  Can an employee spend their free time on social media bashing management, the shitty quality of the products, even if they do not identify themselves as employees?  Sure they defend Phil because he went after gays, but what if he spent that interview discussing how shitty A&E has become because of reality programming?  What would they say then?  What if some Catholic school teacher decided to march in a gay pride parade on their own time?  Bet they would be backing the church on that one- that's what happens when politics infects discussions about the Constitution.

What about the second-  the NRA has no problem using the 2nd amendment as a weapon to pass laws forcing employers to allow guns in parked cars?  And what of the employers private property rights?  And why  stop there- if one has a concealed carry permit why can they not carry on the job- because not allowing that is infringement is it not?

And of course searches- some employers require employees to submit to them as a condition of work.  Likely it is a pee test- but what if instead they want to search your house?  Is that OK?   What's the difference? Your desk?  A locked toolbox?

Employment law is vast and a lot of this has been fought out.  You can thank Reagan for the spread of drug testing.

I find it helps sometimes to take the arguments to the extreme ends and see what it looks like.  What does not help things is when some idiot like Palin starts yapping about freedom of speech because she likes the speech, but completely supports at will employment in the next breath.  Well lady- they can fire him because they don't like his beard, maybe he farted in a meeting, his wife pissed them off- whatever.  

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2014 12:42:30 GMT -5 sesfw said:

deprives the 97% that don't do drugs of their right to privacy.

If I am giving (welfare) my hard earned funds to people I think I have the right to know what is being done with the money.  And because of discrimination laws the drug testing would be 100%.

first of all, it is not "your" money, strictly speaking.  if it were, you could say what is done with it.  rather, it is "our" money that you put into the system.  how it is used depends on who we all elect to allocate it.

second, there are two alternatives to discriminatory practice.  one is 100%.  the other is 0%.

Many years ago I worked for a small public company and they had to issue an annual financial statement that included the compensation for the white collar set.  The hourly workers had to take a 10% pay cut while the uppers received raises.  That didn't sit too well and one of the uppers complained to me about it.  Wrong thing to say.  I told him if he wanted me to invest in the company then I had the right to know and have a say in what the funds were used for.

that makes no sense.  so, one of the uppers disagreed with the idea of getting a raise when the lowers got cut, and that was the WRONG thing to say- because....WHY?

If someone receives funds from someone else, their right to privacy just went out the window.  

that is totally false in the public center.  that fact is well established.  if you disagree, then please show me where politicians, court appointed lawyers, judges, mental health councelors, prison officials, police officers, legislators, and tax collectors have been forced to urinate in a jar in order to remain eligible for pay.

When they get a job and actually earn their funds, they can purchase what they wish with their own labor.

everybody works for someone, bro.  that means that someone can deprive you of privacy, unless you are the boss of everything.  how that makes ANY sense in this society to ANYONE is beyond me.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2014 13:19:01 GMT -5 workpublic said:

i don't believe you. sorry, i just don't.

the only jobs available for my skill are contracts these days. every contracting company requires whiz quizes. it's that simple. every not for profit employer that offers full time positions, that i've applied for require pre employment drug testing. ditto the private corporations. every public sector job in my area requires them. i'm behind the velvet rope, i have no insider connections.

can't have the person who knows how to deploy, setup, configure, troubleshoot and show you(the smart person) how to use your computer and fix it after you break it, smoking weed on the weekends. we might go berserk.

i am pretty much convinced my IT guy gets high regular.  but he does good work.  that is all i care about.

why anyone else doesn't rely on PERFORMANCE standards is beyond me.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2014 16:36:45 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jan 2, 2014 12:10:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is a really smart reply.  i have another question for you: why is such a fundamental debate not made in the public?

seriously!  this gets to the HEART of our constitution, right?  if rights are unalienable, then why should employers have the "right" to remove them?

One man's Constitution is another man's onerous set of regulations.
 
How far does the first amendment go when it comes to work?  Can an employee spend their free time on social media bashing management, the shitty quality of the products, even if they do not identify themselves as employees?  Sure they defend Phil because he went after gays, but what if he spent that interview discussing how shitty A&E has become because of reality programming?  What would they say then?  What if some Catholic school teacher decided to march in a gay pride parade on their own time?  Bet they would be backing the church on that one- that's what happens when politics infects discussions about the Constitution.

What about the second-  the NRA has no problem using the 2nd amendment as a weapon to pass laws forcing employers to allow guns in parked cars?  And what of the employers private property rights?  And why  stop there- if one has a concealed carry permit why can they not carry on the job- because not allowing that is infringement is it not?

And of course searches- some employers require employees to submit to them as a condition of work.  Likely it is a pee test- but what if instead they want to search your house?  Is that OK?   What's the difference? Your desk?  A locked toolbox?

Employment law is vast and a lot of this has been fought out.  You can thank Reagan for the spread of drug testing.

I find it helps sometimes to take the arguments to the extreme ends and see what it looks like.  What does not help things is when some idiot like Palin starts yapping about freedom of speech because she likes the speech, but completely supports at will employment in the next breath.  Well lady- they can fire him because they don't like his beard, maybe he farted in a meeting, his wife pissed them off- whatever.  

yeah, and it is easy to conflate a public sector and private sector argument.

here is another good one for you.  Paul and others argue how great it would be if we had a Nordquistian government and an enormous free market private sector.  however, using your reducio ad absurdum argumentative technique (arguing to the extreme), what would civil liberties look like, in the practical sense, if that were true. 

well, there is no limit to what could be done against unprotected classes.  this would apply to all services: telephone, internet, banking, real estate.  what a terrible society that would be.  kinda like the US, ca 1850.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 31, 2013 21:19:54 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

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

i am wondering how many people read the original article, here.  look at what i "bolded" here.  think about it.

in a world that is governed by reason, rather than prejudice, this argument would just end, here and now.  randomly drug testing a group of people suspected of having a higher incidence of drug use than the general population (about 9%), and finding that, in fact, that the incidence of drug use is significantly LOWER than the general population should have sufficed.  but apparently, rather than questioning the suppositions that got us here, and realizing certain REALITIES about drugs in America (that it is primarily driven by middle class white folks), some of us are going to double down on stupid.

criminalizing drug use was never a good idea.  ever.  every place that has tried it, has failed.  one might have guessed, after the abject failure of prohibition, that our own dismal experience in this arena would have informed our policy choices.

but i guess not.  we would rather hold on to our prejudices than face reality.

[djAdvocate]

update: i just read an article about the mentally ill, and it turns out that the ratios are just the opposite of the poor.  the mentally ill are 3x MORE likely to use or abuse drugs than the general population.  if we were really concerned with drug use, we would go after that population.  but we aren't.  clearly this issue is not actually about drugs.  it is about providing excuses for not helping people in need.

[EVT1]

Of course non of this matters when your worldview has convinced you that people on welfare live large, thanks again Reagan.

[zibazinski]

If you answer the phone at the auto dealership, they take a hair sample from you. Go figure? But, of course, working is beneath some people.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 3, 2014 6:32:47 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

If you answer the phone at the auto dealership, they take a hair sample from you. Go figure? But, of course, working is beneath some people.

thanks for illustrating that this law has nothing to do with drugs.

[vandalshandle]

So, if a guy is collecting unemployment, and foolishly spends some of it on some pot, he should be cut off, and his kids starve.

Well, they should have picked a more responsible parent...

[djAdvocate]

Jan 3, 2014 12:28:48 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

So, if a guy is collecting unemployment, and foolishly spends some of it on some pot, he should be cut off, and his kids starve.

Well, they should have picked a more responsible parent...

there are a million things wrong with this law.  but the fact that it is unconstitutional is a good place to start.

edit: part of me thinks it is funny that conservatives were confident that this bill would save tons of money: after all, most welfare recipients are crack addicted mothers of 13, right?  and when their own data proves not only that they are totally wrong- and that welfare recipients are way cleaner than non-welfare recipients- how will they respond?  probably denial.  or they will move onto some other phantom stereotype to attack.

how about this: you folks stop it with the stereotypes, and just deal with what is actually there?

like that will happen.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 3, 2014 12:31:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 3, 2014 12:28:48 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

So, if a guy is collecting unemployment, and foolishly spends some of it on some pot, he should be cut off, and his kids starve.

Well, they should have picked a more responsible parent...

there are a million things wrong with this law.  but the fact that it is unconstitutional is a good place to start.

edit: part of me thinks it is funny that conservatives were confident that this bill would save tons of money: after all, most welfare recipients are crack addicted mothers of 13, right?  and when their own data proves not only that they are totally wrong- and that welfare recipients are way cleaner than non-welfare recipients- how will they respond?  probably denial.  or they will move onto some other phantom stereotype to attack.

how about this: you folks stop it with the stereotypes, and just deal with what is actually there?

like that will happen.

The governor of Mississippi ìs pushing legislation for drug testing welfare recipients this year.  

[workpublic]

i am pretty much convinced my IT guy gets high regular.

we pretty much all do. IT comes naturally to a lot of the kind of folks who spark up. most "nerds" are really cool. also there is some kind of link between music, playing music and IT heads. 

[zibazinski]

If he's smoking pot instead of feeding/caring for his children, his children are better off with a parent who has some common sense. Normal people pay their bills, then spend money on crap. But as we can see by certain posters, welfare is for paying their bills so they can spend their money on crap. So why should total welfare recipients think any different? Entitlement mentality.

[EVT1]

Jan 3, 2014 12:38:42 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 3, 2014 12:31:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there are a million things wrong with this law.  but the fact that it is unconstitutional is a good place to start.

edit: part of me thinks it is funny that conservatives were confident that this bill would save tons of money: after all, most welfare recipients are crack addicted mothers of 13, right?  and when their own data proves not only that they are totally wrong- and that welfare recipients are way cleaner than non-welfare recipients- how will they respond?  probably denial.  or they will move onto some other phantom stereotype to attack.

how about this: you folks stop it with the stereotypes, and just deal with what is actually there?

like that will happen.

The governor of Mississippi ìs pushing legislation for drug testing welfare recipients this year.  

Why?  Does he have a tea party nut gunning for his job?  Does he have a financial interest in drug testing companies like that criminal in FL?  Or is he just a dick?

[Tennesseer]

Jan 3, 2014 16:29:20 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jan 3, 2014 12:38:42 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

The governor of Mississippi ìs pushing legislation for drug testing welfare recipients this year.  

Why?  Does he have a tea party nut gunning for his job?  Does he have a financial interest in drug testing companies like that criminal in FL?  Or is he just a dick?

(It's Mississippi for goodness sake. Could it get more fundamentalist/conservative than that!)

[EVT1]

So he is a dick.

Funny though- the conservative stance would be to oppose the government invading the privacy of citizens.  I think the disconnect occurs because in their minds people on welfare are something less than citizens.

[vandalshandle]

Jan 3, 2014 15:03:58 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

If he's smoking pot instead of feeding/caring for his children, his children are better off with a parent who has some common sense. Normal people pay their bills, then spend money on crap. But as we can see by certain posters, welfare is for paying their bills so they can spend their money on crap. So why should total welfare recipients think any different? Entitlement mentality.

I niether support allowing American kids from going hungry, nor taking kids away from a parant just because he has  tested positive for drugs. If that puts me in the "entitlement" catagory, then so be it. However, if we must start taking kids away from drug abusers, then I have to ask. Does Rush have kids? Now that I mention it, 6.1 million Americans over age 21 have taken illegal drugs. That is going to require a lot of foster parants.

www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends

[mmhmm]

Jan 3, 2014 21:10:19 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

Jan 3, 2014 15:03:58 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

If he's smoking pot instead of feeding/caring for his children, his children are better off with a parent who has some common sense. Normal people pay their bills, then spend money on crap. But as we can see by certain posters, welfare is for paying their bills so they can spend their money on crap. So why should total welfare recipients think any different? Entitlement mentality.

I niether support allowing American kids from going hungry, nor taking kids away from a parant just because he has  tested positive for drugs. If that puts me in the "entitlement" catagory, then so be it. However, if we must start taking kids away from drug abusers, then I have to ask. Does Rush have kids? Now that I mention it, 6.1 million Americans over age 21 have taken illegal drugs. That is going to require a lot of foster parants.

www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends

You've got a point, vandals.  Gotta wonder how many of these folks pushing to remove these children from homes of which they don't approve are ready to step up and take those kids.