Reply With Quote
It's not a right to receive welfare, therefore, I see no reason why the testing can be fought.
There was a past thread that covered this, but I forget the le.
Under a new Florida law, people applying for welfare have to take a drug test at their own expense. If they pass, they are eligible for benefits and the state reimburses them for the test. If they fail, they are denied welfare for a year, until they take another test.
Mandatory drug testing for welfare applicants is becoming a popular idea across the U.S. Many states - including Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Louisiana - are considering adopting laws like Florida's. At the federal level, Senator David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, has introduced the Drug Free Families Act of 2011, which would require all 50 states to drug-test welfare applicants.
......
In 1997, in Chandler v. Miller, the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to strike down a Georgia law requiring candidates for state offices to pass a drug test.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said that the drug testing was an unreasonable search. The state can impose drug tests in exceptional cases, when there is a public-safety need for them (as with bus and train operators, for instance). But the Fourth Amendment does not allow the state to diminish "personal privacy for a symbol's sake," the court said.
....
Drug testing welfare applicants does not seem to meet the Chandler test since there is no particular safety reason to be concerned about drug use by welfare recipients. In 2003, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Michigan's drug testing of welfare applicants as a Fourth Amendment violation.
[more]
http://news.yahoo.com/why-drug-testi...081205581.html
It's not a right to receive welfare, therefore, I see no reason why the testing can be fought.
There was a past thread that covered this, but I forget the le.
Even if you do drugs, it is pretty damn easy to pass a drug test. There are quite a few people who've made careers by exploiting the system and they will continue to do so rather easily with this policy.
Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results
Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.
Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.
Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.
That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.
But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.
Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.
A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.
Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.
http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/20...res-ar-252458/
========
Repugs War on The Poor will be waged no matter how insane, no matter how much it costs. My guess is the drug tests are performed by a no-bid Repug business that donated heavily to Scott/Repugs.
Hmm, its amazing that no one predicted that drug use among welfare recipients wasn't going to be an issue. Oh wait....
dup
If the supremacy clause isn't an issue, it's hard to see how drug testing would be uncons utional.
exactly, Human-Americans no longer have any expectation of privacy, while Corporate-Americans and govt operate in complete secrecy
If this is an argument against drug testing, it's a bad one.
And that's at a 2% reject clip.
EDIT: Interesting though is this random testing, or just a once a year thing?
Exactly. At worst it doesn't seem to cost the state anything. At best, it might convince some people to stop doing drugs.
Yeah, I gathered that.....see my edit above. Do you know?
I'd imagine that it would be up to the states to decide the frequency of the testing. Some would probably do once a year. Others would probably do more.
For one, imagine all the money we could save if we prevented all those found using drugs from using any state services. For instance, roads, emergency services, public utilities, disaster relief.
I hope we can drug test for everything! Lets include Alcohol in the testing too, IMO.
Thats really the at worst?
So people who get checks cut by the government have a right to go out and use that money on crack? If you can't test them, how do you prevent that scenario?
It's a good thing to know that if I ever fall on hard times, my right to an 8 ball of coke is protected.
Also, breaking even is not nearly enough. For one, that simplistic calculation isn't considering man hours nor does it consider the cost that a person not recieving benefits will cost the state. Its definitely not free so simply saying "oh we saved x dollars by not giving them money" is completely and utterly false.
Why is it ok to for anyone to go out and by crack while the government subsidizes something they use? If I'm having to foot the bill for you to have police protection what en les you to smoke a joint or use the roads my tax dollars pay for?
Manny seems really concerned druggies won't get their welfare
"right to go out and use that money on crack"
The welfare queen lie. What proof do you have that the 2% of welfare recipients that test positive for drugs are postive for crack?
In any population, there will always be cheaters. eg, the 50K Americans who evade taxes with Swiss bank accounts. Why aren't you all over their asses the way you harass/criminalize 98% of welfare recipients who don't use drugs?
Every state, local and federal government I've come across has not only required drug testing of their employees, but required anyone wanting to do business with them to have a testing program of their own. Not really seeing what the big deal is here.
It's not ok to buy crack at all. It definitely is not ok for them to buy crack with money furnished by the government.
When someone gets free money from the government, they don't get to have it on their terms. No one who wants to be taken seriously would think that someone who is at a high risk of drug abuse should a) be given a handout and b) not be tested to determine whether they're using said free money for drug abuse.
If you think welfare = the same as police protection or use of the roads, you probably should be drug tested too.
The infringement on one's right to snort coke on the government's dime tbh.
The big deal is that this was some stupid pet legislation for an asshole state rep who's wasting time on non issues. The goalpost moving from this is a huge problem to Oh well we're breaking even is phenomenal.
People on welfare make really easy targets. They're at the bottom and who defends those on the bottom? No one.
I bet Manny thinks Chester the Molester has a cons utional right to use public library computers to skeeze on little boys in internet chatrooms.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
