October 25, 201114 yr TAMPA - A federal judge has blocked Florida's controversial new law requiring that welfare applicants pass a drug test to receive benefits. Judge Mary Scriven issued the temporary injunction Monday. The American Civil Liberties Union had filed a lawsuit against the state last month calling the law unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who is finishing his college degree. Nearly 1,600 applicants have refused to take the test since it began in mid-July. They aren't required to explain why. Applicants must pay $25 to $35 for the test and are reimbursed by the state if they pass. The ACLU said Florida was the first to enact the law since Michigan tried more than a decade ago. http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/judge-blocks-drug-testing-for-welfare-applicants-10242011 Personally, I can see the need to keep the info private, however I don't think drug testing violates the fourth amendment. I'd like to see the block lifted after the results are made private.
October 25, 201114 yr TAMPA - A federal judge has blocked Florida's controversial new law requiring that welfare applicants pass a drug test to receive benefits. Judge Mary Scriven issued the temporary injunction Monday. The American Civil Liberties Union had filed a lawsuit against the state last month calling the law unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who is finishing his college degree. Nearly 1,600 applicants have refused to take the test since it began in mid-July. They aren't required to explain why. Applicants must pay $25 to $35 for the test and are reimbursed by the state if they pass. The ACLU said Florida was the first to enact the law since Michigan tried more than a decade ago. http://www.myfoxtamp...icants-10242011 Personally, I can see the need to keep the info private, however I don't think drug testing violates the fourth amendment. I'd like to see the block lifted after the results are made private. Why would they block this? If you are going to live on State funds, you should not be doing drugs. This entitlement programs should be used to get people back on their feet, not provide permanent support. If a welfare recipient is doing drugs, they probably aren't doing much to get themselves back on track.
October 25, 201114 yr Law and policy are not one and the same. The Judge apparently found that this situation merited a temporary injunction on the drug testing policy as currently constituted based on 4th Amendment Jurisprudence - the analysis does not begin and end with simply if it's a good or fair or idea; there is a body of law that must be followed.
October 25, 201114 yr Author The law is meant to regulate and protect it's adherents. Tell me, how does the fourth amendment do either in this case?
October 26, 201114 yr Actually, the injunction is completely reasonable, because harm would be caused to the plaintiff before the case could be heard, whereas delaying the beginning of the enforcement merely maintains the status quo until the judicial process can begin.
October 27, 201114 yr More drug testing is really going in the opposite direction of where we need to go with our domestic policy.
October 27, 201114 yr More drug testing is really going in the opposite direction of where we need to go with our domestic policy. Although I agree that the prohibition plan is foolish, companies routinely drug test new employees, which means that persons need to be drug-free to get off of welfare.
October 27, 201114 yr The simple way i see it, don't use ILLEGAL drugs while getting free help from the government. It really shouldn't be more complicated then that. I dont see why thats an issue. If you dont like getting a drug test, then the government has no responsibility to help you when you tell them no. For some reason, i find it hard to believe that anyone that is a law abiding non drug user would have a problem taking a drug test if assistance is really needed.
October 27, 201114 yr Author shouldn't they just ban people from being poor instead? I should clarify, they banned panhandling every day except Sunday, then it's only at certain intersections and you need a permit. See the story: http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/hillsborough/tampa-panhandling-ban-102011
October 28, 201114 yr so far doesn't seem to be saving any money... http://www.tampabay....plications-drop
October 28, 201114 yr The simple way i see it, don't use ILLEGAL drugs while getting free help from the government. It really shouldn't be more complicated then that. I dont see why thats an issue. If you dont like getting a drug test, then the government has no responsibility to help you when you tell them no. For some reason, i find it hard to believe that anyone that is a law abiding non drug user would have a problem taking a drug test if assistance is really needed. I believe the bolded sections represent a 20th century perspective into the prohibition issue. We need to remember that this attitude is buoyed by a collection of domestic policies rooted in antiquated notions of morality and racism. Use is something that occurs all around us - in caffeine, alcohol, ephedrine, nicotine, etc. It's the economic law of supply and demand. There will always be a demand to get high, believing otherwise is incorrect. We need to change our current domestic policy from diagnosis of addiction as criminal to a health problem. Fiscally we would not be paying for these nonviolent offenders to live in jail, black markets and their players would be forced to legitimization, new markets would be created for domestic and international entrepreneurship, as well as untapped and currently unavailable tax revenues to be devoted to treatment and deficit reduction.
November 2, 201114 yr So stop the problem by legalizing and saying "F*** it." yes, because this: "We need to change our current domestic policy from diagnosis of addiction as criminal to a health problem." clearly says "f*** it." are you three, or just retarded? If anyone on this forum believes wholeheartedly in prohibition I strongly urge you to read up on the efficacy of the drug war. Wikipedia is a good starting point; the entire article is well cited with links to the relevant documents. heres the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Efficacy
November 4, 201114 yr I think the judge in the case rightly pointed out that welfare recipients are no more likely statistically to use illegal drugs than the average American, despite right-wing claims to the contrary. The entire affair is just trying to kick people while they're down, and it's disgusting. But it's RIck Scott, so who's surprised?
November 5, 201114 yr What I find funniest about this thread is that people actually responded to Hotcorner's post saying "shouldn't they just ban people from being poor instead?" lol
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.