Judge Blocks Florida Law Requiring Welfare Applicants to Pass Drug Test

[bobbyw24]

Florida Bill Forcing Welfare Drug Tests

Florida Governor Rick Scott, saying residents shouldn’t subsidize substance abusers, signed a bill that will require welfare recipients to submit to drug tests.

Under the law, applicants for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program who test positive for illegal substances won’t be eligible to receive benefits for one year or until they successfully complete a substance-abuse treatment program. More than 113,000 Floridians received TANF benefits in the last fiscal year.

“While there certainly are legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida’s taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction,” Scott, a 58-year-old Republican, said in remarks prepared for a ceremony in Panama City on the Panhandle.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-31/florida-s-scott-signs-bill-forcing-welfare-drug-tests.html

[specsaregood]

good one.
even better would be if they could test for alcohol and tobacco and deny welfare if they are detected.

[Cowlesy]

http://boards.fightingamphibians.org/fg/src/127965728490.gif

[Krugerrand]

I'm not liking it. Why not test for levels of fat for High Fructose Corn Syrup intake?

This is government control of behavior. If you don't like subsidizing bad behavior, cut the subsidy - don't try and use it to control people.

[RonPaulCult]

It's wrong for the government to know if you are doing drugs or not. I don't agree with this. It's also wrong to take money from people and give it to other people. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Bad bill.

I just moved to Florida - is this what I can look forward to? (From what I've read...yes it is)

[specsaregood]

I'm not liking it. Why not test for levels of fat for High Fructose Corn Syrup intake?

Sure, why not.


This is government control of behavior. If you don't like subsidizing bad behavior, cut the subsidy - don't try and use it to control people.
It isn't control, because people have a choice of whether or not to receive the benefits. If you are gonna get taken care of by mommy govt, then you have to live by her rules.

[bobbyw24]

It isn't control, because people have a choice of whether or not to receive the benefits. If you are gonna get taken care of by mommy govt, then you have to live by her rules.

Just like people in HUD subsidized rental units cannot have friends live with them for free.

[steph3n]

If you are living on the teet of government, except this, I applaud it. I want as little of my money wasted as possible. While at it test for other things too.

maybe enough people will feel offended by it they will get jobs and stop living off big mama govt.

[Legend1104]

These people are getting tax payer money that they don't need because they seem to be able to afford drugs. This law is not to control behavior but rather to save money.

[bobbyw24]

maybe enough people will feel offended by it they will get jobs and stop living off big mama govt.

But the Gov't loves dependent people since they always vote for Bigger Government

[civusamericanus]

Approximately 50 Million American's are on welfare, if you equate that to 3+ people per welfare family recipient, that's roughly half of America on Welfare. We're at the tipping point for a Welfare state, if it continues more than 1/2 of America will be on welfare within a year. Foreclosures were 2.2 Million in 2010, they're expected to rise to 4 Million for 2011.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/04/business/economy/economix-04transfer/economix-04transfer-custom1.jpg

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I'm not liking it. Why not test for levels of fat for High Fructose Corn Syrup intake?

This is government control of behavior. If you don't like subsidizing bad behavior, cut the subsidy - don't try and use it to control people.

High-fructose corn syrup, tobacco, alcohol, etc. are not illegal.

You depend on the government, you play by their rules. Don't like it: get off welfare.

[bobbyw24]

Approximately 50 Million American's are on welfare, if you equate that to 3+ people per welfare family recipient, that's roughly half of America on Welfare. We're at the tipping point for a Welfare state, if it continues more than 1/2 of America will be on welfare within a year. Foreclosures were 2.2 Million in 2010, they're expected to rise to 4 Million for 2011.


And 50% of Americans pay NO Income Tax so they don't care about the other half that has its paychecks reduced each pay period.

[specsaregood]

High-fructose corn syrup, tobacco, alcohol, etc. are not illegal.
You depend on the government, you play by their rules. Don't like it: get off welfare.

No, but they aren't necessary to live either, esp. alcohol. I think they should test for alcohol and tobacco and eliminate users of those drugs from the welfare list as well. If you can afford smoke and drink then you don't need handouts either.

[cubical]

No, but they aren't necessary to live either, esp. alcohol. I think they should test for alcohol and tobacco and eliminate users of those drugs from the welfare list as well. If you can afford smoke and drink then you don't need handouts either.

This is a slippery slope. The government would have to waste trillions monitoring everyone who received handouts making sure they only ate, slept and went to work.

[specsaregood]

This is a slippery slope. The government would have to waste trillions monitoring everyone who received handouts making sure they only ate, slept and went to work.

Monthly urine tests should be near enough to cover most people. I think the $$ saved would outweigh the costs.

[squarepusher]

ALthough most of you consider yourself republicans, you must know that many Americans are unhappy in this country, and on the left the best way to hurt the government is to take money from transfer payments. Its a good way to take money from going to wars, prevent money going to wasteful spending, etc...

In fact many libertarians also speak of taking money from the government to help speed up the crash.

[specsaregood]

ALthough most of you consider yourself republicans, you must know that many Americans are unhappy in this country, and on the left the best way to hurt the government is to take money from transfer payments. Its a good way to take money from going to wars, prevent money going to wasteful spending, etc...

In fact many libertarians also speak of taking money from the government to help speed up the crash.

I don't quite get what you are trying to say.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I don't quite get what you are trying to say.

That welfare is good because it's speeding up the impending bankruptcy and collapse?

[pcosmar]

Drug Testing Companies are going to see huge profits.

[cubical]

Monthly urine tests should be near enough to cover most people. I think the $$ saved would outweigh the costs.

No, I am saying the government could start requiring a lot more of its people in payment for the "protection", healthcare or other handouts it provides. They could be testing your blood every month for the fat content or requiring you to buy government endorsed cars for safety "standards". The subsidy simply shouldn't be there in the first place and if the government feels it can regulate how someone lives before it gives the subsidy, then they can start classifying a lot of things as subsidies.

[specsaregood]

That welfare is good because it's speeding up the impending bankruptcy and collapse?
Ugh, to hell with that.


Drug Testing Companies are going to see huge profits.
Good point!

[Cowlesy]

There is such rampant abuse with the system. A friend used to visit a convenience store daily, and always at the beginning of the month, it was always packed. He asked the owner one day why that was and he told him it was because it was when the welfare checks showed up. People would come in and buy booze, cigarettes and lotto tickets. He wouldn't see those people until next month when the checks arrived again.

I didn't even think you could buy any of the three items noted above with those, but I am sure there are countless ways to work the system.

So if we get can weed out a few abusers with this law, I am all for it. While I know you can never rid the whole system of abuse, if it frees up resources that can be used for people who truly fall on hard times and need some help, I am fine with that, even though I am philosophically opposed to the system in its entirety.

These people who just count on it as supplemental income need to be thrown out of the system on their ears and be forced into having a modicum of personal responsibility.

[TexanRudeBoy]

Monthly urine tests should be near enough to cover most people. I think the $$ saved would outweigh the costs.

Alcohol is out of the system within 48 hrs. Same with most "hard" drugs. Drug testing pretty much only catches potheads, unless the person getting tested used within the last day or two.

[specsaregood]

Alcohol is out of the system within 48 hrs. Same with most "hard" drugs. Drug testing pretty much only catches potheads, unless the person getting tested used within the last day or two.

Right, which is why you randomize the testing schedule, so the recipients never know when they might be called in to test.

Hell, I'd weight the scheduling to be the days following the cashing of the welfare check.

[TexanRudeBoy]

There is such rampant abuse with the system. A friend used to visit a convenience store daily, and always at the beginning of the month, it was always packed. He asked the owner one day why that was and he told him it was because it was when the welfare checks showed up. People would come in and buy booze, cigarettes and lotto tickets. He wouldn't see those people until next month when the checks arrived again.

I didn't even think you could buy any of the three items noted above with those, but I am sure there are countless ways to work the system.

So if we get can weed out a few abusers with this law, I am all for it. While I know you can never rid the whole system of abuse, if it frees up resources that can be used for people who truly fall on hard times and need some help, I am fine with that, even though I am philosophically opposed to the system in its entirety.

These people who just count on it as supplemental income need to be thrown out of the system on their ears and be forced into having a modicum of personal responsibility.

We've got generations of people growing up learning only how to scam the government. You should hear the stories the girls I work with tell. From people who haven't worked for years getting huge tax "refunds", people with plenty of income receiving food stamps or subsidized (and furnished) housing, selling of children's SSNs to obtain more illegal benefits. The worst part is they have absolutely no shame about it. They tell me how people literally feel entitled to it. Its downright ludicrous.

[TexanRudeBoy]

Right, which is why you randomize the testing schedule, so the recipients never know when they might be called in to test.

You may catch a few more, but on the whole all its going to do is weed out potheads. Any friends I've ever known on probation stopped smoking weed, but they continued to drink and enjoy other drugs because they knew they could get around those.

The main reason is the way traces of the drugs are stored in your system. Alcohol and cocaine are water soluble. You can literally rid your body of them by drinking more water. Especially leading up to a test.

THC is fat soluble. It stores in your fat cells. Besides having the longest natural half-life, you can't speed up the process of ridding your body of it except by burning fat (this is a reason niacin is a popular "cleanser").

You can randomize it all you want but the facts are random and regular drug tests really only catch potheads.

[KramerDSP]

Guess who owns the drug testing company? Rick Scott's wife (he signed off control of Solantic to her when he became Gov). All
100,000 state employees are also ordered to be tested at random every 3 months.

[pcosmar]

I'm opposed to Welfare.
I'm opposed to drug testing.

Nothing good will come of this.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Thumbs way down for this. I don't like big government in anyone's piss. It's shameful enough (to some) to be on welfare, and now they're going to get in their piss like they're some kind of thug.

[specsaregood]

You may catch a few more, but on the whole all its going to do is weed out potheads.
You can randomize it all you want but the facts are random and regular drug tests really only catch potheads.

True, pot is the easiest to find, but frequent random drug tests will eventually catch anybody that is a regular abuser of the other drugs. Or make them so scared to use them that it gets the desired effect. Like I said, I would weight the testing so they happen more frequently to when the check comes in.

[BamaAla]

Good for Florida!

[UtahApocalypse]

Thumbs way down for this. I don't like big government in anyone's piss. It's shameful enough (to some) to be on welfare, and now they're going to get in their piss like they're some kind of thug.

what is shameful for me is the asshole blowing $50 a day on drugs, while collecting $250 a month in MY fucking taxes.

[Guitarzan]

Guess who owns the drug testing company? Rick Scott's wife (he signed off control of Solantic to her when he became Gov). All
100,000 state employees are also ordered to be tested at random every 3 months.


Didn't Scott say that Solantic wouldn't be handling any of the tests?

[NewRightLibertarian]

what is shameful for me is the asshole blowing $50 a day on drugs, while collecting $250 a month in MY fucking taxes.

The system is wrought with corruption and immoral, but I do not support this policy. People who are innocent shouldn't be subjected to tests just because someone else might be breaking the law. The cronyism aspect to it is also disgusting.

[swiftfoxmark2]

OK, that's a start. If only this was applied to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Next let's deny the moochers their voting privileges.

[specsaregood]

The system is wrought with corruption and immoral, but I do not support this policy. People who are innocent shouldn't be subjected to tests just because someone else might be breaking the law.

It isn't a question of "innocence". In a way they are government employees while they are accepting the handouts. They are free to change to an employer that doesn't drug test.

[squarepusher]

That welfare is good because it's speeding up the impending bankruptcy and collapse?

yes

[qh4dotcom]

It's also a violation of 4th amendment rights....unreasonable search without probable cause

[squarepusher]

Didn't Scott say that Solantic wouldn't be handling any of the tests?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/18/2222721/fla-ethics-panel-rejects-complaints.html

No, hes "transferring it to his wife's trust" therefore it is not a conflict of interest :/


what is shameful for me is the asshole blowing $50 a day on drugs, while collecting $250 a month in MY fucking taxes.

you could do the same thing if you wanted to

[KramerDSP]

I understand where they're going with welfare testing, but I think it is a slippery slope for reasons others have mentioned before.

As far as testing of state employees goes, I am 100% against this. I believe it is a violation of the fourth amendment. Florida already has a drug testing policy where employees are mandated to take drug tests if their job performance is lacking or if their supervisor has concerns. There are also drug tests taken prior to someone being hired by the state. Now, with Scott's executive order, there are random drug tests every three months for each of the 100,000 state employees. At $35 a pop, thats 3.5 million dollars every 3 months being spent, $12 million dollars a year. I think it is ridiculous that teachers and other state employees that are in jobs not directly related to safety of children (i.e., bus drivers, etc.) are being searched every 3 months in order to prove their innocence. If someone were to partake recreationally in marijuana every other weekend and does not partake in alcohol or nicotine or any hard drugs, they are screwed by this executive order, while the cokeheads, pillheads, and alcoholics laugh and have no worries.

It's doubly insulting when one considers that state of Florida school employees are paid about $10,000 less than similar employees who work locally in the same district annually. The excuse for not having gotten any raises in 5 to 8 years is that the state is broke. Yet we have money for drug testing these employees.

Rick Scott is a big government RINO. Do not trust him.

[KramerDSP]

It's also a violation of 4th amendment rights....unreasonable search without probable cause

Amen, brother. It's amazing how some forum posters hatred of Welfarism allows them to overlook the violations of the fourth amendment. If you hate Welfare and want to end it, this is not the way to go about it.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Amen, brother. It's amazing how some forum posters hatred of Welfarism allows them to overlook the violations of the fourth amendment.

You lose your "rights" when you accept others' taxpayer money for doing nothing.

Just get off welfare and you won't have to worry about a monthly government drug test. It really is that simple.

[Guitarzan]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/18/2222721/fla-ethics-panel-rejects-complaints.html

No, hes "transferring it to his wife's trust" therefore it is not a conflict of interest :/


Solantic will not be bidding on any of these contracts.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_namesblog/2011/04/solantic-ceo-we-wont-take-money-from-rick-scotts-drug-testing-plan.html

[pcosmar]

You lose your "rights" when you accept others' taxpayer money for doing nothing.

Just get off welfare and you won't have to worry about a drug test. It really is that simple.

BULLSHIT, I am NOT on Welfare, I have been applying for jobs. I have been Piss tested repeatedly.
(and passing every time)
It ain't that fuckin' simple.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Quest Diagnostic = Winning

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I need to move to FL and start selling my clean pee.

[squarepusher]

Solantic will not be bidding on any of these contracts.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_namesblog/2011/04/solantic-ceo-we-wont-take-money-from-rick-scotts-drug-testing-plan.html

As for whether Scott would personally benefit in any way, such as through another investment, Scott’s office called the notion “preposterous,” – but stopped short of promising not to personally profit in any scenario, saying: “The governor refuses to deal in hypotheticals.”

[Guitarzan]

As for whether Scott would personally benefit in any way, such as through another investment, Scott’s office called the notion “preposterous,” – but stopped short of promising not to personally profit in any scenario, saying: “The governor refuses to deal in hypotheticals.”


As do I.

We all know this guy has some rather dubious things in his past. Because of that, and because he is the man that is trying to cut the State, the media in Florida and the left in Florida have teamed up on him every chance they get. Every report I see on local news has a bias against anything he's trying to do...subtly implying that because of his past, he must be trying to somehow scam the people of Florida. I'm not buying it until I see it. I think he's done a great job thus far...and he's taken alot of heat for it. I'll wait to make judgement on any scandals until they actually happen.

[KramerDSP]

I liked this comment from that link about Solantic:


70% of state workers earn less than $40K a year. Their earning rank dead bottom, 50th out of 50 states. They haven’t received a wage increase in five years, they’re being forced to take a 5% paycut to contribute to their pensions, and proposals have been made to increase their cost for healthcare insurance and/or cut benefits.
State employees can’t afford to buy drugs…..of any kind.

All while Rick Scott refuses to collect the billions the state is entitled to from BP oil due to oil spill damage. It’s just so much easier to attack the poverty wages of state employees while keeping BP and the billions in his back pocket to collect later in the form of campaign contributions


State workers are guilty before being proven innocent, in spite of being told the state is broke and they can't afford wage increases. Does this testing policy apply to the Florida Senate or Rick Scott's office? I sincerely doubt it.

[pcosmar]

Change the title of the thread to,
Job applicants must pass drug tests

The lame arguments would not change.
:(

[Guitarzan]

Change the title of the thread to,
Job applicants must pass drug tests

The lame arguments would not change.
:(


What's your argument? That a private business has no right to ask potential employees for a drug screening prior to employment? Or just the State?

[Yieu]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Nothing more needs to be said. Unconstitutional = illegal/void law.

The right way to fix the violation of a right (the stealing of the taxpayer's earnings) is not to violate another right. And the right to privacy enshrined in the 4th is one of the most sacred of all rights. Without the 4th, we are all guilty until proven innocent.

[KramerDSP]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Nothing more needs to be said. Unconstitutional = illegal/void law.

The right way to fix the violation of a right (the stealing of the taxpayer's earnings) is not to violate another right. And the right to privacy enshrined in the 4th is one of the most sacred of all rights. Without the 4th, we are all guilty until proven innocent.

+Rep

[Yieu]

Change the title of the thread to,
Job applicants must pass drug tests

The lame arguments would not change.
:(

I'm with you. Our right to privacy is sacred, and not to be violated, whether by government tyranny or corporate tyranny.

Pre-employment drug screen? Got a warrant with probable cause for that?

[Guitarzan]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Nothing more needs to be said. Unconstitutional = illegal/void law.

The right way to fix the violation of a right (the stealing of the taxpayer's earnings) is not to violate another right. And the right to privacy enshrined in the 4th is one of the most sacred of all rights. Without the 4th, we are all guilty until proven innocent.

I don't see it that way. I see it as a person has the choice to be tested or not. People are told prior to applying for jobs if there will be a test or not. It's not sprung on them against their will. They made a choice to apply, knowing full well what the conditions were beforehand.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Pre-employment drug screen? Got a warrant with probable cause for that?

Don't want to take a drug test before being hired? Got the will to go look for another job for that?

[Meatwasp]

Our town is made up almost half to pot growers. They do not pay taxes and they claim they have no other income so they get all kinds of government subsidies. It always makes people mad to see them buying the most expensive items.

[Yieu]

Don't want to take a drug test before being hired? Got the will to go look for another job for that?

Almost all jobs do the testing, so that argument is moot. Which means we are guilty until proven innocent and our 4th Amendment rights are violated. Why should we have to be treated like criminals and have our rights violated, even when we are completely innocent, for doing a non-criminal action (seeking a job)?

[specsaregood]

Almost all jobs do the testing, so that argument is moot. Which means we are guilty until proven innocent and our 4th Amendment rights are violated. Why should we have to be treated like criminals and have our rights violated, even when we are completely innocent, for doing a non-criminal action (seeking a job)?

You seem to think you have the right to be employed by a company.

[Yieu]

You seem to think you have the right to be employed by a company.

Nope, I do not believe that. But I do have the right to privacy, and a company does not have the authority to violate that right.

We are all against government tyranny, but corporate tyranny is still tyranny. It does not follow, to be fine with companies violating our rights, yet be strongly against the government violating our rights.

[pcosmar]

Don't want to take a drug test before being hired? Got the will to go look for another job for that?

Yes actually.
The drug screenings that are being done are a DIRECT result of the War on Drugs. Which is itself an assault on personal liberty.

Now I have worked for companies that required it. And I have been tested multiple times while looking for work.
but your statement in favor of testing was for welfare, and now you are in favor of testing for employment.

Which is it? Why not just say you are in favor of drug testing for everyone for any reason and stop pretending?

BTW, What I do on my own time is NONE of an employers business.
And the BEST jobs I have had required no drug test.

[Yieu]

The drug screenings that are being done are a DIRECT result of the War on Drugs. Which is itself an assault on personal liberty.
...
BTW, What I do on my own time is NONE of an employers business.

Some choice quotes there, +Rep when I get ammo. Why is it not okay for the government to violate our 4th Amendment rights, but okay for a corporation to violate those sacred rights? It is the same thing.

[steph3n]

Yes actually.
The drug screenings that are being done are a DIRECT result of the War on Drugs. Which is itself an assault on personal liberty.

Now I have worked for companies that required it. And I have been tested multiple times while looking for work.
but your statement in favor of testing was for welfare, and now you are in favor of testing for employment.

Which is it? Why not just say you are in favor of drug testing for everyone for any reason and stop pretending?

BTW, What I do on my own time is NONE of an employers business.
And the BEST jobs I have had required no drug test.



it is a contractual matter, and myself, being an employer will continue to have a drug free work environment, and I'd like to even take that to prescription drug limits as well, but probably could not legally at this time. Its not a war on drugs continuance, it is how I want me workplace, you don't like it, don't work for me ;)

For that matter I'd really like to not hire smokers either, and fire people that don't take showers often enough, because I can't stand how bad they smell.

[KramerDSP]

For the record, I have no problems whatsoever if drug testing is a condition for employment. I also do not have problems if poor work performance results in your employer asking for a drug test. But I have a problem if you are an exceptional employee who gets awards for your service and works well with everybody being randomly drug tested every three months as the state sees fit.

[specsaregood]

Some choice quotes there, +Rep when I get ammo. Why is it not okay for the government to violate our 4th Amendment rights, but okay for a corporation to violate those sacred rights? It is the same thing.

It isn't the same thing, as you have a choice. You are CONSENTING. Just like the cops have a right to search if you CONSENT.

[steph3n]

Some choice quotes there, +Rep when I get ammo. Why is it not okay for the government to violate our 4th Amendment rights, but okay for a corporation to violate those sacred rights? It is the same thing.


Yes it is perfectly fine from a libertarian standpoint, as it is a personal choice, and a contract between adults. It is consent, and not by force.

it is a bit like consensual sex, and the governments forceful rape


I'd even go so far as to argue that people taking welfare money consent to the drug testing by accepting the money. It is the taxpayers money, and they have a voice on how it is spent.

I am very much against the war on drugs, and even ok with them being fully legal, but I will still run a drug free business, and seek out non drug users 100%

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Why is it not okay for the government to violate our 4th Amendment rights, but okay for a corporation to violate those sacred rights? It is the same thing.

The U.S. Constitution is only a constraint on the federal government's power.

[Guitarzan]

So, if your employer has a policy that says his/her employees cannot speak of politics while being on the job as he/she feels it is a detriment to production, is he then violating your first amendment right?

[nicoleeann]

I dont believe in government welfare at all. But i do know by experience that alot of people who are on welfare do use pot and drink and smoke cigarettes. I work with quite a few people who are on welfare and for the longest time i couldnt figure our why they needed it. No kids, same wage as me. And i dont need welfare. They were spending their money on drugs thats why. smoking pot or cigarettes everyday and going out the bar on the weekends really can add up.

[pcosmar]

Yes it is perfectly fine from a libertarian standpoint, as it is a personal choice, and a contract between adults. It is consent, and not by force.

it is a bit like consensual sex, and the governments forceful rape


I'd even go so far as to argue that people taking welfare money consent to the drug testing by accepting the money. It is the taxpayers money, and they have a voice on how it is spent.

I am very much against the war on drugs, and even ok with them being fully legal, but I will still run a drug free business, and seek out non drug users 100%
I would bet, that some of your employees are quite good at fooling the tests.
There are many effective ways to do so.

[steph3n]

I would bet, that some of your employees are quite good at fooling the tests.
There are many effective ways to do so.

I can promise you 100% there are none fooling the tests, I am a small business, like the majority, and yea, non fooling it, I am not even taking any tests, I have this thing called trust.

[steph3n]

So, if your employer has a policy that says his/her employees cannot speak of politics while being on the job as he/she feels it is a detriment to production, is he then violating your first amendment right?
Nope, private business, private property. Employer rules.

[pcosmar]

I would bet, that some of your employees are quite good at fooling the tests.
There are many effective ways to do so.

I have worked in several Body shops. Restoration and custom shops.
The best ones DO NOT test.

If they did quality would decline sharply.
;)

Over 20 years in the business, I have not known any shops that did not have regular "Safety Breaks".

[specsaregood]

I have worked in several Body shops. Restoration and custom shops.
The best ones DO NOT test.

If they did quality would decline sharply.
;)

I can agree upon that, unless they only test for a specific set of substances. Personally, I'd rather have a bunch of employees that were potheads rather than alcoholics. I've never worked at a place that tested and turned down job offers from places that did. And I don't use any illegal drugs, not that I wouldn't if I had some. :)

[BuddyRey]

I would only support this law if those who became disqualified from government aid were also exempted from having to pay any federal taxes.

[steph3n]

I would only support this law if those who became disqualified from government aid were also exempted from having to pay any federal taxes.

You think they are paying anyway?! HA!

most are probably taking social security check, getting 'refunds' from no payments etc.

[Guitarzan]

Nope, private business, private property. Employer rules.

Exactly. Same argument applies with drug testing.

[steph3n]

Exactly. Same argument applies with drug testing.

that was exactly my point ;)

if someone doesn't want to be drug tested don't work for an employer that drug tests, but it would also not be wise to see all those that do have drug testing policy as an enemy either.

[Guitarzan]

I have worked in several Body shops. Restoration and custom shops.
The best ones DO NOT test.

If they did quality would decline sharply.
;)



Over 20 years in the business, I have not known any shops that did not have regular "Safety Breaks".

You may believe so, and you may be correct. But if you are correct, a smart businessman will recognize this and the testing would eventually stop.

[pcosmar]

Amazing to see the support for the War on drUgS.
Test em if they work and test em if they don't. BUT TEST em.
That has the full support of some here.

no wonder Ron Paul has such a hard time.
Folks just do not understand Liberty.

[Guitarzan]

Amazing to see the support for the War on drUgS.
Test em if they work and test em if they don't. BUT TEST em.
That has the full support of some here.

no wonder Ron Paul has such a hard time.
Folks just do not understand Liberty.


Look, I'm on your side in that I don't like drug testing. But I don't like it because I like to partake in a smoke here and there. I simply avoid employers that drug test. And I don't think that partaking in a smoke outside of my job effects my job performance one bit. But how can you say that your argument is on the side of liberty when your argument violates the right of the property owner?

[steph3n]

Amazing to see the support for the War on drUgS.
Test em if they work and test em if they don't. BUT TEST em.
That has the full support of some here.

no wonder Ron Paul has such a hard time.
Folks just do not understand Liberty.


No support for war on drugs from here. That is where you are fully mistaken :)

I'd like for a test to find if someone is a gaming addict that is going to be lacking in job performance due to their lack of self discipline as well, that's a bigger problem for me than any 'drugs'. firing people for bad job performance is no fun and a total waste of money. I've got the 'testing' almost down now.

[Danke]

There is such rampant abuse with the system. A friend used to visit a convenience store daily, and always at the beginning of the month, it was always packed. He asked the owner one day why that was and he told him it was because it was when the welfare checks showed up. People would come in and buy booze, cigarettes and lotto tickets.

If they get rich playing the Lotto, then they are off welfare. If they get sick and die early from cigarettes and alcohol, they are off welfare. What is your problem, Cowlesy?

[pcosmar]

Look, I'm on your side in that I don't like drug testing. But I don't like it because I like to partake in a smoke here and there. I simply avoid employers that drug test. And I don't think that partaking in a smoke outside of my job effects my job performance one bit. But how can you say that your argument is on the side of liberty when your argument violates the right of the property owner?

Me, I would take any job that comes and testing as well. I'm mercenary like that. and have been out of work 5 years.
I oppose it just the same , on principle.

It's just wrong. I am disheartened by the support for it here though.
:(

[steph3n]

If they get rich playing the Lotto, then they are off welfare. If they get sick and die early from cigarettes and alcohol, they are off welfare. What is your problem, Cowlesy?

It doesn't work that way.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_localdtw/20110518/ts_yblog_localdtw/2m-michigan-lottery-winner-defends-use-of-food-stamps

[steph3n]

Me, I would take any job that comes and testing as well. I'm mercenary like that. and have been out of work 5 years.
I oppose it just the same , on principle.

It's just wrong. I am disheartened by the support for it here though.
:(

Maybe that is why you are libertarian, and I am minarchist. you want enough government to say its legal, even in a place of work (ok that maybe over stating, as you've said you'd take testing etc to get a job), where I want no laws on it, and it is up to the contract between employer and employee fully.

If it is my building, my business, my reputation, I want that exemplified through my employees without compromise. I may be hard to work for by some people, so be it.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Look, I'm on your side in that I don't like drug testing. But I don't like it because I like to partake in a smoke here and there. I simply avoid employers that drug test. And I don't think that partaking in a smoke outside of my job effects my job performance one bit. But how can you say that your argument is on the side of liberty when your argument violates the right of the property owner?

I agree with this.

It's a condition of employment.

I'm against random drug testing for anyone though.

Not sure about people on welfare. If it isn't random, it won't work, and even then, it might not work for reasons others have mentioned. But it will most certainly cost money.

[pcosmar]

I may be hard to work for by some people, so be it.

A man I worked for in the Keys was a hard man to work for.
Told me on the first day that he did NOT carry any insurance (work mans comp, liability, etc)
"Don't hurt yourself"
He also included some green herb in my pay from time to time. Had a reputation as one of the very best shops in the Keys.

When I had a toothache, he made a home remedy that took my pain from screaming maniacal pain down to manageable, put me in his car and took me to a dentist. Had the tooth pulled.
he needed me back on the job with a clear head. Totally selfish on his part.

I learned a lot from that man. may he rest in peace.
God I miss good pirates.

[steph3n]

When I had a toothache, he made a home remedy that took my pain from screaming maniacal pain down to manageable, put me in his car and took me to a dentist. Had the tooth pulled.


And you know, I'd have no problem with that at all. Even if it was some 'illegal' currently substance. It really doesn't matter to me that is not drug abuse, that is a medicinal purpose.
I am against abuse and addiction, of any sort, like I said gaming is a big problem as well. I am just as much against people that go to the doctor for every pimple and bruise.

[jkr]

yeeeehaaaswww more bureaucrats...we needed more of those!

and just think of the "fine revenue"!

ONLY if u pee first, and i only give oral drug tests...

keep you "charity"

[pcosmar]

And you know, I'd have no problem with that at all. Even if it was some 'illegal' currently substance. It really doesn't matter to me that is not drug abuse, that is a medicinal purpose.
I am against abuse and addiction, of any sort, like I said gaming is a big problem as well. I am just as much against people that go to the doctor for every pimple and bruise.

Nope, That was Coconut. And a neat trick that I've passed to others.
But we did burn some in the paint booth, there and other shops. I have known several successful businessmen/owners that use pot.
I have known many professionals in various fields that do.
Government FUD is bullshit.

[Humanae Libertas]

More bureaucracy != less bureaucracy.

As someone else said: two wrong don't make a right. Welfare is a corrupt system, instead of trying to drug test them (which won't work), why not limit how much they can get and cut them off completely for good.

[QueenB4Liberty]

More bureaucracy != less bureaucracy.

As someone else said: two wrong don't make a right. Welfare is a corrupt system, instead of trying to drug test them (which won't work), why not limit how much they can get and cut them off completely for good.

But then there wouldn't be as many people giving consent to be treated like children. I don't think they want that. They want more welfare.

[AgentOrange]

I think this is a bad idea. Its against the 4th amendmend, its ineffective (lots of false negs/positives & roundabouts), and 2 wrongs don't make a right. As for private employers testing, I have no problem with that, but I wonder how many would test if they weren't getting tax breaks and/or subsidies for testing and/or if it weren't required by law (as it is for some professions?)

[pcosmar]

but I wonder how many would test if they weren't getting tax breaks and/or subsidies for testing and/or if it weren't required by law (as it is for some professions?)

Or forced to by Insurance Companies that are in turn deeply involved with the government, that makes the regulations that require insurance.

[osan]

Florida Bill Forcing Welfare Drug Tests

From an ideal standpoint, this is nothing to write home about. From what I may term a "reasonable" standpoint, it is a good step in the right direction. Perhaps the elimination of welfare entirely may be somewhere on the distant horizon? I know... but it's nice to dream.

I wonder what fallout will be precipitated by this. Has the "racist" label been thrown at him yet?

[AuH20]

No recreational drugs on my dime. I'm forced to pay into this god forsaken Ponzi scheme. There is no opting out, but I'm plotting. :)

[Anti Federalist]

If you are living on the teet of government, except this, I applaud it. I want as little of my money wasted as possible. While at it test for other things too.

maybe enough people will feel offended by it they will get jobs and stop living off big mama govt.

Where they will get promptly drug tested.

I'm like this :-/ on this whole issue.

[outspoken]

I am opposed to having those who need govt to sustain their existence having the same rights and privileges as those who do not such off the teet of govt... The ACLU needs to be willing to differentiate between these two groups of Americans because only one group is entitled to all the benefits of liberty one of which is privacy and the right to do what you want with your body. The best way is to just do away with the programs altogether and permit charity of free will to decide who should be given a hand up and now more hand outs.

[Anti Federalist]

+rep

Like Pete said, I'm opposed to welfare and to piss tests.

Nothing good will come of this.

Especially after the crash, when we're all on the fucking dole.


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Nothing more needs to be said. Unconstitutional = illegal/void law.

The right way to fix the violation of a right (the stealing of the taxpayer's earnings) is not to violate another right. And the right to privacy enshrined in the 4th is one of the most sacred of all rights. Without the 4th, we are all guilty until proven innocent.

[osan]

I'm not liking it. Why not test for levels of fat for High Fructose Corn Syrup intake?

This is government control of behavior. If you don't like subsidizing bad behavior, cut the subsidy - don't try and use it to control people.

Ideally I agree with you, but in what I see as practical terms I must diverge a bit.

Were I king, welfare would be out the door in 12 months. I would give people that much time to get their shit squared away. After that, it is sink or swim. If you have never held the slightest intention of getting a job, you would then be faced with the choice of changing that or starving.

Given the realities of the politics here, I think this is a good step in the right direction. If we accept taxation to such ostensible ends as are assumed to underpin the rationale for welfare programs, then feeding recipients could easily be argued to be a fundamental and reasonable function. Subsidizing the ability to get high is most clearly not. To that end, elimination of "the check" would, IMO, be another good move. Pay landlords directly, as well as all other major cost centers. Food is paid with coupons and not cash. The point is to eliminate cash completely. Of course, here in WV the welfare scum sell their foodstamps for cash so they can get high. Perhaps there is nothing more one can do about this. Hence another good reason to just eliminate the program entirely. :)

[AuH20]

Ideally I agree with you, but in what I see as practical terms I must diverge a bit.

Were I king, welfare would be out the door in 12 months. I would give people that much time to get their shit squared away. After that, it is sink or swim. If you have never held the slightest intention of getting a job, you would then be faced with the choice of changing that or starving.

Given the realities of the politics here, I think this is a good step in the right direction. If we accept taxation to such ostensible ends as are assumed to underpin the rationale for welfare programs, then feeding recipients could easily be argued to be a fundamental and reasonable function. Subsidizing the ability to get high is most clearly not. To that end, elimination of "the check" would, IMO, be another good move. Pay landlords directly, as well as all other major cost centers. Food is paid with coupons and not cash. The point is to eliminate cash completely. Of course, here in WV the welfare scum sell their foodstamps for cash so they can get high. Perhaps there is nothing more one can do about this. Hence another good reason to just eliminate the program entirely. :)

You hit the nail right on the head. If you want to sign a Faustian deal with the federal government, then you're beholden to the anti-liberty details of the contract. We're all advocates for the exercise of free will.

[osan]

Sure, why not.

It isn't control, because people have a choice of whether or not to receive the benefits. If you are gonna get taken care of by mommy govt, then you have to live by her rules.

Damned right. If you are using my money, you are going to toe my line. Feed yourself. OK. Clothing, OK. Shelter, OK. Dope? Fuck you. Get high on your own nickel.

[Krugerrand]

Wow. Just wow.

I had to leave for a while ...and when I get back I'm scratching my head wondering what has happened to this forum.

Your state will pass this law or we'll cut your Federal funding.
Your school will teach this curriculum or we'll cut your Federal funding.

Are you unemployed - do you give money to your church - sorry separation of church and state - you lose your unemployment.

Come on folks - this is the same BS we've seen on every other issue. The camel wants its nose in the tent and you MUST stick to your principles. Uncle Sam forces us to buy unemployment insurance - but then can control our behavior as a condition of getting the money back when we're unemployed. How can established folks on RPF tolerate this? ::Shaking head::

What happened to all the talk about when they came for group one, when they came for group two, when they came for group three ... now they come for you and who's there to support you?

What's next - you don't get mail if you don't pass a drug test? You can't get a driver's license if you don't pass a drug test? You lose your children if you don't pass a drug test?

People in this thread said it "but it's illegal. I'm sorry - but FDA is illegal in my book. The Federal Law telling you what you can and cannot put into your body is unconstitutional - and thus illegal in my book.

Come on folks. Snap out of the class warfare. Government control of behavior is bad - PERIOD. It can only lead to worse things. The chumps working the system are peanuts compared to what the War on Drugs is costing us.

Or maybe on RPF we just now accept that the nanny state is a good thing if it nannies somebody other than me.

Sad.

[osan]

It's wrong for the government to know if you are doing drugs or not. I don't agree with this. It's also wrong to take money from people and give it to other people. But two wrongs don't make a right.


Utter logic FAIL.

If you are taking a handout, you play by the rules. If you do not like the terms of the deal, walk away. Nobody is twisting your arm to accept the checks.

Let us remain acutely focused on the fact that everybody in question has rights to be respected, including the people who are being forced to subsidize this sort of nonsense. Those people whose money goes into another's pocket most certainly have a right to say how those funds are to be used - particularly because they were stolen in the first place.

I would say that the recipient's rights are less than those of the people subsidizing them. Therefore, I have absolutely no problem with the drug test requirement. Some may say that they could be paying their own way for their dope. Well, if they can afford to get high, they can afford to pay their own rent and feed themselves.

You cannot judge circumstance A that occurs in context C by the standards of context C'. The context is the forced taxation, welfare state - not the libertarian ideal. Judging the law in question out of context is utterly invalid - it makes no sense whatsoever. It needs to be judged in the context of the theft-based socialistic reality of the early twenty first century USA. Replace C with C' and then your criticism becomes valid. OTOH, it also becomes irrelevant because in the libertarian world there would be no welfare of which to speak.

[AuH20]

Utter logic FAIL.

If you are taking a handout, you play by the rules. If you do not like the terms of the deal, walk away. Nobody is twisting your arm to accept the checks.

Let us remain acutely focused on the fact that everybody in question has rights to be respected, including the people who are being forced to subsidize this sort of nonsense. Those people whose money goes into another's pocket most certainly have a right to say how those funds are to be used - particularly because they were stolen in the first place.

I would say that the recipient's rights are less than those of the people subsidizing them. Therefore, I have absolutely no problem with the drug test requirement. Some may say that they could be paying their own way for their dope. Well, if they can afford to get high, they can afford to pay their own rent and feed themselves.

You cannot judge circumstance A that occurs in context C by the standards of context C'. The context is the forced taxation, welfare state - not the libertarian ideal. Judging the law in question out of context is utterly invalid - it makes no sense whatsoever. It needs to be judged in the context of the theft-based socialistic reality of the early twenty first century USA. Replace C with C' and then your criticism becomes valid. OTOH, it also becomes irrelevant because in the libertarian world there would be no welfare of which to speak.

+1000 Rep. Context is king. As much as I'd prefer to live in Libertarian Alternate Earth, it's all just a hypothetical.

[TruckinMike]

Thumbs way down for this. I don't like big government in anyone's piss. It's shameful enough (to some) to be on welfare, and now they're going to get in their piss like they're some kind of thug.

Just like us truck drivers i suppose. Thugs. We drivers need those government mandated random drug tests. It for our own good. The difference, the gov loots our pockets and gives our money to its voting base.

[libertybrewcity]

i always love government restricting government. But why not eliminate welfare altogether? Or put in a plan to phase payments out?

[Ray]

I wonder how much drug testing companies paid for this one...

[dannno]

I wonder how much drug testing companies paid for this one...

Probably less than 2% of the profits they are going to see from it passing.

[dannno]

Some of you aren't thinking this through all the way. What if a welfare recipient is growing cannabis for medicinal reasons, so they are getting their medicine for free? They aren't even using welfare money for their 'drugs', yet they will now be denied benefits while the person receiving dangerous and addictive prescription drugs with long term negative health effects will continue to receive theirs. I'm not saying this is common, but the point is that the government is saying which drugs should be tested and we all know there is a lot of corruption involved in what drugs the government chooses to make legal and illegal.

[BarryDonegan]

I guarantee that "drug rehabilitation program" costs money to the taxpayer.

[Golding]

I'm a little mixed on this, to be honest. I'm against welfare, I'm against the war on "us", but I'm all for the cannibalization of oppressive government activity.

I think the question to be asked whenever the government tries to stop behavior it deems undesirable is whether the government will actually succeed in stopping the behavior. I think that we've seen from so many ventures in the past that the answer is no. So I guess my response to those that say this is a good thing because less people will be freeloading off of welfare is with the simple question -- Is that really what's going to happen here?

[Working Poor]

Were I king, welfare would be out the door in 12 months. I would give people that much time to get their shit squared away.

Are you going to take the choke hold off of the markets while you are at it?

[mrsat_98]

“When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.”

--Ron Paul

Enough Said !!!

[speciallyblend]

It's wrong for the government to know if you are doing drugs or not. I don't agree with this. It's also wrong to take money from people and give it to other people. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Bad bill.

I just moved to Florida - is this what I can look forward to? (From what I've read...yes it is)

basically how i feel!

[Krugerrand]

Utter logic FAIL.

If you are taking a handout, you play by the rules. If you do not like the terms of the deal, walk away. Nobody is twisting your arm to accept the checks.

Let us remain acutely focused on the fact that everybody in question has rights to be respected, including the people who are being forced to subsidize this sort of nonsense. Those people whose money goes into another's pocket most certainly have a right to say how those funds are to be used - particularly because they were stolen in the first place.

I would say that the recipient's rights are less than those of the people subsidizing them. Therefore, I have absolutely no problem with the drug test requirement. Some may say that they could be paying their own way for their dope. Well, if they can afford to get high, they can afford to pay their own rent and feed themselves.

You cannot judge circumstance A that occurs in context C by the standards of context C'. The context is the forced taxation, welfare state - not the libertarian ideal. Judging the law in question out of context is utterly invalid - it makes no sense whatsoever. It needs to be judged in the context of the theft-based socialistic reality of the early twenty first century USA. Replace C with C' and then your criticism becomes valid. OTOH, it also becomes irrelevant because in the libertarian world there would be no welfare of which to speak.

Osan -do you remember the 102 things to not do if you hate paying taxes thread?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?295369-102-things-NOT-to-do-if-you-hate-paying-taxes

By your logic - if you accept anything that is supported by tax dollars, then its okay for the government to violate your rights and control you. One of the fundamental flaws with your logic and the logic of the 102 things list is that the government forces people into these situations. Where's my option to buy private unemployment insurance?

The other important thing here is that back door government control must be opposed. How different would it be if the government offered a $1000 drug-free tax credit? If you want the tax credit, you must submit to the drug testing. Are you going to accept the violation of privacy because its voluntary? How long would we expect the violation of privacy to be voluntary?

What are you going to say when a concealed carry permit or a any gun purchasing background check requires a drug test? Are you going to cry about it violating your innate right to bear arms. Sorry, Osan - but you just tossed innate rights aside in your post above. What right to decide what you ingest? Privacy Schmivacy.

Unless we go to extreme austere measure - everybody is forced to suck on a government teat somewhere.

If you negate the rights of the recipients - you negate everybody's rights because we (sadly) get no choice but to be recipients.

You are suggesting super-rights to the providers. Guess who gets the super rights? It's the government officials and the police state who implements it.

See this for what it is - it's class warfare designed only to further government control of its mundanes.

[bobbyw24]

Jacksonville, FL —

Governor Rick Scott signed a bill into law today that's already gaining criticism from the ACLU.

It's now the law in Florida for welfare recipients to be drug tested before receiving cash benefits. It would require about 21,000 people in Florida - mostly women and children - to pay for their drug testing. They would be paid back if the test comes back drug free.

http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/new-law-drug-testing-welfare-recipients/nCqHt/

[osan]

I'm opposed to Welfare.
I'm opposed to drug testing.

Nothing good will come of this.

The alternatives are: Dissolve the system. Leave things as they are.

If we don't do this testing thing, which of the two alternatives do you think are most likely to be/remain reality?

I agree it is despicable, but given that they are giving OUR money away to third parties...

BTW, what are the penalties for testing positive? Are there any?

[osan]

Osan -do you remember the 102 things to not do if you hate paying taxes thread?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?295369-102-things-NOT-to-do-if-you-hate-paying-taxes

By your logic - if you accept anything that is supported by tax dollars, then its okay for the government to violate your rights and control you. One of the fundamental flaws with your logic and the logic of the 102 things list is that the government forces people into these situations. Where's my option to buy private unemployment insurance?

The other important thing here is that back door government control must be opposed. How different would it be if the government offered a $1000 drug-free tax credit? If you want the tax credit, you must submit to the drug testing. Are you going to accept the violation of privacy because its voluntary? How long would we expect the violation of privacy to be voluntary?

What are you going to say when a concealed carry permit or a any gun purchasing background check requires a drug test? Are you going to cry about it violating your innate right to bear arms. Sorry, Osan - but you just tossed innate rights aside in your post above. What right to decide what you ingest? Privacy Schmivacy.

Unless we go to extreme austere measure - everybody is forced to suck on a government teat somewhere.

If you negate the rights of the recipients - you negate everybody's rights because we (sadly) get no choice but to be recipients.

You are suggesting super-rights to the providers. Guess who gets the super rights? It's the government officials and the police state who implements it.

See this for what it is - it's class warfare designed only to further government control of its mundanes.

You make the same error of applying incorrect solutions in a given context. It is like giving penicillin for cancer - it simply will not work.

That said, my solution is simple: dissolve the welfare system within 12 months, in toto. Nobody goes on the tit because there is no tit to which one can turn. Life is tough and even fucked at times. I've been on the ragged edge of oblivion for several years now, economically speaking. I've not even thought to turn to welfare. I would, quite honestly, rather die. Not afraid of that, but I am afraid of becoming like the rest of the parasites. Death is ever more attractive.

The nation is in its death throes. The chances we will save it are just this side of zero. Parasitism is a mental disease rampant across the globe and our chances of fighting it off are slim to none. Fight it, but don't hold any high expectations there. My worthless opinion, of course.

[angelatc]

Wow. Just wow.

I had to leave for a while ...and when I get back I'm scratching my head wondering what has happened to this forum.

Your state will pass this law or we'll cut your Federal funding.
Your school will teach this curriculum or we'll cut your Federal funding.

Are you unemployed - do you give money to your church - sorry separation of church and state - you lose your unemployment.

The other factor is that drug tests aren't accurate. I am going to quote Marilyn Vos Savant (http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/30822.html), who has the highest IQ of any known female. (Obviously they haven't tested Amy....its a conspiracy.):


... Charles Feinstein a Ph.D. at Santa Clara University asked “A particularly interesting and important question today is that of testing for drugs. Suppose it is assumed that about 5% of the general population uses drugs. You employ a test that is 95% accurate, which we’ll say means that if individual is a user, the test will be positive 95% of the time, and if the individual is a nonuser, the test will be negative 95% of the time. A person is selected at random and given the test. It’s positive. What does such a result suggest? Would you conclude that the individual is highly likely to be a drug user?

She replied that “Given your conditions, once the person has tested positive, you may as well flip a coin to determine whether he or she is a drug user. The chances are only 50-50. (The assumptions, the makeup of the test group and the true accuracy of the tests themselves are additional considerations.) This is just the sort of common misunderstanding that should give great pause to those who will make the decisions about testing.”

And, as Ms Vos Savant suggests the 95% accuracy postulate may be overly generous. DRUG-TESTING-solutions.net quotes an April 1992 article which appeared in Personnel Journal as saying "Only 85 of the estimated 1,200 laboratories in the United States currently testing urine for drugs meet federal standards for accuracy, qualified lab personnel, and proper documentation and record-keeping procedures. Because private companies are not required to use certified drug testing labs, workers are being asked to put their job security in the hands of a drug test that has insufficient quality controls."

[specsaregood]

The other factor is that drug tests aren't accurate. I am going to quote Marilyn Vos Savant (http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/30822.html), who has the highest IQ of any known female.



And, as Ms Vos Savant suggests the 95% accuracy postulate may be overly generous. DRUG-TESTING-solutions.net quotes an April 1992 article which appeared in Personnel Journal as saying "Only 85 of the estimated 1,200 laboratories in the United States currently testing urine for drugs meet federal standards for accuracy, qualified lab personnel, and proper documentation and record-keeping procedures. Because private companies are not required to use certified drug testing labs, workers are being asked to put their job security in the hands of a drug test that has insufficient quality controls."


She must not be too bright if she thinks only labs with a precious govt certification can do the job well.

[2young2vote]

This is a good example of what it will be like under socialized health care.

"Well, you are using government health care so it is okay to regulate the fast food industry even more so you don't get fat!"

[AuH20]

Osan -do you remember the 102 things to not do if you hate paying taxes thread?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?295369-102-things-NOT-to-do-if-you-hate-paying-taxes

By your logic - if you accept anything that is supported by tax dollars, then its okay for the government to violate your rights and control you. One of the fundamental flaws with your logic and the logic of the 102 things list is that the government forces people into these situations. Where's my option to buy private unemployment insurance?

The other important thing here is that back door government control must be opposed. How different would it be if the government offered a $1000 drug-free tax credit? If you want the tax credit, you must submit to the drug testing. Are you going to accept the violation of privacy because its voluntary? How long would we expect the violation of privacy to be voluntary?

What are you going to say when a concealed carry permit or a any gun purchasing background check requires a drug test? Are you going to cry about it violating your innate right to bear arms. Sorry, Osan - but you just tossed innate rights aside in your post above. What right to decide what you ingest? Privacy Schmivacy.

Unless we go to extreme austere measure - everybody is forced to suck on a government teat somewhere.

If you negate the rights of the recipients - you negate everybody's rights because we (sadly) get no choice but to be recipients.

You are suggesting super-rights to the providers. Guess who gets the super rights? It's the government officials and the police state who implements it.

See this for what it is - it's class warfare designed only to further government control of its mundanes.

Further control? That ship sailed from port decades ago. They practically own these folks. They're slaves for government checks. One more layer of compliance isn't going to alter the situation.

[pcosmar]

This is a good example of what it will be like under socialized health care.

"Well, you are using government health care so it is okay to regulate the fast food industry even more so you don't get fat!"

Exactly so.
The acceptance by some of the policy of intrusion in personal life is troubling.
as I said i am opposed to both welfare and Drug testing. I am opposed to employee drug testing.
There is and NEVER was anything free market about it. Nothing at all.

It was pushed by insurance Companies. Mandated by insurance companies. The same companies that are in collusion WITH the government and are mandated by the government.
I am opposed to Extortion. And forced insurance is extortion. Forced Drug testing is extortion.

The "Black Boxes" that are going in cars is yet another example of this Extortion.
Pushed by insurance Companies, Mandated by law and just another layer of control.

If you are OK with that I truly feel sorry for you. You still don't get it.

[Wolverine302]

the simple solution is to stop taking people's property and giving it to others. problem solved.

[ItsTime]

What is next? Drug tests to get a tax return? Drug tests to get a drivers license? Drug test to ride the bus?

[Shinerxx]

Given your conditions, once the person has tested positive, you may as well flip a coin to determine whether he or she is a drug user. The chances are only 50-50.

I was very interested in how she came up with this mathematical calculation so I looked it up. She's dead on.

Bayes' Theorum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem)

[pcosmar]

the simple solution is to stop taking people's property and giving it to others. problem solved.

That would be good.
So would a respect for both the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Just stop testing pee. And end the War on personal choices.

[OrigSEOH]

What is next? Drug tests to get a tax return? Drug tests to get a drivers license? Drug test to ride the bus?

lol, that is what I was thinking. It would work better if applied to public roads. That way everyone is tested that wants to use the taxpayer's roads. This is just a attack on poor people. These poor people, usually are not worth min wage. They were talking about this here in Ohio...but nothing has happened once the public outrage was felt. But hey we got random vehicle safety checkpoints going on all over the place and this seems to be another fantastic Republican State Legislature idea to attack the poor people. Seems all they know to do is attack poor people at home and brown people overseas. This in my mind just goes to show how stupid politicians are when it comes to fixing problems.

[specsaregood]

What is next? Drug tests to get a tax return? Drug tests to get a drivers license? Drug test to ride the bus?

I'm not 100% certain; but I think you already have to get drug tested to get a commercial drivers license and for a captain's license.

[AuH20]

lol, that is what I was thinking. It would work better if applied to public roads. That way everyone is tested that wants to use the taxpayer's roads. This is just a attack on poor people. These poor people, usually are not worth min wage. They were talking about this here in Ohio...but nothing has happened once the public outrage was felt. But hey we got random vehicle safety checkpoints going on all over the place and this seems to be another fantastic Republican State Legislature idea to attack the poor people. Seems all they know to do is attack poor people at home and brown people overseas. This in my mind just goes to show how stupid politicians are when it comes to fixing problems.

That's why these poor people are defined as dependents. They signed their free will and personal dignity away a long time ago. Maybe this will wake them up but I doubt it. I shed no tears for voluntary slaves. We all have a choice as effed up as this world is.

[Krugerrand]

That's why these poor people are defined as dependents. They signed their free will and personal dignity away a long time ago. Maybe this will wake them up but I doubt it. I shed no tears for voluntary slaves. We all have a choice as effed up as this world is.

And once the apparatus is in place for government controlled screenings ... you'll be the next one required to get a screening for whatever. Of course, the screenings should help build a DNA database and whatever ever other future projects that can be thought of.

But, i guess we've never seen the government expand its reach like that. :rolleyes:

[Pericles]

Drug Testing Companies are going to see huge profits.

This is who benefits from this - corporate welfare recipients.

[osan]

I'm with you. Our right to privacy is sacred, and not to be violated, whether by government tyranny or corporate tyranny.

Pre-employment drug screen? Got a warrant with probable cause for that?

And your right to job X is nonexistent. Don't like the conditions of employment? Don't take the job. I'm no fan of such conditions, but look at it from an employer's point of view: imagine you provide a product or service. The last thing you want is exposure to liability for bringing harm or death to your customers... or anyone else for that matter.

You're running an airline, for instance - how willing do you think you will be to risk killing a couple of hundred people at a time by not testing your pilots for drugs and alcohol? It is very easy to sit where you are and say "no way, I believe in liberty". It is not so easy when you are in the board room before your colleagues, the weight of your responsibility for perhaps tens of thousands of lives every day resting on your shoulders. If, for argument's sake, you were to walk that talk and a stoned pilot used one of your aircraft, full of passengers, to bore a black smoking hole in the ground, what exactly do you think your future would look like? Like nothing good? Right. Reality is what it is and you have to play smartly. Drug testing is de-rigeur these days in many companies and industries. It sucks. It should be changed. But until it changes, there is a standard of acceptable procedure that, if ignored exposes you to economic destruction and possibly even criminal liability.

Commercial pilots are assholes WAY too often to ignore the risks their unchecked behaviors pose to a company's ability to stay in business. How about the mechanics? How eager are you to get on a plane with an engine that had leftover parts when a stoned mechanic reassembled it?

If we lived in a libertarian nation, things might be different, but they aren't and I cannot in any way blame some companies from toeing this line. To do otherwise would likely result in their destruction, given the legal environment. Once again, government ruins it for everyone because they define the context and give nobody viable options.

[UWDude]

Sure, why not.

It isn't control, because people have a choice of whether or not to receive the benefits. If you are gonna get taken care of by mommy govt, then you have to live by her rules.

that's what Im saying. They should have tests for high cholesterol and obesity. F-it.

[bobbyw24]

Rick Scott spokesman: Governor will fight for drug testing of state employees 'all the way to Supreme Court if necessary.' That's expensive!

[pcosmar]

And your right to job X is nonexistent. Don't like the conditions of employment?

Who imposed those conditions ? Who enforces those conditions ?
Who Created those conditions ?

They were imposed by the collusion between protection rackets and Government.
Insurance is NOT voluntary. It once was, but that was long ago.

Insurance companies and government working together made it mandatory.
Then they imposed conditions .

True, it is a reality to be in business today.
It is also a reason that businesses have closed or moved elsewhere.

Remove that interference and business would flourish, and workers would be judged on job performance and productivity and not on personal habits.

[JK/SEA]

Before we start testing regular peasants, i think all elected and ALL government workers should be tested for EVERYTHING first.

[Yieu]

i always love government restricting government. But why not eliminate welfare altogether? Or put in a plan to phase payments out?

This is not a restriction on government -- this is a vast expansion of government power. This is bigger government.

[Krugerrand]

This is not a restriction on government -- this is a vast expansion of government power. This is bigger government.

I guess it's a 1984 style restriction.

[Meatwasp]

Like someone else said,"If you decide to suck on the governments tit you pay the piper.

[Galileo Galilei]

why not check to see if welfare applicants have even been arrested, divorced, filed for bankruptcy, or returned a video late to Blockbuster?

[Yieu]

I guess it's a 1984 style restriction.

Indeed it is, and it is very likely to cost the taxpayers more than if they did not sign this bill into law and simply did nothing.

Bigger government? Check
Higher cost to taxpayers? Check
Denial of some of the most important rights enshrined within the constitution? Check

Why would anyone here think this is a good thing again?

[pcosmar]

Why would anyone here think this is a good thing again?

Um,,Cause it's somebody else.

[tropicangela]

Raw Story reporting that ACLU filed a lawsuit yesterday. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/01/aclu-sues-florida-gov-rick-scott-over-mandatory-drug-testing-for-state-workers/)

PDF Complaint (http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Legal%20PDfs/2011-ACLU-AFSCMEComplaint.pdf)


"The government has to have a reason to search you and simply working for the state isn’t enough," said ACLU cooperating attorney Peter Walsh. "If earning a government check was enough to suspect someone of drug abuse, everyone who received any state benefit from walking a sidewalk to drinking clean water could be subject to an invasive government search."

[BamaAla]

Um,,Cause it's somebody else.

Or because I paid over $130,000 in taxes last year and am sick and tired of that money going to dead beat druggies to subsidize their lifestyle choices. By your own admission, you've been unemployed for 5 years, so you don't really have a big stake in an argument of this nature, so excuse those of us who do.

[pcosmar]

Or because I paid over $130,000 in taxes last year and am sick and tired of that money going to dead beat druggies to subsidize their lifestyle choices. By your own admission, you've been unemployed for 5 years, so you don't really have a big stake in an argument of this nature, so excuse those of us who do.

Well actually, I paid taxes in Florida for over 16 years as well as Property tax and sales tax on my home there. So i do have more to say than someone that doesn't live in Florida. or hasn't been working for 16 years yet.

I am presently is one of the worst welfare states and do pay property tax here.
and I can also guarantee (based on life experience) that this will have no affect on welfare or drug use.
It will only increase profits for testing facilities, and expenses for taxpayers.

[Danke]

You're running an airline, for instance - how willing do you think you will be to risk killing a couple of hundred people at a time by not testing your pilots for drugs and alcohol?

Commercial pilots are assholes WAY too often to ignore the risks their unchecked behaviors pose to a company's ability to stay in business.


How many reports are there of airline accidents attributed to pilots having drug or alcohol in their system? I have been in the business for a long time and haven't heard of any.

Airlines are not the ones who wish to test, it came from the government. God forbid if I smoked a joint a few weeks ago, my job would be ruined if tested.

[dejavu22]

I cant help but draw parallels between my feelings on this and the border issue. I feel a lot like Milton Freedman's assessment of immigration in that i disagree with the method of dealing with the problem at hand but realize that it is unlikely that the source of the problem will be addressed.

He once stated that even though he was a supporter of open borders that it was impossible to have both open borders and a welfare state. This issue is much the same. I dont care what other people put into their bodies and I take the libertarian position that all drugs should be legalized, but at the same time i dont think that i should have to subsidize other people's poor choices. With that in mind as a Florida resident i am largely indifferent towards this bill. Honestly food stamps if they exist at all should cover no more than what is expressly necessary to keep one alive. And in order to qualify you should have to exhaust all options. No cable, no internet, no drugs, no drinking, no car... true poverty. And by time you get to that point i guarantee that government subsidization would not be necessary charity would exceed the need.

[pcosmar]

How many reports are there of airline accidents attributed to pilots having drug or alcohol in their system? I have been in the business for a long time and haven't heard of any.

Airlines are not the ones who wish to test, it came from the government. God forbid if I smoked a joint a few weeks ago, my job would be ruined if tested.
No Shit
How did any business manage to survive prior to 1980.
And how many have disappeared since then.

think about that.

[KramerDSP]

Here is the PDF of the Lawsuit of Richard Flamm versus the State of Florida (this is referring to random drug testing at minimum of every three months, if not more, for 250,000+ Florida state employees, NOT the Welfare drug testing order).

http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Legal%20PDfs/2011-ACLU-AFSCMEComplaint.pdf

I think the ACLU has a great case. Does anyone know anything about Federal Judge Ursula Ungaro and how she leans judicially? She is the one who is being asked to file an injunction on Scott's executive order and squash the order entirely. I believe this will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

[osan]

Yes actually.
The drug screenings that are being done are a DIRECT result of the War on Drugs. Which is itself an assault on personal liberty.

Partially, yes, but not entirely. Liability is a much stronger driver.



BTW, What I do on my own time is NONE of an employers business.

It is if and when the residual effects of your activities spill over into your work duties. Would you assert that waking up from an intense acid trip on a Wednesday morning will find you in a state of complete competence to, say, make critical calculations on airframe structural designs?

Do what you want, of course, but do not expect others to agree that certain sorts of activity leave you in a state of utmost competence to perform your professional functions such that the company is not exposed to liability.

Complain all you want about these outrageous iniquities and I will join with you, but until the environment changes such that companies will not have to hold such high levels of concern for liability, this sort of thing will simply have to be. In many cases it will have to be anyway because regardless of environment, an employer will not want to risk being judged negligent by having hired a drug user.

Is anyone going to argue that drug use does not impair performance in certain classes of task? The truth may prove very complex - some people are more affected than others for this drug or that... who knows? The point is that the risk is there, it is real, and companies are in no way obligated to expose themselves to it. If we are to be free, then those hiring should be free to set standards of behavior for their employees.

Consider pro sports - the contracts now often state that the employee will be in breach if they engage in any activities that bring any ill-repute to the organization. Given the nature of that beast, I can fully understand why the teams would include this sort of requirement. Taking a public shit on their employers costs such teams a lot of money, PR capital, and so on. Why should they have to suffer such injuries because their employee insists on behaving in such ways?

Every coin has two sides.


And the BEST jobs I have had required no drug test.

Lucky you :)

[osan]

How many reports are there of airline accidents attributed to pilots having drug or alcohol in their system? I have been in the business for a long time and haven't heard of any.

That is utterly irrelevant. The world is choked with stupid, undisciplined people. Perception becomes truth. A plane goes down under questionable circumstances (not that uncommon) and what do the lawyers look for first: any path to liability. Whether the airline is actually "guilty" matters not a whit. What matters is what can be demonstrated by the preponderance of evidence. You know fully well that plaintiff's counsel will work that angle for all it is worth. There is a whole lot more to this drug testing thing than just the questions of liberty. Sad, but true.


Airlines are not the ones who wish to test, it came from the government.

Shame on government.

[pcosmar]

Partially, yes, but not entirely. Liability is a much stronger driver.




It is if and when the residual effects of your activities spill over into your work duties. Would you assert that waking up from an intense acid trip on a Wednesday morning will find you in a state of complete competence to, say, make critical calculations on airframe structural designs?



Liability? How was that handled prior to the War on Drugs?

I would also point out that Drug testing does not detect LSD.
However I did function and handle Military Weapon Systems while under the influence and afterwards,,, a long time ago.
my job performance was never questioned.

On the job drug testing was mandated by Insurance Industry in collusion with Government.
Employer Insurance was also mandated by that same Government.

And Businesses have been leaving this country for elsewhere ever since.
perhaps a coincidence.

[Danke]

That is utterly irrelevant. The world is choked with stupid, undisciplined people. Perception becomes truth.

You can't be an "undisciplined" person to achieve an Airline Transport Pilot Certificate.


Commercial pilots are assholes WAY too often to ignore the risks their unchecked behaviors pose to a company's ability to stay in business.

What are you referring to here?

[pcosmar]

You can't be an "undisciplined" person to achieve an Airline Transport Pilot Certificate.



What are you referring to here?

Apparently has never read "The Right Stuff" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_Stuff_%28book%29)

[osan]

Are you going to take the choke hold off of the markets while you are at it?

Again, were I king, markets would be truly free. The only governing presence would exist in pursuit of the guaranty and defense of human rights against any threat posed by market players. I see this as a sad necessity due to the repeatedly demonstrated habit of some people/corporations to do the wrong things.

[Carehn]

They should test for water. Any one who has water in the system is out of luck.

[osan]

Liability? How was that handled prior to the War on Drugs?

You appear to be missing the salient point that I have repeatedly, and apparently ineffectually, been making: context has changed. We must act rationally within the context given us, particularly when we are powerless to change it in any immediately meaningful way.

One of the core problems we face is out of control torts based on a seriously derailed set of trends and established precedents that have created an extremely hazardous operating environment for businesses. The widespread acceptance of the notion of the "evil corporation", for example, has helped the degradation of the business environment. Consider the archetype grifter who intentionally slips at the supermarket, secures counsel, and sues the pants off the company, and settles for some healthy cash outlay. The nature of "the system" (equity, business, culture, etc.) has nurtured the rise of this sort of hazard such that businesses feel the need to resort to such testing to best minimize their liability exposure. Add to that the the insane regulatory frameworks set into place by so-called "government" that requires such testing in certain industries, and we end up just where we find ourselves.

The world is gone wholesale looney. Government has done nothing to help this situation and much to exacerbate it. Many companies are firmly and most uncomfortably wedged between a rock and a hard place.


I would also point out that Drug testing does not detect LSD.

It was just an example. Substitute cocaine, meth, smack... whatever you might.


However I did function and handle Military Weapon Systems while under the influence and afterwards,,, a long time ago.
my job performance was never questioned.

Different days. I would note that I would not want anyone watching my back who was stoned. Call me overly particular.


On the job drug testing was mandated by Insurance Industry in collusion with Government.
Employer Insurance was also mandated by that same Government.

So? It is there. It may be wrong, but it is nevertheless fact. Until that regulatory framework is removed, one must toe a line or face annihilation. Those are the practical facts of the matter. They may suck, but that is how it is. I would also add that a private firm is well within its rights to demand its employees remain drug free. I'd not want a tweaker on my staff - not even to mop the floors.


And Businesses have been leaving this country for elsewhere ever since.
perhaps a coincidence.

For far more significant reasons than just that.

[pcosmar]

One of the core problems we face is out of control torts based on a seriously derailed set of trends and established precedents that have created an extremely hazardous operating environment for businesses. .

While i will agree that we have an entirely too litigious society, and many blame Lawyers and judges, they are only part of the problem.
Once again the culprit is insurance companies that will pay off spurious claims without even a minimal fight.

Easy money will attract a certain subset. And insurance claims are easy money.

I know some here LOVE insurance. I do not, based on personal and professional experience with them.
And their collusion with government is a great evil. It is the cause of many of our problems.

[libertarian4321]

I'm not liking it. Why not test for levels of fat for High Fructose Corn Syrup intake?

This is government control of behavior. If you don't like subsidizing bad behavior, cut the subsidy - don't try and use it to control people.

If I take a check from the government as a soldier, I have to be clean.

I also have to wake up before noon, work, and a bunch of other things the welfare losers don't have to do.

Why should welfare slugs have a lower standard than soldiers?

We should eliminate welfare, but as long as we have it, I have no problem with requiring the trash to at least meet minimal standards.

They can still sleep until noon, they can still squeeze out rug rats every 9-months (and collect their "bonus" from the government when they do), they don't have to do a lick of work- but we are going to at least make sure they aren't on crack.

I don't have a problem with that.

[Krugerrand]

If I take a check from the government as a soldier, I have to be clean.

I also have to wake up before noon, work, and a bunch of other things the welfare losers don't have to do.

Why should welfare slugs have a lower standard than soldiers?

We should eliminate welfare, but as long as we have it, I have no problem with requiring the trash to at least meet minimal standards.

They can still sleep until noon, they can still squeeze out rug rats every 9-months (and collect their "bonus" from the government when they do), they don't have to do a lick of work- but we are going to at least make sure they aren't on crack.

I don't have a problem with that.

But for what gain? So that you feel better?

You're willing to massively expand government bureaucracy, start a dangerous precedent that can then easily be expanded beyond its original scope, come with a massive price tag - all so you can feel better about people doing something that they constitutionally should be allowed to do anyway?

I can guarantee you the cost will outweigh the savings. So - then what is the purpose? Principle? The principle is that liberty demands we own our bodies and can put whatever we want into them. Liberty demands that government should not steal from one person to give to another. Liberty demands that people should be free from unreasonable searches. Liberty demands that government should not try and control peoples' behaviors. Four wrongs do not make a right.

So - if this is not about liberty - if its not about cost savings ... then all we have is class warfare designed to grow the powers of the State and its control over mundanes.

I still don't like it.

[Bman]

But for what gain? So that you feel better?


IS it really any shock that people who ask for socialism, get socialism? These policies and welfare walk hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other, it is the nature of the beast.

[osan]

While i will agree that we have an entirely too litigious society, and many blame Lawyers and judges, they are only part of the problem.
Once again the culprit is insurance companies that will pay off spurious claims without even a minimal fight.

Agreed. I find their strategy to be very short-sighted. It costs them more up front to fight, but once they established a reputation for kicking ass and taking names, the frauds would have something to think about many times before plying their trade against insurance companies.


Easy money will attract a certain subset. And insurance claims are easy money.

And that could be changed completely in just a few years. Bring criminal charges against all suspected frauds, fight them in court, and file suit against them. Make it painful for the parasites and the problem would largely subside. Even if the costs were the same, I'd rather fight than pay any of the scum so much as a red cent.



And [unsurance comany] collusion with government is a great evil. It is the cause of many of our problems.

Absolutely.

[Working Poor]

I know some here LOVE insurance. I do not, based on personal and professional experience with them.
And their collusion with government is a great evil. It is the cause of many of our problems.

My dad used to sell insurance when I was kid he loved Goldwater and Milton Friedman and he used to rag me about my hippy dippy ways so I started ragging him about what a rip off insurance is and how could any freedom loving individual collude with government and the insurance industrial complex to rip people off. He saw my point and quit his job and bought a gas station where the whole family worked together it was some of the best times of all our lives. Freedom when allowed to grow is so wonderful.

[tropicangela]

Jacksonville, FL —

Governor Rick Scott signed a bill into law today that's already gaining criticism from the ACLU.

It's now the law in Florida for welfare recipients to be drug tested before receiving cash benefits. It would require about 21,000 people in Florida - mostly women and children - to pay for their drug testing. They would be paid back if the test comes back drug free.

http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/new-law-drug-testing-welfare-recipients/nCqHt/


The other factor is that drug tests aren't accurate.


Mom's Child Taken Away After Failed Drug Test; Poppy Seed Bagel Blamed

The woman said she tested positive for drugs after delivering her child because she ate a poppy seed bagel before giving birth.

Elizabeth Mort said Children and Youth Services came to her home three days after the child was born at Jameson Hospital to remove the baby from her home. CYS officials said her hospital bloodwork showed that she was using opiates.

http://www.wpxi.com/news/25370016/detail.html

Plus, so many welfare people (all people) are taking prescription drugs that can be just as bad as or worse than "illegal" ones, and they're covered by welfare.

Scary and invasive social engineering bill, probably making it more of a cluster.

[Razmear]

Does this apply to corporate welfare too?

[bobbyw24]

ORLANDO, Florida (AP) — A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida's new law that requires government assistance applicants to pass a drug test before receiving the benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Judge Mary Scriven's ruling is in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union that claims the law is unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who sought the benefits while finishing his college degree, but refused to take the test.

Nearly 1,600 applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid-July, but they aren't required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families. The majority of positives were for marijuana.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hq7PXPgenNEe7vIn4r8W3e-esBcA?docId=24fda81f3c324ad98f32176c95755dbe

[Krugerrand]

ORLANDO, Florida (AP) — A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida's new law that requires government assistance applicants to pass a drug test before receiving the benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Judge Mary Scriven's ruling is in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union that claims the law is unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who sought the benefits while finishing his college degree, but refused to take the test.

Nearly 1,600 applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid-July, but they aren't required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families. The majority of positives were for marijuana.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hq7PXPgenNEe7vIn4r8W3e-esBcA?docId=24fda81f3c324ad98f32176c95755dbe

Good. Now let the the block be permanent. This is nothing more than a massive power grab and intrusion of government sold via class warfare.