Conservative Assault on Civil Liberties in Florida

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2011
76,472
36,117
2,290
In a Republic, actually
Bill requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests headed to governor

A measure requiring the tests passed the Senate on Thursday and is headed to Gov. Rick Scott, who called it one of his legislative priorities.

“This is an effort to stop this cycle of drug abuse,” said Sen. Steve Oelrich, R-Gainesville, one of the sponsors, who added the requirement was similar to one that many employers make of workers.

Bill requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests headed to governor - Legislature - MiamiHerald.com

BS – it’s an assault on the poor and designed to discourage those who don’t use drugs from applying for benefits because of the cost and intrusive nature of the testing.

Just as in Michigan over a decade ago, drug testing in Florida is a violation of one’s 4th Amendment right to be free from unwarranted searches. In Marchwinski v. Howard, 2000, the US District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division ruled:

As in Chandler, the State in this case has not demonstrated a special need that justifies departure from the ordinary Fourth Amendment requirement of individualized suspicion. The State has not shown that public safety is genuinely placed in jeopardy in the absence of drug testing of all [public assistance] applicants and of random, suspicionless testing of [public assistance] recipients.

The primary justification advanced by the State for instituting mandatory drug testing is to move more families from welfare to work. In House Legislative Analyses of House Bill 4090, the "Apparent Problem" was described as follows:

Michigan reformed its welfare system in 1995.... While the new program has been largely successful, none of the reforms have been able to overcome one persistent problem: for some people, the major barrier to employment is rooted in substance abuse.

The State's desire to address substance abuse as a barrier to employment is laudable and understandable in view of the Federal mandate to move welfare recipients to work. Yet, it does not constitute a special need sufficient to warrant a departure from the Fourth Amendment's main rule. "[W]here, as in this case, public safety is not genuinely in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes the suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently arranged." Id. at 323, 117 S.Ct. 1295. The State does not even attempt to argue that its goal of moving welfare recipients to work is a public safety issue, nor could it. Consequently, the State's [public assistance] drug testing does "not fit within the closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches." Chandler at 309, 117 S.Ct. 1295.
 
Cry me a fucking river you whiny little douse bag.

It long over due that working people stop supporting the drug habits of people on welfare.

fyi; welfare is a privileged, not a right.
 
First they came for the WELFARE CASES, but I was not on welfare so I did not speak up...

Many of you folks really cannot see how the demonization of drugs and the police state are really connected, can you?
 
Bill requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests headed to governor

A measure requiring the tests passed the Senate on Thursday and is headed to Gov. Rick Scott, who called it one of his legislative priorities.

“This is an effort to stop this cycle of drug abuse,” said Sen. Steve Oelrich, R-Gainesville, one of the sponsors, who added the requirement was similar to one that many employers make of workers.

Bill requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests headed to governor - Legislature - MiamiHerald.com

BS – it’s an assault on the poor and designed to discourage those who don’t use drugs from applying for benefits because of the cost and intrusive nature of the testing.

Just as in Michigan over a decade ago, drug testing in Florida is a violation of one’s 4th Amendment right to be free from unwarranted searches. In Marchwinski v. Howard, 2000, the US District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division ruled:

As in Chandler, the State in this case has not demonstrated a special need that justifies departure from the ordinary Fourth Amendment requirement of individualized suspicion. The State has not shown that public safety is genuinely placed in jeopardy in the absence of drug testing of all [public assistance] applicants and of random, suspicionless testing of [public assistance] recipients.

The primary justification advanced by the State for instituting mandatory drug testing is to move more families from welfare to work. In House Legislative Analyses of House Bill 4090, the "Apparent Problem" was described as follows:

Michigan reformed its welfare system in 1995.... While the new program has been largely successful, none of the reforms have been able to overcome one persistent problem: for some people, the major barrier to employment is rooted in substance abuse.

The State's desire to address substance abuse as a barrier to employment is laudable and understandable in view of the Federal mandate to move welfare recipients to work. Yet, it does not constitute a special need sufficient to warrant a departure from the Fourth Amendment's main rule. "[W]here, as in this case, public safety is not genuinely in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes the suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently arranged." Id. at 323, 117 S.Ct. 1295. The State does not even attempt to argue that its goal of moving welfare recipients to work is a public safety issue, nor could it. Consequently, the State's [public assistance] drug testing does "not fit within the closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches." Chandler at 309, 117 S.Ct. 1295.

1. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the term 'conservative.' In your lexicon is means, I suppose, any view that is not authentically liberal or progressive.
Actually, it refers to a belief in, among other things, the liberty and freedom of the individual.
An individual is free not to take a drug test, and to decline welfare benefits.
America provides beau-coup charitable benefits not tied to governmental programs.

a. Since the definition of 'liberal,' according to Dennis Prager, is 'good intentions plus coercion equals solution,' it seems that you are in favor of wringing funds out of the taxpayer to support drug use.
So, you are liberal?

2. From your link: "...to pay for the tests, which are typically around $35."
This seems hardly excessive, as I'm going to guess that benefits are consideralbly more...a kind of an 'investment' the individual makes to help get him or her on their feet.

3. Exactly how much are you currently giving in aid to those in need?
 
I guess there should be NO restrictions put on these "poor" people sucking of the TAXPAYERS tit.
 
While our war on drugs is a failure,requiring welfare recipients to pass a drug test is protecting peoples liberties by not requiring others to pay for their drugs.
 
So? Don't go on welfare

There was once a cartoon in The New Yorker. It showed this very wealthy, fat cat type guy, sitting in the study of his mansion, having an afternoon cocktail with his wife. Outside in the driveway, you could see several Cadillacs, etc.

Fat Cat takes a sip of his martini and says: "You know, Margaret, you would never catch ME on welfare."

Do you think that the folks on welfare WANT to be there?
 
So? Don't go on welfare

There was once a cartoon in The New Yorker. It showed this very wealthy, fat cat type guy, sitting in the study of his mansion, having an afternoon cocktail with his wife. Outside in the driveway, you could see several Cadillacs, etc.

Fat Cat takes a sip of his martini and says: "You know, Margaret, you would never catch ME on welfare."

Do you think that the folks on welfare WANT to be there?

Georgie-Porgie....you are totally correct! And the proof is tha only about 3-5% of folks remain in that category.

a. Journalists and academics alike endlessly repeat that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. What these discussions ignore is that people move with some frequency from category to category over time. Only 5 percent of Americans who were in the bottom quintile of income earners in 1975 were still there in 1991. Only 25 percent of the “super-rich” in 1996 (the top 1/100th of 1 percent of income earners) remained in that category in 2005.

b. Over half of the poor earning at or near the minimum wage are between the ages of 16 and 24. As Sowell wryly notes, “these individuals cannot remain from 16 to 24 years of age indefinitely, though that age category can of course continue indefinitely, providing many intellectuals with data to fit their preconceptions.”

c. Abstract talk about “inequities” in income distribution presupposes a social problem, where strictly speaking one may not exist at all. Sowell’s analysis helps us understand why intellectuals so often call for government to promote economic redistribution.
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/bc0618dm.html

See, the Left knows what a softee you are, so they wave the 'poor' flag.
 
Last edited:
Bill requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests headed to governor

A measure requiring the tests passed the Senate on Thursday and is headed to Gov. Rick Scott, who called it one of his legislative priorities.

“This is an effort to stop this cycle of drug abuse,” said Sen. Steve Oelrich, R-Gainesville, one of the sponsors, who added the requirement was similar to one that many employers make of workers.

Bill requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests headed to governor - Legislature - MiamiHerald.com
BS – it’s an assault on the poor and designed to discourage those who don’t use drugs from applying for benefits because of the cost and intrusive nature of the testing.

Just as in Michigan over a decade ago, drug testing in Florida is a violation of one’s 4th Amendment right to be free from unwarranted searches. In Marchwinski v. Howard, 2000, the US District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division ruled:

As in Chandler, the State in this case has not demonstrated a special need that justifies departure from the ordinary Fourth Amendment requirement of individualized suspicion. The State has not shown that public safety is genuinely placed in jeopardy in the absence of drug testing of all [public assistance] applicants and of random, suspicionless testing of [public assistance] recipients.

The primary justification advanced by the State for instituting mandatory drug testing is to move more families from welfare to work. In House Legislative Analyses of House Bill 4090, the "Apparent Problem" was described as follows:

Michigan reformed its welfare system in 1995.... While the new program has been largely successful, none of the reforms have been able to overcome one persistent problem: for some people, the major barrier to employment is rooted in substance abuse.

The State's desire to address substance abuse as a barrier to employment is laudable and understandable in view of the Federal mandate to move welfare recipients to work. Yet, it does not constitute a special need sufficient to warrant a departure from the Fourth Amendment's main rule. "[W]here, as in this case, public safety is not genuinely in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes the suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently arranged." Id. at 323, 117 S.Ct. 1295. The State does not even attempt to argue that its goal of moving welfare recipients to work is a public safety issue, nor could it. Consequently, the State's [public assistance] drug testing does "not fit within the closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches." Chandler at 309, 117 S.Ct. 1295.


Here's a tip for ya, sOn....

If you don't live here, don't move here.
If you live here, MOVE.

Or quit smoking crack

:cuckoo:
 
Do you think that the folks on welfare WANT to be there?

In some cases yes. In many cases no. HOWEVER, in MOST cases they're on welfare because of mistakes and poor choices that THEY MADE.

Nobody told them to drop out of school. Nobody told them to get pregnant at age 15. Nobody told them to get arrested and thrown in jail, thereby negating a large amount of their ability to find reasonable work. These are all things that THEY CHOSE TO DO; and which they are now paying the penalty for.
 
Many employers require drug testing including the military and law enforcement. I don't see why welfare recipiants should be held to a different standard.
 
The same corrupt congress critters who pass these laws should be drug tested as well. It'd be interesting to find out how many of them are complete hypocrites. Same goes for the banksters and corporations who were bailed out with government money. Corporate welfare is still welfare, though you'll never see those guys tested.

The golden rule. He who owns the gold, makes the rule.
 
Last edited:
I am pro testing welfare recipients , I question charging them for the tests though.

Also, about George's comments about people wanting to be on welfare. The answer of course is that obviously there are people who are just pleased as punch to collect welfare and not have to WORK to improve their lot in life. I , and most others, have NO problem with our tax money giving someone a helping hand when they need one, BUT those are not the same people who have made a lifestyle out of welfare. I don't think the guy who is down on his luck at the moment and needs some help feeding his family until he can take steps to correct his current situation is going to mind one bit that the state wants him to take a drug test.
 
Bill requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests headed to governor

A measure requiring the tests passed the Senate on Thursday and is headed to Gov. Rick Scott, who called it one of his legislative priorities.

“This is an effort to stop this cycle of drug abuse,” said Sen. Steve Oelrich, R-Gainesville, one of the sponsors, who added the requirement was similar to one that many employers make of workers.

Bill requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests headed to governor - Legislature - MiamiHerald.com
BS – it’s an assault on the poor and designed to discourage those who don’t use drugs from applying for benefits because of the cost and intrusive nature of the testing.

Just as in Michigan over a decade ago, drug testing in Florida is a violation of one’s 4th Amendment right to be free from unwarranted searches. In Marchwinski v. Howard, 2000, the US District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division ruled:

As in Chandler, the State in this case has not demonstrated a special need that justifies departure from the ordinary Fourth Amendment requirement of individualized suspicion. The State has not shown that public safety is genuinely placed in jeopardy in the absence of drug testing of all [public assistance] applicants and of random, suspicionless testing of [public assistance] recipients.

The primary justification advanced by the State for instituting mandatory drug testing is to move more families from welfare to work. In House Legislative Analyses of House Bill 4090, the "Apparent Problem" was described as follows:

Michigan reformed its welfare system in 1995.... While the new program has been largely successful, none of the reforms have been able to overcome one persistent problem: for some people, the major barrier to employment is rooted in substance abuse.

The State's desire to address substance abuse as a barrier to employment is laudable and understandable in view of the Federal mandate to move welfare recipients to work. Yet, it does not constitute a special need sufficient to warrant a departure from the Fourth Amendment's main rule. "[W]here, as in this case, public safety is not genuinely in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes the suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently arranged." Id. at 323, 117 S.Ct. 1295. The State does not even attempt to argue that its goal of moving welfare recipients to work is a public safety issue, nor could it. Consequently, the State's [public assistance] drug testing does "not fit within the closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches." Chandler at 309, 117 S.Ct. 1295.

I could credibly make this argument because I have actually argued for an end to the drug war, have you?

If you have not, why should we support welfare recipients who are demonstrably breaking the law. Believe it or not, you do not have a civil right to break the law, even if you are rich.
 

Forum List

Back
Top