Denied! Judge Blocks New Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law

[Bass v 2.0]

Judge Blocks New Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law | News One

Supporters say applicants skipped the test because they knew they would have tested positive for drugs. Applicants must pay $25 to $35 for the test and are reimbursed by the state if they pass. It’s unclear if the state has saved money. During his campaign, Scott said the measure would save $77 million, but it’s unclear how he arrived at those figures.

Is it me or is it that GOPtards love throwing out imaginary monetary figures just to sway people into believing something that is falseß

 

[Ravi]

 

[Claudette]

Its a temporary stay.

Will have to see where it goes.

Funny how 7,000 decided not to take the test. Guess the free money wasn't as important as their drugs.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Its a temporary stay.

Will have to see where it goes.

Funny how 7,000 decided not to take the test. Guess the free money wasn't as important as their drugs.

You have flawed reading skills, 7,000 people *PASSED* the test and 1600 refused.

 

[Avatar4321]

And it was stayed on what grounds exactly? Because a judge doesn't like it? Well too bad. The legislature legitimately passed it and there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

 

[RDD_1210]

I understand why its unconstitutional but I like the premise of the law.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Funny how 7,000 decided not to take the test. Guess the free money wasn't as important as their drugs.

I guess you're not paying attention. Over 7000 people PASSED the test. Only 32 failed, and 1600 did not take it. When this was discussed in an earlier thread it was established that many people did not take the test because they did not have transportation to a testing facility, while others did not have the disposable funds to pay for the test. As it is, the evidence indicates that 0.05% of applicants used drugs recently before applying.

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

Well I guess this means that I am gonna have to stop eating Poppy Seed bagels for 14 days, then take the test. I have to Suffer for my welfare check !!!!

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

also, I wonder how many welfare candidates are investing some of that money in drugs? how can so many welfare people be driving nice cars and afford all those expensive gadgets? hmm, maybe that's why Obama won Cally and New York?

 

[Luissa]

I think it is funny that the applicants are less likely to use drugs than the general population. Something like only 2% are testing positive. I guess it is worth the millions in drug testing fees. Lol

 

[Ravi]

I think we should make Rick Scott submit to random pee tests. The guy is pretty batshit crazy and I have to wonder if drugs are contributing to that craziness.

 

[Mustang]

And it was stayed on what grounds exactly? Because a judge doesn't like it? Well too bad. The legislature legitimately passed it and there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Aside from the issues of illegal search and seizure and a lack of probable cause to test someone, it's a law that is only directed at one segment of society which is receiving state tax money. I would ask, what about ANYONE else who receives state tax money? Like contractors, for example. Or how about business owners or managment executives who receive tax breaks (essentially subsidies) for their businesses.

And with ALL this talk of cutting spending, how much does it cost to conduct all these drug tests? How do taxpayers feel about that kind of spending? And since the governor used to own (and I believe still does own and/or run) healthcare companies, has anyone thought to investigate whether the governor is financially benefiting from state mandated drug tests?

 

[Inthemiddle]

And it was stayed on what grounds exactly? Because a judge doesn't like it? Well too bad.

Seems you don't know much about the procedural elements in a situation like this. When a suit is brought requesting injunctive relief a plaintiff can and usually does request an initial temporary injunction that lasts a short time, and is usually meant to preserve the status quo, until some kind of initial hearing to determine if the case has merit to move forward. Generally, a temporary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff makes an initial showing that the case has merit, that (s)he will suffer a significant injury without the temporary injunction, and an initial showing that the respondent will not suffer significant injury under the temporary injunction. In this case, the judge notes that the law might be unconstitutional. Thus, in the judge's discretion he felt that the possibility of violating constitutional rights, when weighed against the relatively minor injury to the state, if any, was sufficient to justify a temporary injunction, until such time as a hearing will determine whether there is grounds to issue a preliminary injunction.

This is the same procedure that would be applied to any other situation. For example, if I own a business called Biztime, which has been established for 10 years, and you open a similar business under the same, or comparable name, I could sue for injunctive relief to prevent you from doing business under my name. It would pretty much be a shoe in for me to gain a temporary injunction to prevent you from doing business as Biztime until we could have a preliminary hearing in a week or two.

The legislature legitimately passed it and there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Why do you say it's not unconstitutional? Just because you like it? Fact is, this does indeed seem to be unconstitutional. It's the government conducting searches without a reasonable cause to suspect you have violated the law. As the article notes, a similar law was struck down several years ago from Michigan.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I think it is funny that the applicants are less likely to use drugs than the general population. Something like only 2% are testing positive. I guess it is worth the millions in drug testing fees. Lol

Less than that, it's 0.05% that are testing positive. I dunno, maybe it has something to do with the fact that they're dirt poor and couldn't afford the drugs even if they wanted them.

 

[Inthemiddle]

how can so many welfare people be driving nice cars and afford all those expensive gadgets?

Unless you can offer evidence that this is happening in the first place, don't even make such absurd claims.

 

[grunt11b]

Judge Blocks New Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law | News One

Supporters say applicants skipped the test because they knew they would have tested positive for drugs. Applicants must pay $25 to $35 for the test and are reimbursed by the state if they pass. It’s unclear if the state has saved money. During his campaign, Scott said the measure would save $77 million, but it’s unclear how he arrived at those figures.

Is it me or is it that GOPtards love throwing out imaginary monetary figures just to sway people into believing something that is falseß

Almost like the libtards that said if we dont pass this $800 Billion right now unemployment will go above 8%?.
Welfare recipients SHOULD have to take the piss test, no if ands or butts, also. I posted this about 2 hours before you did, and am amazed that your post did not get lumped into mine to save board space.

 

[Claudette]

Its a temporary stay.

Will have to see where it goes.

Funny how 7,000 decided not to take the test. Guess the free money wasn't as important as their drugs.

You have flawed reading skills, 7,000 people *PASSED* the test and 1600 refused.

I stand corrected. Your right. It was 1600 who refused.

Apparantly those 1600 decided the free money wasn't as important as their drugs.

 

[boilermaker55]

What the right-wing social guardians don't understand is the right to refuse because you feel the law is unjust. Singling out just those who are receiving unemployment or welfar checks maybe against the law.
There is a writer for a newspaper in FL. offering to pay for the testing of all the individuals serving in congress right now to see if they pass the test. They, for all intents and purposes, receiving government money.
I wonder how many of those would refuse to take the test, and better yet, how many would or could pass. How about taking it the full way, anyone......receiving any government money must pass a drug test. EVERYONE! Who and what does this involve?
Subisidies and military personnel veterans...etc.
Why just a few?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Its a temporary stay.

Will have to see where it goes.

Funny how 7,000 decided not to take the test. Guess the free money wasn't as important as their drugs.

You have flawed reading skills, 7,000 people *PASSED* the test and 1600 refused.

I stand corrected. Your right. It was 1600 who refused.

Apparantly those 1600 decided the free money wasn't as important as their drugs.

Ok, troll on because you most certainly know this for sure.......

 

[Bass v 2.0]

What the right-wing social guardians don't understand is the right to refuse because you feel the law is unjust. Singling out just those who are receiving unemployment or welfar checks maybe against the law.
There is a writer for a newspaper in FL. offering to pay for the testing of all the individuals serving in congress right now to see if they pass the test. They, for all intents and purposes, receiving government money.
I wonder how many of those would refuse to take the test, and better yet, how many would or could pass. How about taking it the full way, anyone......receiving any government money must pass a drug test. EVERYONE! Who and what does this involve?
Subisidies and military personnel veterans...etc.
Why just a few?

Take that a step further, every business that wants taxcuts should get drug tested too.