Denied! Judge Blocks New Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law

[jillian]

libtards can provide no rational reason why working American taxpayers should be forced to subsidize drug abusers. NONE.

first you need to prove drug abuse is a problem before you violate people's rights.

for government to enact something of this nature, you have to prove a) there's a problem; and b) the solution is narrowly constructed to address that particular problem. then and only then can you infringe upon a fundamental right...

l

you don't want to take a drug test? don't apply for welfare.

you don't want to be searched and seized? don't fly on an aeroplane.



it's just that simple. choose you right. it's up to you.

not how it works just because you wish it.

there is a governmental interest in securing airplanes. the searches are limited to that goal.

what justifies this intrusion? there are search and seizure issues and equal protection issues since a) it impacts rich and poor differently; it impacts drug users and alcoholics differently.. .there's a myriad of issues.

and mostly, there's no evidence that drugs are a problem among people who receive assistance.

are they a greater problem than lazy ass drunks like some of the people who post on this board?

normal people don't relish humiliating people for no reason. and that's all this is.

thanks for playing.

 

[CT9]

Anyways, its funny you give an example of one case you think will help you but can't of the other where the courts have been firm on the issue where if you submit to a search that makes it unconstitutional. If you can show me that I will by all means cede you are correct on that...

I have never heard that a consensual search is illegal, which would be the case here. You can revoke that consent, however, that wouldn't really do anyone any good.

I never said consensual searches were unconstitutional. I said that "consent" cannot be given under some kind of coercion, quid pro quo, etc. The circumstances of a "detention," a search, or "giving consent" cannot approach or approximate such conditions as to suggest or imply a mandate, or to promise anything favorable in return for the consent. When these things happen, the 4th amendment is not satisfied.

There is a case on the top of my head, though I'll have to see if I can dig it up and give you the name of the case. But basically, a suspected drug smuggler was approached by law enforcement, was asked he would talk with them for a few minutes, and then escorted to a room with a table. The police asked if th brief case he was carrying belonged to him, asked if he had the key to unlock it, asked if they could look inside, etc. They discovered drugs, but the SCOTUS ruled that the government did not have a constitutionally permissible grounds to execute a search on his nominal "consent" because the circumstances were de facto that of a forced search.

It's all good, I take your word for it. Perhaps this is unconstitutional, the more I think about it, it is truly pointless. The problem isn't just people abusing welfare on drugs, plenty of people who aren't on drugs abuse welfare even more.

I know people who have to run around and hide TV's and Xbox's when they come so they can stay on it. Crack heads and pot heads wouldn't be doing that lol

 

[WillowTree]

first you need to prove drug abuse is a problem before you violate people's rights.

for government to enact something of this nature, you have to prove a) there's a problem; and b) the solution is narrowly constructed to address that particular problem. then and only then can you infringe upon a fundamental right...

l

you don't want to take a drug test? don't apply for welfare.

you don't want to be searched and seized? don't fly on an aeroplane.



it's just that simple. choose you right. it's up to you.

not how it works just because you wish it.

thanks for playing.

well but,, it has, at least the aeroplane part has been decided. and the welfare one is still up for grabs. me? I'm betting on justice for the taxpayer. That's why I'm so in favor of a consumption tax.. all the little leeches in America will finally pay a little something.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Did you miss that, go take a ride through a city and you can see. I think a lot has to be done to fix Welfare and make it truly effective instead of nurturing dependency. Its not hard to get, the welfare.

That little VH1 clip has nothing to do with this discussion. We're talking about a FL law that violates the constitution by forcing people to submit to searches. Woo-Tang is irrelvant here. As they are in the rest of the world, I might add.

 

[WillowTree]

Did you miss that, go take a ride through a city and you can see. I think a lot has to be done to fix Welfare and make it truly effective instead of nurturing dependency. Its not hard to get, the welfare.

That little VH1 clip has nothing to do with this discussion. We're talking about a FL law that violates the constitution by forcing people to submit to searches. Woo-Tang is irrelvant here. As they are in the rest of the world, I might add.

The law doesn't force anyone to do a damn thing. Dummie ass.

 

[The T]

Did you miss that, go take a ride through a city and you can see. I think a lot has to be done to fix Welfare and make it truly effective instead of nurturing dependency. Its not hard to get, the welfare.

That little VH1 clip has nothing to do with this discussion. We're talking about a FL law that violates the constitution by forcing people to submit to searches. Woo-Tang is irrelvant here. As they are in the rest of the world, I might add.

Wrong. It forces people to be responsible with OTHER PEOPLE's Money...it's a thing called Morality.

YOU are an enabler. And a Statist/Leftist creep.

 

[jillian]

you don't want to take a drug test? don't apply for welfare.

you don't want to be searched and seized? don't fly on an aeroplane.



it's just that simple. choose you right. it's up to you.

not how it works just because you wish it.

thanks for playing.

well but,, it has, at least the aeroplane part has been decided. and the welfare one is still up for grabs. me? I'm betting on justice for the taxpayer. That's why I'm so in favor of a consumption tax.. all the little leeches in America will finally pay a little something.

try not deleting the parts of the post that deal with the issue.

anyone with at least half a brain knows that consumption taxes impact poorer people disproportionately... and slow the economy by discouraging purchasing goods.

idiota.

 

[CT9]

Did you miss that, go take a ride through a city and you can see. I think a lot has to be done to fix Welfare and make it truly effective instead of nurturing dependency. Its not hard to get, the welfare.

That little VH1 clip has nothing to do with this discussion. We're talking about a FL law that violates the constitution by forcing people to submit to searches. Woo-Tang is irrelvant here. As they are in the rest of the world, I might add.

You said how many people are using drugs on welfare


One ODB at that time was a millionaire

Two He was on drugs

And I think that video is hilarious that's the only reason I posted that... Never said it was relevant to the law, just that welfare fraud and recipients use drugs.... that's all.

 

[Inthemiddle]

YOU are an enabler. And a Statist/Leftist creep.

1) You're saying the government should legislate morality, and I'm the statist?

2) I'm not a "leftist." Observe:

*PRO strong immigration laws and enforcement
*PRO English as national language
*PRO more governance at state level instead of federal level
*PRO unseating Obama from the White House
*PRO fiscal responsibility

*ANTI government financed bailouts
*ANTI over intrusive government in personal lives
*ANTI Obama's HC bill

Presidential voting record in past decade:

2000 = John McCain (write in)
2004 = John Kerry
2008 = Mitt Romney (write in)
2012 = (currently circling between Romney and Cain to support)


If you think that makes me a leftist, then you can join my ignore list with the other fanatical extremists.

 

[RDD_1210]

This is just not right. Why should fl tax payers pay for drug addicts addiction. If a person has to take a drug test to have a job then people on welfare should have to do one to get their checks.

And people that live off of government bennies should also take drug tests....that would be you.

If they want us to take a drug test I have no problem with it. I have nothing to hide And when hubby was active duty they did do drug test on him all the time. He had to take a drug test to get his current job. If you have nothing to hide then why have a problem with it

You support the health insurance mandate then I assume? I mean, you are going to purchase health insurance anyway, why have a problem with the mandate.

Here comes the back peddling....

 

[The T]

YOU are an enabler. And a Statist/Leftist creep.

1) You're saying the government should legislate morality, and I'm the statist?

2) I'm not a "leftist." Observe:

*PRO strong immigration laws and enforcement
*PRO English as national language
*PRO more governance at state level instead of federal level
*PRO unseating Obama from the White House
*PRO fiscal responsibility

*ANTI government financed bailouts
*ANTI over intrusive government in personal lives
*ANTI Obama's HC bill

Presidential voting record in past decade:

2000 = John McCain (write in)
2004 = John Kerry
2008 = Mitt Romney (write in)
2012 = (currently circling between Romney and Cain to support)


If you think that makes me a leftist, then you can join my ignore list with the other fanatical extremists.

Then YOU should check your ZEAL of enabling people to bilk the taxpayer, especially when LAW is written in favour of the taxpayer when they demand an accounting be had of people taking welfare funds...

Drug testing to ensure that the funds aren't being used for nefarious/unlawful purposes isn't much to ask, now is it?

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

It's easy to come up with those Figures. You simply use the existing studies and estimates as to how many People use Drugs and apply them to the welfare roles, If you assume anyone using would be cut off, you can come up with expected savings right there.

I for one am all for it. I have no problem helping those in need, but I do have a problem with tax dollars being given to someone who spends a large % of their Income on Drug Use. If you don't want to be tested, don't ask for Welfare. We the people have every right to ask you to submit to a drug test before we subsidize your income.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Then YOU should check your ZEAL of enabling people to bilk the taxpayer, especially when LAW is written in favour of the taxpayer when they demand an accounting be had of people taking welfare funds...

Drug testing to ensure that the funds aren't being used for nefarious/unlawful purposes isn't much to ask, now is it?

My zeal is for the constitution.

 

[RDD_1210]

libtards can provide no rational reason why working American taxpayers should be forced to subsidize drug abusers. NONE.

first you need to prove drug abuse is a problem before you violate people's rights.

for government to enact something of this nature, you have to prove a) there's a problem; and b) the solution is narrowly constructed to address that particular problem. then and only then can you infringe upon a fundamental right...

l

you don't want to take a drug test? don't apply for welfare.

you don't want to be searched and seized? don't fly on an aeroplane.



it's just that simple. choose you right. it's up to you.

I love, love, love that you are on social security and medicare and pretend like everyone else are the moochers. LOVE.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The law doesn't force anyone to do a damn thing. Dummie ass.

You keep posting this as if it’s some sort of ‘justification’; it’s not - the state may not use un-Constitutional means to prevent citizens from applying for benefits, it’s a violation of the doctrine of un-Constitutional conditions. Citizens have the right to apply for public assistance and be determined eligible or ineligible based upon statutory criteria, not by an illegal search or the applicants’ refusal to be subjected to an illegal search.

Linked below is the judge’s ruling, it contains the law, precedent, reasoning, and explanation as to why the Florida welfare drug test program is un-Constitutional:

http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/2011-10-24-ACLUTanfOrder.pdf

 

[Seawytch]

You asswipe libtards cannot come up with a single plausible reason as to why the hard working taxpayer should subsidize someone's drug use.

So you agree that government contractors, Medicare recipients and all legislators should be drug tested as well?

Medicare forces the worker to pay into the system,, the dirt bag seeking assistance from the Florida tax payers was not forced to pay into the system. try again retard.

Not everyone who receives Medicare pays into it, pussy. What about those gov't contractors, pussy? Why shouldn't we, the taxpayer, be demanding drug tests for them? Oh, I know...Blackwater (or is it Xe now) would be fired...

 

[Seawytch]

Conservatives...where is the fiscal responsibility in this program?

 

[hortysir]

Don't like it?

Don't move here.

Simple

 

[bripat9643]

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

I think it's funny how stupid libturds can't do simple math. The percentage of applicants who didn't pass the test is (1600 + 32) /(7000 + 1600 + 32) = 19%

 

[IndependntLogic]

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

I predicted the arrival of Amicus Curie briefs before this thing ever started. Not like that was tough to guess though. I'm okay with the idea but this is going to cost WAY more than it will save.