Let me get this straight.

[grunt11b]

I have to take a random drug test and pass it to keep my job with the gubment, but it's against the 4th amendment for entitlement receivers to have to take a drug test to keep receiving taxpayer dollars for welfare? This judge is pathetic, and wrong. If I was the governor I would rewrite the laws governing the receiving of welfare, I would make it mandatory that they sign a form stating that they agree to a drug test each month to receive the welfare, that would bypass this judges ruling by having the recipient either volunteer to take the test or not receive the money or stamps.
Typical progressive bullshit, if you cannot get it done through legislation you go through a corrupt judge to legislate it from the bench.
Judge Blocks Florida's New Welfare Drug Testing Law | Fox News

 

[AquaAthena]

I have to take a random drug test and pass it to keep my job with the gubment, but it's against the 4th amendment for entitlement receivers to have to take a drug test to keep receiving taxpayer dollars for welfare? This judge is pathetic, and wrong. If I was the governor I would rewrite the laws governing the receiving of welfare, I would make it mandatory that they sign a form stating that they agree to a drug test each month to receive the welfare, that would bypass this judges ruling by having the recipient either volunteer to take the test or not receive the money or stamps.
Typical progressive bullshit, if you cannot get it done through legislation you go through a corrupt judge to legislate it from the bench.
Judge Blocks Florida's New Welfare Drug Testing Law | Fox News

It is the judges and lawyers that have turned our country upside down, as they give deference to the takers.

 

[Dragon]

I have to take a random drug test and pass it to keep my job with the gubment, but it's against the 4th amendment for entitlement receivers to have to take a drug test to keep receiving taxpayer dollars for welfare?

Is there some good reason why you have to take a drug test to keep your job? Is your job one that would be seriously compromised if you were using, say, heroin or meth?

(I'm not defending the practice, 'cause I think drug tests for employment suck balls, but just pointing out one key difference here.)

 

[naturegirl]

I have to take a random drug test and pass it to keep my job with the gubment, but it's against the 4th amendment for entitlement receivers to have to take a drug test to keep receiving taxpayer dollars for welfare?

Is there some good reason why you have to take a drug test to keep your job? Is your job one that would be seriously compromised if you were using, say, heroin or meth?

(I'm not defending the practice, 'cause I think drug tests for employment suck balls, but just pointing out one key difference here.)

How is it different?? Especially when kids are involved. Shouldn't they have straight/sober parents to make sure they aren't hurt?? Aren't our children important enough to make safety a priority??

 

[Dragon]

How is it different?? Especially when kids are involved. Shouldn't they have straight/sober parents to make sure they aren't hurt?? Aren't our children important enough to make safety a priority??

What is the consequence if someone tests positive?

I could get behind this if what's done is to get more information, find out if the drug use represents a serious problem (e.g. heroin addiction), and if so get the parents into rehab therapy.

What I suspect, though, is that the consequence would be a denial of benefits, which would make the children's already-difficult situation that much worse.

 

[grunt11b]

I have to take a random drug test and pass it to keep my job with the gubment, but it's against the 4th amendment for entitlement receivers to have to take a drug test to keep receiving taxpayer dollars for welfare?

Is there some good reason why you have to take a drug test to keep your job? Is your job one that would be seriously compromised if you were using, say, heroin or meth?

(I'm not defending the practice, 'cause I think drug tests for employment suck balls, but just pointing out one key difference here.)

I work for the DOJ with the Bureau of Prisons. The bureau does a bureau wide 5% screening every month. I have been selected twice in the last 5-1/2 years. I feel that if people out there have to take them to keep there jobs, then so should folks receiving entitlement benefits at the tax payers expense.

 

[grunt11b]

I have to take a random drug test and pass it to keep my job with the gubment, but it's against the 4th amendment for entitlement receivers to have to take a drug test to keep receiving taxpayer dollars for welfare?

Is there some good reason why you have to take a drug test to keep your job? Is your job one that would be seriously compromised if you were using, say, heroin or meth?

(I'm not defending the practice, 'cause I think drug tests for employment suck balls, but just pointing out one key difference here.)

How is it different?? Especially when kids are involved. Shouldn't they have straight/sober parents to make sure they aren't hurt?? Aren't our children important enough to make safety a priority??

That and I know of people who get the stamps and sell them, the state tried to deal with this by issuing DBT cards, it didn't work either. Say they get $400 a month in stamps, they will turn around and take someone to the store and purchase them the $400 in food and that person will give them $300 cash for the food. Then the recipient turns around and takes that cash and buys drugs, alcohol and cigarettes with it.

 

[grunt11b]

I also know of stores who manipulate the keys on their registers so that DBT cards can be used to buy cigarettes and beer. They will set up a key that says "Milk" but it really is for cigarettes for DBT card holders. It's all corrupt.

 

[Navy1960]

grunt, while I appreciate and understand your frustration, a few things come to mind here. One is these test's often are so ineffective and costly especially in the case of Fl. that the taxpayers are not saving a thing, but instead end up paying a heck of a lot more for the tests than they do saving on people who may or may not be gaming the system. A good example, would be, that out of the first 40 applicants in six weeks 38 were given their money back for passing the test and the state had to pick up the cost of the test, two failed, at 240.00 dollars and one of the two is court , and so far the court costs are higher than the 38 tests. This is just me, but if a state planned on spending money to catch those gaming the system they would be better off hiring "officers" such as yourself to do good investigation work rather than things such as this. This does a couple of things, one is it hires more Americans, and two is it actually catches those "gaming" the system.

On a side note, as to drug testing in the work place, I thought you might like this, it's a good read.

Court opinions on drug testing in the workplace have been based primarily upon the employee-at-will doctrine. The court considers the employee-at-will doctrine to be a necessary, but informal social contract, which assumes that the employee is there on personal will (ACLU 2002). The employment-at-will doctrine avows that, when an employee does not have a written employment contract and the term of employment is of indefinite duration, the employer can terminate the employee for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2001). Therefore, the court has ruled that the employment-at-will doctrine outweighs employees’ privacy rights (ACLU 2002).
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/Health/drugtesting.pdf

 

[Mad Scientist]

Court opinions on drug testing in the workplace have been based primarily upon the employee-at-will doctrine. The court considers the employee-at-will doctrine to be a necessary, but informal social contract, which assumes that the employee is there on personal will (ACLU 2002). The employment-at-will doctrine avows that, when an employee does not have a written employment contract and the term of employment is of indefinite duration, the employer can terminate the employee for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2001). Therefore, the court has ruled that the employment-at-will doctrine outweighs employees’ privacy rights (ACLU 2002).
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/Health/drugtesting.pdf

So a "Doctrine" outweighs the 4th Amendment?

 

[Navy1960]

Court opinions on drug testing in the workplace have been based primarily upon the employee-at-will doctrine. The court considers the employee-at-will doctrine to be a necessary, but informal social contract, which assumes that the employee is there on personal will (ACLU 2002). The employment-at-will doctrine avows that, when an employee does not have a written employment contract and the term of employment is of indefinite duration, the employer can terminate the employee for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2001). Therefore, the court has ruled that the employment-at-will doctrine outweighs employees’ privacy rights (ACLU 2002).
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/Health/drugtesting.pdf

So a "Doctrine" outweighs the 4th Amendment?

Well, it would seem that in many cases the 4th Amendment is not so equally applied, and would seem to me that if it's an "unreasonable search... " then the at will doctrine when it is applied to drug testing in the work place would be the same if applied exactly the same way. Sadly though when you get into looking at how the court looks at things, you will bang your head against a wall. *laughs*. Remember, some courts have decided that "corporations" are on the same footing as people under the constitution, and others have said differently, so it's no surprise at least to me you see, the at will doctrine applied this way.

 

[grunt11b]

grunt, while I appreciate and understand your frustration, a few things come to mind here. One is these test's often are so ineffective and costly especially in the case of Fl. that the taxpayers are not saving a thing, but instead end up paying a heck of a lot more for the tests than they do saving on people who may or may not be gaming the system. A good example, would be, that out of the first 40 applicants in six weeks 38 were given their money back for passing the test and the state had to pick up the cost of the test, two failed, at 240.00 dollars and one of the two is court , and so far the court costs are higher than the 38 tests. This is just me, but if a state planned on spending money to catch those gaming the system they would be better off hiring "officers" such as yourself to do good investigation work rather than things such as this. This does a couple of things, one is it hires more Americans, and two is it actually catches those "gaming" the system.

On a side note, as to drug testing in the work place, I thought you might like this, it's a good read.

Court opinions on drug testing in the workplace have been based primarily upon the employee-at-will doctrine. The court considers the employee-at-will doctrine to be a necessary, but informal social contract, which assumes that the employee is there on personal will (ACLU 2002). The employment-at-will doctrine avows that, when an employee does not have a written employment contract and the term of employment is of indefinite duration, the employer can terminate the employee for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2001). Therefore, the court has ruled that the employment-at-will doctrine outweighs employees’ privacy rights (ACLU 2002).
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/Health/drugtesting.pdf

I am not complaining one bit about taking the test, I would take one every week if they wanted me to. I dont see how it would be any more expensive making these people take a tests for there welfare, the money you would save by not giving some of them welfare due to drug use would shore up the costs. And the test can be given in a test kit that takes only minutes to read. Of course when it hits hot it would have to be sent to a lab for verification. Point being, if they have money for drugs, then they have money for food and everything else and do not need tax payer dollars.
In this case, the cost is not the issue, apparently the Florida governor knows they can afford it which is why they implemented it. The real issue is why does a Federal Judge rule on this in the way he did but not also enforce the same thing as far as workplace drug screening goes? It's hypocritical and he should be impeached from the bench for not enforcing the law equally on all citizens.

 

[Navy1960]

grunt, while I appreciate and understand your frustration, a few things come to mind here. One is these test's often are so ineffective and costly especially in the case of Fl. that the taxpayers are not saving a thing, but instead end up paying a heck of a lot more for the tests than they do saving on people who may or may not be gaming the system. A good example, would be, that out of the first 40 applicants in six weeks 38 were given their money back for passing the test and the state had to pick up the cost of the test, two failed, at 240.00 dollars and one of the two is court , and so far the court costs are higher than the 38 tests. This is just me, but if a state planned on spending money to catch those gaming the system they would be better off hiring "officers" such as yourself to do good investigation work rather than things such as this. This does a couple of things, one is it hires more Americans, and two is it actually catches those "gaming" the system.

On a side note, as to drug testing in the work place, I thought you might like this, it's a good read.

Court opinions on drug testing in the workplace have been based primarily upon the employee-at-will doctrine. The court considers the employee-at-will doctrine to be a necessary, but informal social contract, which assumes that the employee is there on personal will (ACLU 2002). The employment-at-will doctrine avows that, when an employee does not have a written employment contract and the term of employment is of indefinite duration, the employer can terminate the employee for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2001). Therefore, the court has ruled that the employment-at-will doctrine outweighs employees’ privacy rights (ACLU 2002).
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/Health/drugtesting.pdf

I am not complaining one bit about taking the test, I would take one every week if they wanted me to. I dont see how it would be any more expensive making these people take a tests for there welfare, the money you would save by not giving some of them welfare due to drug use would shore up the costs. And the test can be given in a test kit that takes only minutes to read. Of course when it hits hot it would have to be sent to a lab for verification. Point being, if they have money for drugs, then they have money for food and everything else and do not need tax payer dollars.
In this case, the cost is not the issue, apparently the Florida governor knows they can afford it which is why they implemented it. The real issue is why does a Federal Judge rule on this in the way he did but not also enforce the same thing as far as workplace drug screening goes? It's hypocritical and he should be impeached from the bench for not enforcing the law equally on all citizens.

grunt, Judges and Courts all the way up to SCOTUS do that all the time and it's frusting beyond belief. On the main issue though, an this is just my opinion, while it may be true that some on welfare do such things, I tend to believe based on the available data of such things, that just doesn't apply to most on welfare. In fact if you look at it, most on welfare are not much different in terms of drug usage as those in the work place. Yes, those that game the system should get "slammed" and to be quite honest, I for one think that opportunity and jobs and a path to that is a much better welfare program than just a "here's your check program". Think about it a moment, all these idle Americans many with skills thay can be used in say, repairing roads, assisting in the class room, or for that matter whatever task needs to be done. To me at the very least, rather than just a check, everyone benefits.

 

[Flopper]

I think the problem the judge saw was the way the law is written and would be carried out. The results of the tests which can reveal other medical conditions are not considered private as are a drug tests by your employer. The legislature is going to have to figure out how they can write the law so it doesn't violate the constitution. I think the judge made the proper ruling.

 

[grunt11b]

grunt, while I appreciate and understand your frustration, a few things come to mind here. One is these test's often are so ineffective and costly especially in the case of Fl. that the taxpayers are not saving a thing, but instead end up paying a heck of a lot more for the tests than they do saving on people who may or may not be gaming the system. A good example, would be, that out of the first 40 applicants in six weeks 38 were given their money back for passing the test and the state had to pick up the cost of the test, two failed, at 240.00 dollars and one of the two is court , and so far the court costs are higher than the 38 tests. This is just me, but if a state planned on spending money to catch those gaming the system they would be better off hiring "officers" such as yourself to do good investigation work rather than things such as this. This does a couple of things, one is it hires more Americans, and two is it actually catches those "gaming" the system.

On a side note, as to drug testing in the work place, I thought you might like this, it's a good read.

Court opinions on drug testing in the workplace have been based primarily upon the employee-at-will doctrine. The court considers the employee-at-will doctrine to be a necessary, but informal social contract, which assumes that the employee is there on personal will (ACLU 2002). The employment-at-will doctrine avows that, when an employee does not have a written employment contract and the term of employment is of indefinite duration, the employer can terminate the employee for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2001). Therefore, the court has ruled that the employment-at-will doctrine outweighs employees’ privacy rights (ACLU 2002).
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/Health/drugtesting.pdf

I am not complaining one bit about taking the test, I would take one every week if they wanted me to. I dont see how it would be any more expensive making these people take a tests for there welfare, the money you would save by not giving some of them welfare due to drug use would shore up the costs. And the test can be given in a test kit that takes only minutes to read. Of course when it hits hot it would have to be sent to a lab for verification. Point being, if they have money for drugs, then they have money for food and everything else and do not need tax payer dollars.
In this case, the cost is not the issue, apparently the Florida governor knows they can afford it which is why they implemented it. The real issue is why does a Federal Judge rule on this in the way he did but not also enforce the same thing as far as workplace drug screening goes? It's hypocritical and he should be impeached from the bench for not enforcing the law equally on all citizens.

grunt, Judges and Courts all the way up to SCOTUS do that all the time and it's frusting beyond belief. On the main issue though, an this is just my opinion, while it may be true that some on welfare do such things, I tend to believe based on the available data of such things, that just doesn't apply to most on welfare. In fact if you look at it, most on welfare are not much different in terms of drug usage as those in the work place. Yes, those that game the system should get "slammed" and to be quite honest, I for one think that opportunity and jobs and a path to that is a much better welfare program than just a "here's your check program". Think about it a moment, all these idle Americans many with skills thay can be used in say, repairing roads, assisting in the class room, or for that matter whatever task needs to be done. To me at the very least, rather than just a check, everyone benefits.

If most don't do drugs illegally and what not, then they should have no issues taking the test. Just my 2 cents on it. It is what it is though, and will not change until people start voting with common sense.

 

[grunt11b]

I think the problem the judge saw was the way the law is written and would be carried out. The results of the tests which can reveal other medical conditions are not considered private as are a drug tests by your employer. The legislature is going to have to figure out how they can write the law so it doesn't violate the constitution. I think the judge made the proper ruling.

A piss test is not going to show any other health issues other than drug use. The judge in my opinion is wrong.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I have to take a random drug test and pass it to keep my job with the gubment, but it's against the 4th amendment for entitlement receivers to have to take a drug test to keep receiving taxpayer dollars for welfare?

Is there some good reason why you have to take a drug test to keep your job? Is your job one that would be seriously compromised if you were using, say, heroin or meth?

(I'm not defending the practice, 'cause I think drug tests for employment suck balls, but just pointing out one key difference here.)

Dude... I work on-site with many of my clients, as such, I am subject to random drug tests just like an employee is.. and it has happened.

I'm a CPA.

 

[The Infidel]

I think the problem the judge saw was the way the law is written and would be carried out. The results of the tests which can reveal other medical conditions are not considered private as are a drug tests by your employer. The legislature is going to have to figure out how they can write the law so it doesn't violate the constitution. I think the judge made the proper ruling.

How is someone having to take a drug test for employment any different "medically"?

What else can be revealed during a test other than you use or you dont use... no medical info there.

 

[The Infidel]

Dude... I work on-site with many of my clients, as such, I am subject to random drug tests just like an employee is.. and it has happened.

I'm a CPA.

Funny thing is.... you using drugs might make you a bad CPA, but no one is going to die if you use. You will just perhaps suk as a CPA.
Some jobs need to have random drug screening, but Jeez... a CPA

 

[Flopper]

I think the problem the judge saw was the way the law is written and would be carried out. The results of the tests which can reveal other medical conditions are not considered private as are a drug tests by your employer. The legislature is going to have to figure out how they can write the law so it doesn't violate the constitution. I think the judge made the proper ruling.

A piss test is not going to show any other health issues other than drug use. The judge in my opinion is wrong.

The test of course can not determine whether the drugs are illegal or not. If you test positive, then you have to show a prescription for that drug. There are a number prescription drugs for things like liver disease, kidney disease, and even asthma that will cause you to test positive. Revealing this information is a violation of your right to privacy.

No one should have to prove their innocence.