Let me get this straight.

[Si modo]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply YOU said that...



The entire presumption of citizens being guilty until proven innocent or they don't get their government gruel is just an instinctively repulsive idea to me...

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

Do you think drug testing for employees is a good thing, in general, or not?

As an employer I do not engage in testing and as an employee I am not subject to it. (Yes I am both) IMO someone's ability to do a job should be judged on their ability to do the job, and I personally don't need that type of screening, but I can see how others may find it useful and I am not against it per se. That said, the government is not screening people here as an employer, so it is a very different situation...

Yes, I agree that it is a different situation, but I was curious.

However, for a corporation or organization to receive government grants, they must agree to promote a drug free workplace. Now, that IS getting closer to this topic. In order to get government grant monies, the organizations must be drug free. Well, they agree to promote a drug free workplace. They are taken on their word, for the most part, but if it is found that they don't, they lose the money.

So, this example isn't all that different, except that it is an individual receiving government money, rather than an organization.

 

[Inthemiddle]

However, for a corporation or organization to receive government grants, they must agree to promote a drug free workplace. Now, that IS getting closer to this topic. In order to get government grant monies, the organizations must be drug free. Well, they agree to promote a drug free workplace. They are taken on their word, for the most part, but if it is found that they don't, they lose the money.

So, this example isn't all that different, except that it is an individual receiving government money, rather than an organization.

"Promoting a drug free work place" does not mean that businesses necessarily have to conduct drug screenings on their employees. All they really have to do is hang a poster in the break room that says "Say no to drugs" and they're promoting a drug free work place. If they really want to do more, they can post signs in HR areas that tell applicants that the company expects its people to refrain from drug use and that drug use, can set policies that certain discussions while at work (like talking about drugs) are unacceptable, they can send bi-weekly memos that discuss the harmful effects of a different specific drug, etc.

Also, despite the fact that the company may have received some kind of government grant money, the company is still a private entity and is not the government. Thus, the legality of any employment place drug testing that might occur is of a completely different nature than here with the applicants for government services.

 

[Si modo]

However, for a corporation or organization to receive government grants, they must agree to promote a drug free workplace. Now, that IS getting closer to this topic. In order to get government grant monies, the organizations must be drug free. Well, they agree to promote a drug free workplace. They are taken on their word, for the most part, but if it is found that they don't, they lose the money.

So, this example isn't all that different, except that it is an individual receiving government money, rather than an organization.

"Promoting a drug free work place" does not mean that businesses necessarily have to conduct drug screenings on their employees. All they really have to do is hang a poster in the break room that says "Say no to drugs" and they're promoting a drug free work place. If they really want to do more, they can post signs in HR areas that tell applicants that the company expects its people to refrain from drug use and that drug use, can set policies that certain discussions while at work (like talking about drugs) are unacceptable, they can send bi-weekly memos that discuss the harmful effects of a different specific drug, etc.

Also, despite the fact that the company may have received some kind of government grant money, the company is still a private entity and is not the government. Thus, the legality of any employment place drug testing that might occur is of a completely different nature than here with the applicants for government services.

No, that's not all there is to it.

Generally, a comprehensive drug-free workplace program includes five components:

Drug-Free Workplace Policy
Supervisor Training
Employee Education
Employee Assistance and
Drug Testing
​

If an organization wants government grant money, they must do this. If they don't want the grant, then they can do as they wish.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If an organization wants government grant money, they must do this. If they don't want the grant, then they can do as they wish.

And again, the issue isn’t drug testing per se, which in general is legal, the issue is the process and the disposition of the results.

 

[Si modo]

If an organization wants government grant money, they must do this. If they don't want the grant, then they can do as they wish.

And again, the issue isn’t drug testing per se, which in general is legal, the issue is the process and the disposition of the results.

+ then the money stops, unless they address the issue (shitcan or administrative leave for rehab).

That's the way it works.

 

[rhodescholar]

I'm sure there are. But that doesn't justify throwing the constitution out the window. It doesn't magically erase a person's rights against searches without probable cause.

You're an idiot, and turn off the moveon.org talking points bullshit.

How a judge with an IQ over 6 possibly connected the 4th amendment to a non-right such as welfare is laughable. Any constitutional lawyer would laugh after hearing this. A person does NOT have a right to welfare, they do not have to accept a drug test if they choose not to accept welfare.

I do not have a RIGHT to a driver's license, if I want to have one I have to pass a test. If I do not want to deal with the test, I cannot get a driver's license, real fucking simple. This whole fucking nonsensical house of cards the asshole judge set up has no chance of surviving.

All states will have laws on the books with drug testing within 36 months - FACT.

 

[rhodescholar]

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.

Real simple, if the parents test positive, they lose benefits and the kids get removed from that household.

The State, if it has any responsibility here, is to the well-being of the children. There is a fundamental moral hazard for the State to be aiding and abetting drug users with children in the household.

For the State to be providing money that the parents will use to purchase illegal drugs in a household with dependent children can be considered criminal.

 

[rhodescholar]

You have no evidence the judge is ‘corrupt,’ as she is compelled to follow precedent, jurists don’t simply make things up.

Oh no? How long have you been practicing law?

There is no such thing as ‘legislating from the bench,’ that’s a rightist contrivance and myth. It’s incumbent upon all law making bodies to pass laws that are Constitutional, in that regard the Florida legislature failed, it has only itself to blame.

Hardly. There are infamous judges nationwide including at the federal level notorious for liberally and creatively interpreting legislation.

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.

This is all sophistic nonsense. The process could have been refined, but the larger concept of drug testing welfare recipients in no way is a constitutional issue, since receiving welfare is not a "right" nor governmental obligation.

 

[rhodescholar]

You're trying to cross lines. Pre/continuing employment drug screening is a completely different kind of issue. Requiring a drug test to receive government services is unconstitutional. It's like the police requiring you to take a drug test before you can report a crime against you.

Another laughably stupid comment from the clueless.

Receiving welfare is not a "right" it is a privilege. Receiving proper law enforcement assistance IS a right.

Get it sweetie?

 

[naturegirl]

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.

Real simple, if the parents test positive, they lose benefits and the kids get removed from that household.

The State, if it has any responsibility here, is to the well-being of the children. There is a fundamental moral hazard for the State to be aiding and abetting drug users with children in the household.

For the State to be providing money that the parents will use to purchase illegal drugs in a household with dependent children can be considered criminal.

I'm thinking your quote function messed up, I don't think I said that.

 

[naturegirl]

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.

Here's my quote and response from Dragon.

 

[geauxtohell]

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

You volunteered for military service or whatever governmental job you now have. In doing so, you agreed to forego your 4th amendment rights and submit to random UDS.

Ordinary citizens don't volunteer to forego their 4th amendment rights to receive assistance.

So there goes your non sequitur and blaming a "corrupt judge" or "judicial legislation" is moronic and misses the point.

Oh, and governors are not Vice Roys. They don't get to make their own laws and bypass the legislator and judicial branch.

Did you sleep during civics class or something?

 

[Si modo]

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

You volunteered for military service or whatever governmental job you now have. In doing so, you agreed to forego your 4th amendment rights and submit to random UDS.

Ordinary citizens don't volunteer to forego their 4th amendment rights to receive assistance.

So there goes your non sequitur and blaming a "corrupt judge" or "judicial legislation" is moronic and misses the point.

Oh, and governors are not Vice Roys. They don't get to make their own laws and bypass the legislator and judicial branch.

Did you sleep during civics class or something?

I disagree. He has a point. There is not a right to welfare.

So, someone can follow procedure to get that welfare or not.

There is not a right to a job, either - follow the procedure or don't take the job.

There is not a right to receiving grant money, either - follow the procedure or don't get the grant.

When you have no choice, then there is a 4th Amendment violation. For example, if I'm just driving along on a highway and I get pulled over for a drug search for no reason but for my being on that highway (no tip about drugs being transported in a car like mine or by someone who looks like me - that probable cause requirement), that is likely a violation.

That's what I am seeing now. I wouldn't mind if someone brings up a point that would change my mind.

Still, I'm against this idea, but for different reasons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You're an idiot, and turn off the moveon.org talking points bullshit.

How a judge with an IQ over 6 possibly connected the 4th amendment to a non-right such as welfare is laughable. Any constitutional lawyer would laugh after hearing this. A person does NOT have a right to welfare, they do not have to accept a drug test if they choose not to accept welfare.

I do not have a RIGHT to a driver's license, if I want to have one I have to pass a test. If I do not want to deal with the test, I cannot get a driver's license, real fucking simple. This whole fucking nonsensical house of cards the asshole judge set up has no chance of surviving.

All states will have laws on the books with drug testing within 36 months - FACT.

You clearly have not read the ruling, otherwise you wouldn’t be exhibiting your ignorance.

So, someone can follow procedure to get that welfare or not.

But the procedure may not include a component that violates the Constitution. That no one has a right to public assistance is not at issue, at issue is the right of the citizen to apply for benefits, and to do that he must engage the state. The state may not erect un-Constitutional barriers or otherwise violate the privacy of the applicant without demonstrating a compelling interest or ‘special need,’ as noted in the ruling:

The constitutional rights of a class of citizens are at stake, and the Constitution dictates that the needs asserted to justify subverting those rights must be special, as the case law defines that term, in order for this exception to the Fourth Amendment to apply. Ferguson, 532 U.S. at 81. That showing has not been made on this record.

Since Florida failed to establish a compelling interest or need to violate applicants’ privacy rights, the drug test law was struck down. The issue is not – nor has it ever been – what public assistance applicants may elect to do or not do; rather, the process and procedure with regard to pursuing public assistance and if that process incorporates an un-Constitutional provision:

Subjecting Plaintiff, as well as those individuals who are similarly situated, to suspicionless drug testing as a condition of applying for TANF benefits would cause irreparable harm. See Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303, 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (reversing denial of injunctive relief where city imposed an unconstitutional condition requiring the surrender of Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures in order to participate in a protest); Chu Drua Cha v. Noot, 696 F.2d 594, 599 (8th Cir. 1982) (“We have no doubt that irreparable harm is occurring to the plaintiff class as each month passes” without the statutorily conferred level of welfare benefits.).

The 4th Amendment concerns the relationship between the government and the governed, not only with regard to police actions but with regard to all aspects of the relationship, in any context where the citizen must interact with the state as the citizen avails himself of the laws of the state enacted in his name for his benefit.

The state may not contrive a process so onerous as to violate the rights of its citizens without a compelling interest.

 

[BDBoop]

Because Idiots like you are preventing them from being identified.

Wow, that's stupid. You need to do a search before you can gather the probable cause to justify a search?

And by the way I probably put in more volunteer hours in my community this past year than you have in your entire life.

Well go on and brag a little more about it then.

Is it wrong that I feel bad for the people she is 'helping'?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As a political aside, it’s sad and telling the hypocrisy of the right; conservatives, who are supposed to be advocates of ‘small government,’ and ‘government restriction,’ endorsing the expansion of the state’s power to search citizens only as a consequence of their subjective animus toward applicants for public assistance.

 

[Si modo]

As a political aside, it’s sad and telling the hypocrisy of the right; conservatives, who are supposed to be advocates of ‘small government,’ and ‘government restriction,’ endorsing the expansion of the state’s power to search citizens only as a consequence of their subjective animus toward applicants for public assistance.

I'm against it because it will add cost to the program.

Is that OK with you?

 

[geauxtohell]

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

You volunteered for military service or whatever governmental job you now have. In doing so, you agreed to forego your 4th amendment rights and submit to random UDS.

Ordinary citizens don't volunteer to forego their 4th amendment rights to receive assistance.

So there goes your non sequitur and blaming a "corrupt judge" or "judicial legislation" is moronic and misses the point.

Oh, and governors are not Vice Roys. They don't get to make their own laws and bypass the legislator and judicial branch.

Did you sleep during civics class or something?

I disagree. He has a point. There is not a right to welfare.

So, someone can follow procedure to get that welfare or not.

There is not a right to a job, either - follow the procedure or don't take the job.

There is not a right to receiving grant money, either - follow the procedure or don't get the grant.

When you have no choice, then there is a 4th Amendment violation. For example, if I'm just driving along on a highway and I get pulled over for a drug search for no reason but for my being on that highway (no tip about drugs being transported in a car like mine or by someone who looks like me - that probable cause requirement), that is likely a violation.

That's what I am seeing now. I wouldn't mind if someone brings up a point that would change my mind.

Still, I'm against this idea, but for different reasons.

When you join the military or take a job, you sign a contract that waves your 4th amendment rights. If you are in the military, you are bound by the UCMJ. If you are an employee, it's a term of employment.

As it stands, there is currently no legal requirement for people to receive government assistance to waive their constitutional rights. Nor should there be. Many of these people have paid into the system at some time or the other.

So the OP's rant was a non sequitur. He agreed to forego his rights. He seems to think that's roughly analogous to the states forcing people to forego their rights because the money comes from the same source. That's just asinine logic.

All that aside, the pragmatic reason you oppose this is apt too. It's just another partisan witch hunt to degrade people who are already having a hard time to gin up some votes.

It will cost far more than it will save.

 

[BDBoop]

"Now let me get this straight;
You put de lime in de coconut ..."

 

[Si modo]

You volunteered for military service or whatever governmental job you now have. In doing so, you agreed to forego your 4th amendment rights and submit to random UDS.

Ordinary citizens don't volunteer to forego their 4th amendment rights to receive assistance.

So there goes your non sequitur and blaming a "corrupt judge" or "judicial legislation" is moronic and misses the point.

Oh, and governors are not Vice Roys. They don't get to make their own laws and bypass the legislator and judicial branch.

Did you sleep during civics class or something?

I disagree. He has a point. There is not a right to welfare.

So, someone can follow procedure to get that welfare or not.

There is not a right to a job, either - follow the procedure or don't take the job.

There is not a right to receiving grant money, either - follow the procedure or don't get the grant.

When you have no choice, then there is a 4th Amendment violation. For example, if I'm just driving along on a highway and I get pulled over for a drug search for no reason but for my being on that highway (no tip about drugs being transported in a car like mine or by someone who looks like me - that probable cause requirement), that is likely a violation.

That's what I am seeing now. I wouldn't mind if someone brings up a point that would change my mind.

Still, I'm against this idea, but for different reasons.

When you join the military or take a job, you sign a contract that waves your 4th amendment rights. If you are in the military, you are bound by the UCMJ. If you are an employee, it's a term of employment.

As it stands, there is currently no legal requirement for people to receive government assistance to waive their constitutional rights.

.....

That is all very true. However, there are many who DO want drug testing to be a requirement, just as it is for those other areas you mentioned. All it takes is legislation. That's how drug testing got into the workplace and into other areas.

While I'm VERY MUCH OK with drug testing for the work because safety is a real issue (I know this first hand with a bad explosion caused by a guy who regularly smoked his lunch), it IS allowed because the legislation made it OK to be allowed.

I think that's what many folks want.

Nor should there be. Many of these people have paid into the system at some time or the other.

....

Yes, many have. Many have paid into the other systems as well. Government grants are obviously taxpayer supported.

.... So the OP's rant was a non sequitur. He agreed to forego his rights. He seems to think that's roughly analogous to the states forcing people to forego their rights because the money comes from the same source. That's just asinine logic.

All that aside, the pragmatic reason you oppose this is apt too. It's just another partisan witch hunt to degrade people who are already having a hard time to gin up some votes.

It will cost far more than it will save.

Yes, it really will. There are some who really are addicts who use the assistance to get their fixes. I went to grad school in an urban area - a bad urban area. All I needed to do to see that sort of thing was to go to the grocer down the block a bit later at night (tried to avoid that, but sometimes couldn't) and invariably there was someone selling their EBT card for cash. I know some other grad students who have bought them for 50 cents on the dollar. All they need is their PIN. (Some got ripped off, too)

So, there are addicts on welfare. I've seen them. I just never could bring myself to get that sort of "deal" on them.

Regardless, drug testing will only stop a few of them. Each addict has to reach a level of desperation that will make them seek help to quit. Maybe for some, that level is absolutely NO way to feed themselves. For others, it won't be. We both know that death is the only way out for too many addicts.

While, there has been the safety argument for other areas where drug testing is permitted, the addicts who sell their EBT cards just want to get high and be left alone to do so.

So, given those facts, I see no upside in doing drug testing for welfare. It will cost much more and help so few - an insignificant societal return is available from it.

And, you're right. It's a vote thing. But, if those who advocate for pee-tests for welfare give it a bit more analysis, they might change their minds.

That's why I like posters like you. This sort of conversation might be informative to those willing to read it.