Unlawful Florida.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The new law, a version of which was struck down by a federal court in Michigan in 2003, requires recipients to pay for the [drug] tests before qualifying for benefits and periodically after they receive them.

Other states have studied the issue and decided testing all recipients was not cost effective, the Washington-based Center for Legal and Social Policy said in a study released in January.

During debate about the law, critics pointed to a pilot testing program in Florida that was shut down in 2001 after it showed no significant difference in drug use between welfare recipients and the population at large.

Florida to test all welfare recipients for drugs | Reuters

Not only is the measure un-Constitutional per Marchwinski v. Howard, the case noted in the article struck down by a Federal court, but other states have rejected such programs finding them to be ineffective. In addition, the state of Florida rejected a similar plan ten years ago as having no effect on decreasing drug use.

This measure is merely a punitive effort against those applying for public assistance, predicated on the fallacy that those who apply for assistance are potential drug abusers and criminals and should be presumed guilty accordingly.

From the ruling striking down the similar Michigan law:

[A] review of the scientific literature belies any claim (or stereotype) that welfare-eligible parents are any more likely to engage in drug-induced incidents of child abuse or neglect than more affluent families, or that the state is in any way justified in diminishing the constitutional rights of poor people in order to address either their substance and/or child abuse.

Michigan’s tenuous justification for its welfare drug testing policy – that
combating substance abuse improves family ties and employment opportunities – together with its negligible evidence of a specific crisis of drug abuse afflicting the welfare sector resembles the highly general argument recently rejected by the Supreme Court that searching vehicles absent individualized suspicion of illegal activity in the name of drug interdiction was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Edmond, 121 S.Ct. 447. It simply cannot be said that Michigan’s policy of drug testing its welfare population “fit within the closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches.” Chandler, 520 U.S. at 309.

http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/marchwinskiamicusbrief1_22_01.pdf

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The new law, a version of which was struck down by a federal court in Michigan in 2003, requires recipients to pay for the [drug] tests before qualifying for benefits and periodically after they receive them.

Other states have studied the issue and decided testing all recipients was not cost effective, the Washington-based Center for Legal and Social Policy said in a study released in January.

During debate about the law, critics pointed to a pilot testing program in Florida that was shut down in 2001 after it showed no significant difference in drug use between welfare recipients and the population at large.

Florida to test all welfare recipients for drugs | Reuters

Not only is the measure un-Constitutional per Marchwinski v. Howard, the case noted in the article struck down by a Federal court, but other states have rejected such programs finding them to be ineffective. In addition, the state of Florida rejected a similar plan ten years ago as having no effect on decreasing drug use.

This measure is merely a punitive effort against those applying for public assistance, predicated on the fallacy that those who apply for assistance are potential drug abusers and criminals and should be presumed guilty accordingly.

From the ruling striking down the similar Michigan law:

[A] review of the scientific literature belies any claim (or stereotype) that welfare-eligible parents are any more likely to engage in drug-induced incidents of child abuse or neglect than more affluent families, or that the state is in any way justified in diminishing the constitutional rights of poor people in order to address either their substance and/or child abuse.

Michigan’s tenuous justification for its welfare drug testing policy – that
combating substance abuse improves family ties and employment opportunities – together with its negligible evidence of a specific crisis of drug abuse afflicting the welfare sector resembles the highly general argument recently rejected by the Supreme Court that searching vehicles absent individualized suspicion of illegal activity in the name of drug interdiction was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Edmond, 121 S.Ct. 447. It simply cannot be said that Michigan’s policy of drug testing its welfare population “fit within the closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches.” Chandler, 520 U.S. at 309.

http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/marchwinskiamicusbrief1_22_01.pdf

Thanks for proving, again, that you know less than nothing about the law. Even the ACLU does not claim that testing welfare recipients is unconstitutional.

Random drug testing of welfare recipients is likely unconstitutional under both the U.S. Constitution and some state constitutions:

• Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.[16]
• At the time Michigan’s drug testing scheme was struck down, the 49 other states had rejected such a program for a variety of fiscal and practical reasons: at least 21 states concluded that such a program “may be unlawful”; 17 states cited cost concerns; 11 states had not considered drug testing at all; and 11 gave a variety of practical/operational reasons.[17]
• In halting the implementation of Michigan’s drug testing law, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients “could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.”[18] Indeed, any of the justifications put forth to subject welfare recipients to random drug testing would also by logical extension apply to the entirety of our population that receives some public benefit and/or that is a parent. It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well.
• Some states’ constitutions actually offer greater privacy protection to individuals than does the U.S. Constitution. It is very possible that random drug testing schemes for welfare recipients will run afoul of these state-specific protections as well.

Drug Testing of Public Assistance Recipients as a Condition of Eligibility | American Civil Liberties Union

 

[Ravi]

To be fair, it was also going to be an easy way for Rick Scott to profit off of his big government legislation.

 

[Toro]

To be fair, it was also going to be an easy way for Rick Scott to profit off of his big government legislation.

Right. He owns a company that does the testing.

He also is going to test government workers.

 

[Douger]

To be fair, it was also going to be an easy way for Rick Scott to profit off of his big government legislation.

Right. He owns a company that does the testing.

He also is going to test government workers.

Hey. You're on the ball !
Florida is eat up with murkins who just lub summa that thar kaptalizm and voting for Geeziss loving 'publikkinz who are serving the public only because they LOOOOOOOVE murka.
.
Gov. Rick Scott's drug testing policy stirs suspicion

 

[Missourian]

You'll have to break this down for me.

Myself and all my drivers are required by the government to submit to a initial drug and alcohol screening and random drug and alcohol testing, and that's not unconstitutional, but requiring the same thing for those that are getting assistance is somehow unconstitutional?

How is that possible?

Overview of Drug and Alcohol Testing Rules (English) - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration