Welfare applicants decline to take drug test, fueling debate over new law

[WillowTree]

Wow, long thread and here I am jumping in at the end. I've seen very little concern for the kids of those receiving government assistance. Don't they have a right to have parents that don't do drugs?? Why would anyone think it's OK??

Who ever said it's okay? I don't think anyone here feels it's okay for children to have to be raised by parents who are unable to provide for them in the first place and then who are habitual drug users on top of it. But then again, why are you assuming this scenario? You're raising a hypothetical. Based on the figures only 0.005% of applicants had recently used drugs. There's nothing to even suggest that those applicants were parents.

Kids need help, kids need food,kids need a place to live and sleep, kids need clothes, that's what those checks are supposed to take care of, not their parents drug habits, drinking habits or smoking habits.

Again, show evidence that this is happening on any substantial scale in Florida.



I'd agree. Except show me evidence that it happens that Floridian welfare recipients buy drugs, booze, or cigarettes while failing to feed and clothe their kids or give them a place to sleep.



Well, that raises an interesting question. Do we want more or less government intrusion into people's lives?

4th amendment rights do not apply when you are asking for help.

Yes they do. If you go to the police station to report a disorderly neighbor who is harassing you, do you think you should be required to submit to a drug test?

I give a lot to charity, I've given a lot to friends and family that needed help. But you know what?? I pay the gas bill, go buy the groceries, and pay the landlord so the kids have food, heat and a place to live. I don't give the $ to the adult to do with what they want, why should I expect less of the government assistance they get???

Please, do not say this again until you provide evidence that what you're saying actually happens.

Hey asshole! Who died and left you king? Evidently the state of Florida has enough evidence to move forward with this legislation. It passed, was signed into law and is being enforced. You don't like it? don't live in Florida.. and don't pretend that people don't spend their money on drugs that could have been spent on necessities for their children. If that weren't the case we wouldn't be such a big welfare state. Dummie

 

[Care4all]

Truly, I don't get folks using the constitution as a means to justify illegal activity.

Nobody here is doing that. Why would you make such an accusation? The only thing people here are doing is affirming that the constitution guarantees us certain rights. For example, you have the right to legal council. If you commit a murder, your lawyer can argue your rights through the case. He might be able to successfully defend you from prosecution and gain a "not guilty" verdict for you, even though you did commit the murder. Based on your comment here, you seem to think that the constitution should cease to apply the moment an accusation is made. That is, however, not how the constitution works, and would leave the door wide open for the government to abuse its citizenry.

You also have no evidence of any significant amount of people being drug users. Based on the numbers that the article provided, only 0.005% of applicants were shown to have recently used drugs. You're thinking subjects thousands to unconstitutional invasions of privacy for the sake of 32 who used drugs recently.

Ya might consider putting down the bongs and come back to reality...brain cells are beginning to fade.

You might want to wake up from your totalitarian state dream fantasy and come back to reality. Your respectability is beginning to fade (anyone who willingly gives up their freedoms without a fight is not respectable).

I may think as you do as it pertians to the drug testing....

But I completely disagree with you as to why it is wrong.

You will have a hard time in court showing how it is unconsitutional to drug test for the opiton of applying for welfare when, as one pointed out, the government insists o an eye test before approving your personal decision to get a drivers license.

In my eyes, this is a humanity issue.

Why should we humliate the masses with a drug test becuase of the action of a few.

gvt insisting on an eye test in order for you to drive, is not "unreasonable", it is "reasonable" as it relates to driving....but most importantly, an eye test will never give you a result in which the gvt can arrest you for..... or imprison you. It is NOT testifying against yourself, as a gvt forced drug test would be. The Welfare participant has done nothing wrong or suspicious to give probable cause to drug test them all.....and making them take a test that could end up imprisoning them is an over reach of our gvt....via the 4th and the 5th amendments.

what is the probable cause to give them this search? They are not being hired to do a dangerous job....

My state allows employers to drug test, under limited conditions....

the employer must have a state approved drug rehab center that they can have the employee that tested positive enter in to for 6 months, and the employer has to pay for this program for their employee before they can fire the employee....

the employee that tested positive in the workplace also has to be tested a second time, with a better drug test to ensure that the piss test did not give a faulty reading, which happens 10%-30% of the time.

there are other appeal processes for the employees as well.

The employer having to have a drug rehab program and all that jazz which protects the employee, is discouraging for many employers to take up drug testing in the work place.

and again, the difference between an employer hiring for a job and the government doing this to people that just receive assistance for their survival is the issue at hand.

The government is not hiring them to do a dangerous job for them.

the govt is telling thousands upon thousands of innocent people, that in order for their own govt to help them, they have to give up their 4th and 5th amendment rights....that is quid pro quo.....that is not voluntary....that is using gvt power, where they do not constitutionally have the power.

I believe when this makes it through the courts, it will be deemed unconstitutional.

and just for the record, I would never ever want a habitual drug addict to keep their kids when they abuse them or are lousy parents.

BUT, what was the process before that helped find these abusive parents? Certainly a social worker can spot the drug use or poor parenting when a neighbor reports such or another family member reports such abuse, and surely they have LEGAL means to pursue the removal of their children.

It is a strawman on poster's part to use this as a reason to have our gvernment abuse the powers constitutionally given to them!