• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida welfare benefit drug test law blocked

Frolicking Dinosaurs

200M yrs of experience
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
1,692
Location
Southeastern USA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
A Florida law requiring people seeking welfare benfits to take a drug test has been blocked by a US federal court.

The judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional and infringes a ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Since the law was introduced in July, nearly 1,600 people have refused to take the test, according to reports.

Under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families scheme those who pass receive $180 (£113) a month, while a family of four receives $364 a month.

While 32 people have failed the test, some 7,000 have passed since the testing began in mid-July, the Associated Press reports......

Judge Mary Scriven ruled on a complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of Luis Lebron, a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who applied for the welfare benefits but would not take the drugs test. He applied for benefits while attending university and cares for his four-year-old son and disabled mother./QUOTE]

BBC News - Florida welfare benefit drug test law blocked

Guess this is finally going to start winding its way toward the SCOTUS.
 
A Florida law requiring people seeking welfare benfits to take a drug test has been blocked by a US federal court.

The judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional and infringes a ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Since the law was introduced in July, nearly 1,600 people have refused to take the test, according to reports.

Under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families scheme those who pass receive $180 (£113) a month, while a family of four receives $364 a month.

While 32 people have failed the test, some 7,000 have passed since the testing began in mid-July, the Associated Press reports......

Judge Mary Scriven ruled on a complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of Luis Lebron, a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who applied for the welfare benefits but would not take the drugs test. He applied for benefits while attending university and cares for his four-year-old son and disabled mother./QUOTE]

BBC News - Florida welfare benefit drug test law blocked

Guess this is finally going to start winding its way toward the SCOTUS.

Funny how if you want to get money from the tax payers by working for it IE a government job it is not unconstitutional for them to require you to pee in a cup.But if you want to get money from the tax payer and not do anything to earn it then its unconstitutional to require you to pee in a cup.
 
Last edited:
Funny how if you want to get money from the tax payers by working for it IE a government job it is not unconstitutional for them to require you to pee in a cup.But if you want to get money from the tax payer and not do anything to earn it then its unconstitutional to require you to pee in a cup.

Or if you're a huge corporation and get a lot of subsidies and/or tax write offs. They don't make you pee for that one either.
 
This whole thing was a ruse to begin with. All it was doing was putting a band aid on a problem that needs surgery. Like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty/Great Society has failed epically, the only solution to the welfare problem is nixing it entirely.
 
Or if you're a huge corporation and get a lot of subsidies and/or tax write offs. They don't make you pee for that one either.
I didn't know a corporation has the ability to urinate.

BTW - do you have to pee in a cup to take a home mortgage deduction, charitable gift deduction, standardized deductions, etc.? Why should a company have to pee in a cup to take a legal tax deduction? I am just kidding, I get it, you hate capitalism.
 
I didn't know a corporation has the ability to urinate.

Sure the CEO and BoD and Stock Holders do.

BTW - do you have to pee in a cup to take a home mortgage deduction, charitable gift deduction, standardized deductions, etc.? Why should a company have to pee in a cup to take a legal tax deduction?

Should the individual be required to pee in a cup to take a legal aid package?

I am just kidding, I get it, you hate capitalism.

Well that was a stupid and completely worthless statement.
 
The myth that there are a lot of drug addicts on welfare has been debunked. You can do a simple search on DP to see the thread I posted citing a study that proves this.

Requiring people to get drug testing in order to receive life saving benefits is entrapment because it is forcing them to choose between survival and foregoing their 4th Amendment rights. Given the economic problems and the huge unemployment rate, I find this especially unethical.

The Federal judge got it right. FA has no business intruding into people's lives this way, especially since the number of incidents involving drug abuse is so small.

You give the government an inch and they take a mile. No more.
 
Or if you're a huge corporation and get a lot of subsidies and/or tax write offs. They don't make you pee for that one either.

I don't know where you work, but every coporation I've worked for required me to piss in a cup at least once and usually multiple times.
 
Sure the CEO and BoD and Stock Holders do.
Be an intelligent investor and management will not piss on you.

Should the individual be required to pee in a cup to take a legal aid package?

No, legal counsel is provided for in the Constitution....you know, one of those legal rights things.

Well that was a stupid and completely worthless statement.
How am I wrong?
 
I didn't know a corporation has the ability to urinate.

BTW - do you have to pee in a cup to take a home mortgage deduction, charitable gift deduction, standardized deductions, etc.? Why should a company have to pee in a cup to take a legal tax deduction? I am just kidding, I get it, you hate capitalism.

Try to distinguish between deductions and subsidies, okay?

How are government subsidies capitalism?
 
Be an intelligent investor and management will not piss on you.

How does that have to do with the conversation.

No, legal counsel is provided for in the Constitution....you know, one of those legal rights things.

Not legal aid as in counsel. But a legal aid package; such as welfare. Which is a legal system which grants aid to those who need it.

How am I wrong?

How are you right? It's nothing more than an ignorant statement based on bias and partisan hackery.
 
Funny how if you want to get money from the tax payers by working for it IE a government job it is not unconstitutional for them to require you to pee in a cup.But if you want to get money from the tax payer and not do anything to earn it then its unconstitutional to require you to pee in a cup.

Not to mention that many private-sector employers require drugs testing.

I have to say that I am not terribly inclined to defend drug testing as a practice, outside of any credible, probable cause to believe that a given person is using drugs and by doing so, creating a danger to others.

But there is something very twisted about the idea that one can be required to submit to drug testing as a condition of earning a living through honest work, but not as a condition of living as an unproductive parasite at taxpayer expense.
 
Requiring people to get drug testing in order to receive life saving benefits is entrapment because it is forcing them to choose between survival and foregoing their 4th Amendment rights. Given the economic problems and the huge unemployment rate, I find this especially unethical.

The Federal judge got it right. FA has no business intruding into people's lives this way, especially since the number of incidents involving drug abuse is so small.

You give the government an inch and they take a mile. No more.

Yet, we get our 4th Amendment rights trampled when we go to the airport now. If you apply for a job with any large corporation, you are given a drug test. If you want make a few holiday bucks working for FedEX at night, there is a drug test. Why shouldn't there be a drug test for government programs?

The same way I have a choice to take a flight, work for a large private/public corporation, they have a choice on filing their benefits. If they don't like how their STATE government is handling it, go to another state, vote to change it or don't file at all.
 
Points of fact: 1,600 in FL refused to be tested. Of the 7,000 who agreed, 32 failed. The guy suing is doing it because he feels being asked to do it is unconstitutional. Also, the ACLU is defending him - it is refreshing to see conservatives praising them.

Now I'll put a fly in the ointment: What if testing were mandatory and failing it meant entering treatment and continuing in a 12 step program to get your benefits instead of denial of benefits? Did I hear howls of "too expensive"? In the long run this would save mega$$$$ - active alcoholics and addicts and their immediate family members are about 7 times more likely to be drawing government benefits, roughly 64% of all identity thefts, 58% of home burglaries and 86% of all petty thefts are committed by addicts to get the money for drugs. Add family disintegration, loss of employment, failure in school, domestic violence, and child abuse to the crime costs and you can see that it costs far less to treat addicts and alcoholics than not to treat them.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse: Drug abuse and addiction have negative consequences for individuals and for society. Estimates of the total overall costs of substance abuse in the United States, including productivity (loss of time at work and unable to function effectively at work) and health problems and crime-related costs, exceed $407 billion annually. This includes approximately $181 billion for illicit drugs and $235 billion for alcohol. (Sources for numbers: Alcohol costs: Global burden of disease and injury and economic cost attributable to alcohol use and alcohol-use disorders : The Lancet and illicit drug costs: Ranking of drugs: a more balanced risk-assessment : The Lancet )
 
Funny how if you want to get money from the tax payers by working for it IE a government job it is not unconstitutional for them to require you to pee in a cup.But if you want to get money from the tax payer and not do anything to earn it then its unconstitutional to require you to pee in a cup.


Apples and Oranges.

But nice try.
 
Funny how if you want to get money from the tax payers by working for it IE a government job it is not unconstitutional for them to require you to pee in a cup.But if you want to get money from the tax payer and not do anything to earn it then its unconstitutional to require you to pee in a cup.
I don't think either one is right.

This whole thing was a ruse to begin with. All it was doing was putting a band aid on a problem that needs surgery. Like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty/Great Society has failed epically, the only solution to the welfare problem is nixing it entirely.
It's a feel good solution. It keeps people like us debating stuff like this while getting a pass on the real stuff they can't solve.

Not to mention that many private-sector employers require drugs testing.

I have to say that I am not terribly inclined to defend drug testing as a practice, outside of any credible, probable cause to believe that a given person is using drugs and by doing so, creating a danger to others.

But there is something very twisted about the idea that one can be required to submit to drug testing as a condition of earning a living through honest work, but not as a condition of living as an unproductive parasite at taxpayer expense.
The difference, IMO, is public vs private. While I question the legitimacy of "guilty until proven innocent" to begin with, I can (grudgingly) accept that private business can do it, but believe that the government should never be allowed to adopt that mindset.

Apples and Oranges.

But nice try.
That's not helpful. Could you expand on that and explain *why* it's apples and oranges?
 
The myth that there are a lot of drug addicts on welfare has been debunked. You can do a simple search on DP to see the thread I posted citing a study that proves this.

Requiring people to get drug testing in order to receive life saving benefits is entrapment because it is forcing them to choose between survival and foregoing their 4th Amendment rights. Given the economic problems and the huge unemployment rate, I find this especially unethical.

The Federal judge got it right. FA has no business intruding into people's lives this way, especially since the number of incidents involving drug abuse is so small.

You give the government an inch and they take a mile. No more.

I've answered the "debunking" assertion you've made before and the fact is the test have not proven anything one way or the other because nobody can be forced to take the test so the amount of people on welfare who are on drugs is unknown. The debate tactic of showing a poll that debunks the most extreme supposition that some but not most people have is not debunking anything.

That being said, I happen to agree with the judge on this one too. We should be spending the money to make sure the people who truly need assitance are getting it, to make sure the system operates efficiently and to police fraud.
 
If we're going to start drug testing folks, let's start with the Republicans. They've turned out to be such hypocrites in other areas... anti-gays getting caught with boys, family-values types paying off mistresses.
 
I don't see why it would matter to people. It's not unconstitutional. No one is forcing people to provide urine, they are setting guidelines for assistance. If your not on drugs, urinating in a cup is a small price to pay to feed your children. Rather than being upset that they have to follow guidelines to get the free money they should be grateful that they are getting money/food/rent/utilities all for nothing. Requiring welfare recipients to be drug free is just plain smart. Chances of getting off of welfare are going to be much better if your not smoking meth every afternoon.
 
I don't see why it would matter to people. It's not unconstitutional. No one is forcing people to provide urine, they are setting guidelines for assistance. If your not on drugs, urinating in a cup is a small price to pay to feed your children. Rather than being upset that they have to follow guidelines to get the free money they should be grateful that they are getting money/food/rent/utilities all for nothing. Requiring welfare recipients to be drug free is just plain smart. Chances of getting off of welfare are going to be much better if your not smoking meth every afternoon.
Your first sentence questions why it should matter to people, implying that it shouldn't, then you go on to explain why it should matter to people. Which is it?
 
You can dwell over the wording if you'd like. I don't play that game. What I said is pretty clear. If your having problems with comprehension, please consult a local community college.
 
Funny how if you want to get money from the tax payers by working for it IE a government job it is not unconstitutional for them to require you to pee in a cup.But if you want to get money from the tax payer and not do anything to earn it then its unconstitutional to require you to pee in a cup.
I heard on the radio that it wasn't tha straightforward. Apparently, the results are not treated as medical records and are forwarded to the police.
idk if that's true, but that's what I remember hearing.
 
Back
Top Bottom