• 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 Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

It is flawed because it makes an asssumption, and constitutes an illegal and unconstitutional search of a person based on no evidence of a crime.

Absolutely ridiculous "Judicial Activist" logic at its worst. How on Earth does it count as "unreasonable search and seizure" to require that those who receive federal aid for poverty not be under the influence of substances that might adversely affect their judgement and ability to wisely spend the funds they receive? The Government is under absolutely no constitutional obligation to provide financial aid to the poor in the first place.

It is a voluntary program that participants sign on to in exchange for handouts. As far as I'm concerned, the state should have the "right" to refuse service to whomever it damn well pleases, because the recipients have no real "right" to the handouts the state provides.

As a matter of fact, it more or less already does. There is a reason why one must be under a certain income level to even be eligible for welfare in the first place, after all.

I could never be a lawyer. Bull**** semantics and sophistry have a tendency to simply piss me off. :lol:
 
Last edited:
We either believe in innocent until proven guilty, or we don't. Period. No exceptions for public or private.

If we're not going to live by it, we need to quit jaw-jackin' as if we do.
 
Most every reputable company I know has this drug test before they even employ you anymore, why Not welfare recipients, IF they have nothing to hide, I'm jus sayin

It is isn’t the same. Those are private companies that YOU want to work for.

The government, however, works for US. We pay into the welfare system through our taxes. Many people who end up on welfare have paid into welfare through income and sales taxes in the past. And they will be paying back into it again in the future when they are working again.

If I have been paying into a country or state’s welfare system and then I fall on hard times and am forced to draw money out of that system, damn it, I shouldn’t have to piss in a cup like some felon on probation.
 
I disagree with the decision. If you can afford to buy drugs, then you should not be getting welfare or your welfare money should not be used on drugs, either way. If you do not want to pee in the cup, don't apply for welfare. There is your freedom of choice.
 
Can someone tell me what rights are being violated when the tax-payer (the people providing assistance) are interested in what the recipient of said assistance is doing with the money?

If a friend said: "Hey, can I borrow $500?", would you just split with the cash without being the wiser of what the money was for?
 
As far as I'm concerned, the state should have the "right" to refuse service to whomever it damn well pleases,

What about blacks and women? If the government doesn't want to offer blacks and women the service it provides by issuing drivers licenses (which is not a right), should it be allowed?
 
What about blacks and women? If the government doesn't want to offer blacks and women the service it provides by issuing drivers licenses (which is not a right), should it be allowed?

If they had probable cause (which they don't), they would certainly have the right.

Technically, welfare already discriminates against those of the rich and middle income tax brackets, and driver's licenses discriminate against the elderly and sightless.
 
Last edited:
If they had probable cause (which they don't),

What probable cause do you have to state that someone who is on welfare is using it for drugs?
 
What probable cause do you have to state that someone who is on welfare is using it for drugs?

Potential waste of public funds, for one. Frankly, if you're not doing drugs, you shouldn't have anything to fear in the first place.

Compliance with drug policy is mandatory for government employees and military service members. There is absolutely no reason why it should not also be mandatory for welfare recipients.
 
Last edited:
The glee with which some people will sacrifice their rights (privacy in this case) frightens me. The eagerness to deny them to others is even worse.
 
The glee with which some people will sacrifice their rights (privacy in this case) frightens me. The eagerness to deny them to others is even worse.

Government handouts are not a "right." Frankly, that whole attitude is a major part of the problem here.

If anything, welfare should be treated as a contract between government and the recipient. If the recipient fails to live up to the requirements government sets for that contract, it should be terminated like any other.

Unemployment is already run this way in South Carolina. A requirement of enrollment is that you fill out at least 5 job applications each week.
 
Last edited:
Potential waste of public funds, for one.

That's not probable cause. Much in the same way that black people being more likely to be involved in drive-bys is not probably cause to deny them a driver's license.
 
That's not probable cause. Much in the same way that black people being more likely to be involved in drive-bys is not probably cause to deny them a driver's license.

Sure it is. If the state can withhold unemployment benefits if one refuses to look for a job, it can certainly require drug testing before providing certain benefits as well.

Enlighten me. Why should the government need an exemplarly amount of probable cause to require drug testing for welfare recipients, but not for government employees or military service members? There is absolutely no logical or legal reason why the one should be acceptable but not the other.
 
Sure it is. If the state can withhold unemployment benefits if one refuses to look for a job,

You seem to lack the key understanding of just what probable cause actually means.

Withholding welfare because someone is refusing to look for a job relies on "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true". So if a person, in 3 years during a healthy economy has not found a job in a major city, it can be considered probable cause specially if they show no job applications filled out or even have a reference number that can be called to ask whether or not they've applied for a job.

However, if the same person living in the boonies, has no means to move and hasn't found a job in said boonies - there is no probable cause available to suggest they haven't been looking for a job.

As it stands. there is no statistical probability to justify drug tests on welfare recipients. There isn't a huge drove of welfare recipients using their money to buy drugs. Far more likely to spend the money on cigarrettes or alcohol which are perfectly legal. So I ask, what suspicions & circumstances (i.e. probably cause) can you have for saying that a person who is on welfare is also doing drugs?

To simplify my post: If probable cause means that there needs to be a suspicion backed by some form of evidence, what form of evidence would you use to justify drug tests on all welfare recipients? This is specially considering that nowhere near the majority are out doing drugs.
 
Last edited:
And I agree with this decision. There is no evidence to suggest that, because somebody is poor, he or she is automatically a drug addict, anymore than, if someone were a banker, he or she is automatically a crook. :mrgreen: But, seriously, the law was based on stereotyping, and I believe that SCOTUS will uphold the ruling.

Article is here.

Actually, there is evidence to suggest that lower-income people are more likely to do drugs.

However, that isn't even the point, so let's get it straight. It's not about who is more or less "likely" to do drugs. The issue is one of principle: there is no such thing as free money without any strings attached.

If you want other taxpayers to give you money, the least you can do for it is to prove that you're a good citizen by peeing in a cup.
 
Actually, there is evidence to suggest that lower-income people are more likely to do drugs.

And black people are more likely to be involved in drive-by shootings. Let's ban black people from driving and we'll solve the issue. Yes?
 
And black people are more likely to be involved in drive-by shootings. Let's ban black people from driving and we'll solve the issue. Yes?

See, your problem is that you didn't read the rest of my post.

I began by rebutting the OP's assertion that there is no evidence showing that poor people are more likely to do drugs than rich people. I did this just to pop him in the kneecaps for being factually wrong.

However, the question of who is more likely to do drugs is irrelevant. Thus, I went on to argue my main point: people should be subjected to drug tests if they want to receive welfare money because there is no such thing as a free lunch. I'm all about making them do SOMETHING for the money. If that something is peeing in a cup, hey, fine.
 
people should be subjected to drug tests if they want to receive welfare money because there is no such thing as a free lunch.

This guy begs to differ:

Jesus+-+Loaves+and+Fish.jpg
 
Charity and welfare: Two entirely different concepts.

Then again, he wasn't really doing it out of charity. He was doing what he thought humanity should do for itself. However, that's beside the point: The point is that your argument is ridiculous. You've done absolutely nothing to reap the benefits of dozens of everyday things which you take for granted and yet there you are having a free lunch at its expense. For example, you do not pay for Facebook, and yet its services are free of charge to everyone who signs up for it. Another example, you don't pay into funding the USPS, yet the cost of sending a letter is less than a dollar. You pay less than a dollar to use a service which costs millions to run. In essence, you're getting a free lunch.
 
Then again, he wasn't really doing it out of charity. He was doing what he thought humanity should do for itself. However, that's beside the point: The point is that your argument is ridiculous. You've done absolutely nothing to reap the benefits of dozens of everyday things which you take for granted and yet there you are having a free lunch at its expense. For example, you do not pay for Facebook, and yet its services are free of charge to everyone who signs up for it. Another example, you don't pay into funding the USPS, yet the cost of sending a letter is less than a dollar. You pay less than a dollar to use a service which costs millions to run. In essence, you're getting a free lunch.

I pay taxes which pay for the postal service.

On Facebook, I'm subjected to ads, and advertisers fund facebook in return for this service.
 
Can someone tell me what rights are being violated when the tax-payer (the people providing assistance) are interested in what the recipient of said assistance is doing with the money?

If a friend said: "Hey, can I borrow $500?", would you just split with the cash without being the wiser of what the money was for?

If he had been paying me a little bit each month for the right to borrow that money at some time in the future if he needed it, then yes, I would split with it without asking questions.
 
Actually, there is evidence to suggest that lower-income people are more likely to do drugs.

However, that isn't even the point, so let's get it straight. It's not about who is more or less "likely" to do drugs. The issue is one of principle: there is no such thing as free money without any strings attached.

If you want other taxpayers to give you money, the least you can do for it is to prove that you're a good citizen by peeing in a cup.

Good, then bankers and congressmen can also prove that they are good citizens by peeing in a cup.
 
Back
Top Bottom