• 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!

Judge Declares State Worker Drug Testing Order Unconstitutional

lpast

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
13,663
Reaction score
4,633
Location
Fla
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have to be honest i didnt expect this...it will be appealed im sure...


A federal judge declared Gov. Rick Scott's order requiring drug testing for some 85,000 state workers unconstitutional Thursday, saying the governor showed no evidence of a drug problem at the agencies to warrant suspicionless testing.


Judge Declares State Worker Drug Testing Order Unconstitutional | NBC 6 Miami
 
I have to be honest i didnt expect this...it will be appealed im sure...


A federal judge declared Gov. Rick Scott's order requiring drug testing for some 85,000 state workers unconstitutional Thursday, saying the governor showed no evidence of a drug problem at the agencies to warrant suspicionless testing.

if state workers cant be drug tested,might as well end it for federal workers,since it was ruled unconstitutional.


Judge Declares State Worker Drug Testing Order Unconstitutional | NBC 6 Miami

wow that order seemsto defy all logic,pretty much every government agency state or federal and most civilian companies perform drug tests.
 
wow that order seemsto defy all logic,pretty much every government agency state or federal and most civilian companies perform drug tests.

So to be clear, you think it's not a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments to piss and/or blood test recipients of state aid to protect the integrity of our welfare programs, but it is DEFINITELY a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments to take a DNA swab to protect the integrity of our electoral process.

Filed under "you can't make this **** up". :lol:
 
So to be clear, you think it's not a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments to piss and/or blood test recipients of state aid to protect the integrity of our welfare programs, but it is DEFINITELY a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments to take a DNA swab to protect the integrity of our electoral process.

Filed under "you can't make this **** up". :lol:

ok by that logic we must end all drug tests of federal employees,since there is no evidence of drug use.great the military should follow too.

btw the drug tests are not mandatory,except to keep your jobs,the amendments dont apply to one groupand then not apply to pilots or police officers.you cant just claim its ok.employment is not a constitutionally backed part of this country,and so requiring drug tests therefore does not violate any part of the constitution,they haver the right to say no,and forfeit the job!
 
What's next entering everyone's house to make sure there's nothing amiss? Did the governor include himself as well as the other state pols?
 
ok by that logic we must end all drug tests of federal employees,since there is no evidence of drug use.great the military should follow too.

btw the drug tests are not mandatory,except to keep your jobs,the amendments dont apply to one groupand then not apply to pilots or police officers.you cant just claim its ok.employment is not a constitutionally backed part of this country,and so requiring drug tests therefore does not violate any part of the constitution,they haver the right to say no,and forfeit the job!

DNA testing for elections wouldn't be mandatory either, except if you want to vote. And of course coservatives are quick to point out there is no constitutional right to vote. :roll:

So can you explain the absolute inconsistency in your two positions?
 
Last edited:
ok by that logic we must end all drug tests of federal employees,since there is no evidence of drug use.great the military should follow too.

Sounds good to me. I am against suspicionless drug testing...across the board.
 
The Governor is finding new ways to spend, these workers would probably be paid to visit the clinic and I would guess that the testing would require funds. If 85,000 workers need a $25.00 exam then that alone would cost around two million dollars(if my math is correct)and the paid time off for the workers to take this exam would probably cost maybe an hour or two(non productive time).

Maybe the Governors and his wife have a stake in one of those private clinics which would do some of the testing. What a coincidence(if that is true).

One of the more popular services at Solantic, the urgent care chain co-founded by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, is drug testing, according to Solantic CEO Karen Bowling...
Gov. Rick Scott's drug testing policy stirs suspicion
 
DNA testing for elections wouldn't be mandatory either, except if you want to vote. And of course coservatives are quick to point out there is no constitutional right to vote. :roll:

So can you explain the absolute inconsistency in your two positions?

you are arguing constitutional rights vs job requirements,show me where a job is required by the constitution??


dont even change the subject i can see the future show me now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Sounds good to me. I am against suspicionless drug testing...across the board.

problem is if itsa job requirement,there is nowhere in the constitution saying its illegal.would you have pilots not needing drug tests until one is spun on meth and he crahses a plane?\\

last scenario obviously doesnt apply to everyone but obviously the judge didnt followvery well the law,either that or drug tests are unconstitutianal,meaning the military fed employees and every emplouer nationwide needs to stopgiving them,ordo state employees have special rights other citizens dont?
 
DNA testing for elections wouldn't be mandatory either, except if you want to vote. And of course coservatives are quick to point out there is no constitutional right to vote. :roll:

So can you explain the absolute inconsistency in your two positions?
Wait...What? I never got that memo!
 
Wait...What? I never got that memo!

he does this alot,he changes subjects or uses strawman arguments or irrelevant subjects to divert from the fact he has no rebuttal,either trying to confuse his opposition or cause them to give up on trying claiming victory because his opposition got tired of providing evidence he constantly ignores.
 
And of course coservatives are quick to point out there is no constitutional right to vote. :roll:

I'm as liberal as they come, but you lost me there. I don't think I have ever heard a conservative make that claim. The rolly eyes hint you are being sarcastic about that point in which case, I'm still lost.
 
problem is if itsa job requirement,there is nowhere in the constitution saying its illegal.would you have pilots not needing drug tests until one is spun on meth and he crahses a plane?\\

last scenario obviously doesnt apply to everyone but obviously the judge didnt followvery well the law,either that or drug tests are unconstitutianal,meaning the military fed employees and every emplouer nationwide needs to stopgiving them,ordo state employees have special rights other citizens dont?

The Constitution may dictate a minimum threshold of what the government can’t do to us, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn't try to set the bar of personal liberty even higher.

Your point about the pilot, however, is well taken. I believe personal liberties should only be restricted in such situations where not doing so would pose an unreasonable risk to other people. So my previous statement is flawed.

There are a few occupations where people’s lives are in the hands of the employee, such as a pilot or surgeon. For such employees a slight slip in judgment can kill. In those few types of professions I believe the unreasonable risk threshold is met and I do not object to drug testing.

However, that threshold is not met for the vast majority of jobs out there, including most federal jobs.
 
I have to be honest i didnt expect this...it will be appealed im sure...


A federal judge declared Gov. Rick Scott's order requiring drug testing for some 85,000 state workers unconstitutional Thursday, saying the governor showed no evidence of a drug problem at the agencies to warrant suspicionless testing.


Judge Declares State Worker Drug Testing Order Unconstitutional | NBC 6 Miami

I've been thinking a lot about this in general. I think that in general this should be considered unconstitutional even by private companies. I fear that these days the individual is losing any sense of privacy and we should work to reinstall that. Just because you have to take a job doesn't mean you should have to give up all sense of privacy and personal life.
 
I've been in jobs where mandatory testing is required. My stink at bus driver, for instance. So, if they were in a position where safety was a must, maybe. My government job of many years, had the option of random testing of employees, but they seldom did, and only when there was actual suspicision of use by an employee. Testing of all state employees period, just for the heck of it would be quite expensive, in this time of budget cuts.
 
I want to drug test Congress.
 
Yeh, I'm sure a lot of congress members would have a positive for good old ETOH.
 
I'm as liberal as they come, but you lost me there. I don't think I have ever heard a conservative make that claim. The rolly eyes hint you are being sarcastic about that point in which case, I'm still lost.

I guess you haven't been following the photo ID threads, then, because several conservative posters defended the laws in part by arguing that there is no constitional right to vote. And in fact there is no absolute right to vote in the Constitution. The courts have been all over the map on the issue, with some finding a fundamental right, some finding a less than fundamental right, some finding a semi-fundamental right, and some finding no right at all. Here's a brief explanation from the site "Crush Liberalism" (lol): There is NO constitutional right to vote in federal elections « Crush Liberalism
 
I guess you haven't been following the photo ID threads, then, because several conservative posters defended the laws in part by arguing that there is no constitional right to vote. And in fact there is no absolute right to vote in the Constitution. The courts have been all over the map on the issue, with some finding a fundamental right, some finding a less than fundamental right, some finding a semi-fundamental right, and some finding no right at all. Here's a brief explanation from the site "Crush Liberalism" (lol): There is NO constitutional right to vote in federal elections « Crush Liberalism

Thanks. I'm new here so I shouldn't be surprised when I am missing much of the backstory.
 
I guess you haven't been following the photo ID threads, then, because several conservative posters defended the laws in part by arguing that there is no constitional right to vote. And in fact there is no absolute right to vote in the Constitution. The courts have been all over the map on the issue, with some finding a fundamental right, some finding a less than fundamental right, some finding a semi-fundamental right, and some finding no right at all. Here's a brief explanation from the site "Crush Liberalism" (lol): There is NO constitutional right to vote in federal elections « Crush Liberalism

your source is a blog....
 
Thanks. I'm new here so I shouldn't be surprised when I am missing much of the backstory.
No, he's doing what's called "generalizing". He would have had something if he had quoted the republican platform. Instead, he takes one guy's blog, a source who's opinion only represents ITSELF, and makes a sweeping generalizing about the right. I think everyone here knows how conservative I am, and one of my MOST BASIC principles, is that everyone has a right to vote.
 
I was a public/govt worker and not only dont I see a problem with drug testing, I would encourage it....
 
No, he's doing what's called "generalizing". He would have had something if he had quoted the republican platform. Instead, he takes one guy's blog, a source who's opinion only represents ITSELF, and makes a sweeping generalizing about the right. I think everyone here knows how conservative I am, and one of my MOST BASIC principles, is that everyone has a right to vote.

I assumed there have been some discussions at THIS board where some of the conservatives had proposed such a belief, thus he was referring to them. I'll stop assuming. I'm also not a fan of "conservatives this", "liberals that" kind of generalizations.
 
Back
Top Bottom