Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

[danarhea]

A federal appeals court upheld a lower court's injunction on Tuesday against Florida's effort to make welfare applicants pee in cups to prove they're not on drugs.

In a strongly-worded opinion, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed a lower court's October 2011 finding that Florida failed to demonstrate a special need for drug testing poverty-stricken parents who apply for cash benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

"The evidence in this record does not suggest that the population of TANF recipients engages in illegal drug use or that they misappropriate government funds for drugs at the expense of their own and their children's basic subsistence," the three-judge panel wrote. "The State has presented no evidence that simply because an applicant for TANF benefits is having financial problems, he is also drug addicted or prone to fraudulent and neglectful behavior."

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.

 

[straykatz]

100% agree...this was stereotyping in its finest.

 

[Gipper]

Until I see an article that says "random" and "follicle test", I will be skeptical.

You schedule me for a piss test at least 48 hours ahead of time, and I can beat it with OTC crap. Stoners might be stupid, but they can still buck the system if you give them a freebie.

 

[danarhea]

Until I see an article that says "random" and "follicle test", I will be skeptical.

You schedule me for a piss test at least 48 hours ahead of time, and I can beat it with OTC crap. Stoners might be stupid, but they can still buck the system if you give them a freebie.

Not in Texas, they can't. When I was on probation for my DWI, I saw lots of dumbasses get their probation revoked and sent to jail becuase they tried to beat the system. Yes, there are lots of things out there you can use to try to beat a piss test, but they don't work. The best ones make you piss clear, and that will automatically get you in trouble, because the authorities know that, if there is NOTHING in your piss, not even the normal stuff, then you have used one of those products.

 

[zhak]

I disagree, the company I work with, has random drug tests, You take them, IF you wish to remain working there, I have No problem with this,
However If I were doing drugs I would,
If someone is drawing welfare, How hard is it to piss in a cup to prove you are drug free and get your check, 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

 

[Gipper]

Not in Texas, they can't. When I was on probation for my DWI, I saw lots of dumbasses get their probation revoked and sent to jail becuase they tried to beat the system. Yes, there are lots of things out there you can use to try to beat a piss test, but they don't work. The best ones make you piss clear, and that will automatically get you in trouble, because the authorities know that, if there is NOTHING in your piss, not even the normal stuff, then you have used one of those products.

Pretty big assumption. My piss comes out clear quite often because I ALWAYS walk around with a bottled water with me. I bet I drink a gallon of water a day.

If I put down 2 glasses, poured stale Sprite into one and peed into the other, I'd bet you money that you couldn't tell the difference.

 

[penn1954]

I'm not sure I see a problem with this law.

I have the possibility of a whiz quiz in my job,

and had to pass one before hire.

If the people are supporting you then logic says the money needs to be used for sustinance.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

Curious as to why drug (ab)use is an approved no-no for gun ownership, and for parole/probation (even for non-drug related crimes) yet just peachy for getting welfare cash. While drug/alcohol addiction/abuse is not a major cause of poverty it certainly hinders one's chances of getting out of it. Attempts to bar any restrictions to getting "automatic" public assistance are not wise public policy. I would insist upon a HS education, the presentation of a personal improvement plan and requiring strict adherence to that plan. I have no real objection to an ocassional helping hand, but would prefer it to be via privately funded charity, but see no reason for all carrot and no stick. We have had a "war on poverty" since the 1960s, and have spent trillions fighting it, yet are stuck with 15% of the US population still so classified. To assert that the current wefare (in all of its many forms) programs are working simply defies common sense.

 

[Helix]

the republicans in my state are trying to do this, too.

however, they don't want to spend the money to randomly test everyone, so they have devised a system where a questionnaire will determine likelihood of drug abuse, and then only those people will be in the random testing pool. i hope a court tosses it if it passes.

 

[Gipper]

Curious as to why drug (ab)use is an approved no-no for gun ownership, and for parole/probation (even for non-drug related crimes) yet just peachy for getting welfare cash. While drug/alcohol addiction/abuse is not a major cause of poverty it certainly hinders one's chances of getting out of it. Attempts to bar any restrictions to getting "automatic" public assistance are not wise public policy. I would insist upon a HS education, the presentation of a personal improvement plan and requiring strict adherence to that plan. I have no real objection to an ocassional helping hand, but would prefer it to be via privately funded charity, but see no reason for all carrot and no stick. We have had a "war on poverty" since the 1960s, and have spent trillions fighting it, yet are stuck with 15% of the US population still so classified. To assert that the current wefare (in all of its many forms) programs are working simply defies common sense.

The problem with a "war on poverty" is the same as the war on drugs - it's unbeatable. There will always be a poverty line, and there will be people underneath it. I think of the poverty line as a tide. If you put in more water, the tide still rises. Your "real" wages will still not be as affected, and that is what will be the definitive factor in a label such as that.

Our problem is that we've become so bleeding-heart that we don't accept that with success, failure must come. It's like every parent out there, thinking that their kid is above average when, statistically speaking, about half of them are wrong.

 

[specklebang]

Seems like a useless action since some drugs clear your system very quickly and some don't. Hair tests are another story but rather expensive.

How Long Each Drug Stays In your Body.. Drug Use Chart

I don't object to the testing. Just seems like a waste of money and if you catch someone and "fire" them from welfare, what about the rest of the family? More harm than good?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The problem with a "war on poverty" is the same as the war on drugs - it's unbeatable. There will always be a poverty line, and there will be people underneath it. I think of the poverty line as a tide. If you put in more water, the tide still rises. Your "real" wages will still not be as affected, and that is what will be the definitive factor in a label such as that.

Our problem is that we've become so bleeding-heart that we don't accept that with success, failure must come. It's like every parent out there, thinking that their kid is above average when, statistically speaking, about half of them are wrong.

Poverty is a cycle that may be broken. I will agree that no program is going to be 100% effective, but what we have now is VERY expensive and not effective - it simply rewards failure and accepts it as unavoidable. Any attempt to "rock the boat" is met with instant resistance as being "cruel and unusual" - it will "hurt innocent childen" or "discriminate". We, as a nation, cannot advance with 15% too young to work, 15% to stupid/lazy to work and 30% too old to work. The young and the old we must abide, but the stupid/lazy are not deserving of our unending support. Welfare, in all of its many forms, should be capped at 80% of the full-time minimum wage income of ONE worker. There is no reason to give a teen mommy more public assistance than a senior citizen that has worked their entire life.

 

[Gipper]

Poverty is a cycle that may be broken. I will agree that no program is going to be 100% effective, but what we have now is VERY expensive and not effective - it simply rewards failure and accepts it as unavoidable. Any attempt to "rock the boat" is met with instant resistance as being "cruel and unusual" - it will "hurt innocent childen" or "discriminate". We, as a nation, cannot advance with 15% too young to work, 15% to stupid/lazy to work and 30% too old to work. The young and the old we must abide, but the stupid/lazy are not deserving of our unending support. Welfare, in all of its many forms, should be capped at 80% of the full-time minimum wage income of ONE worker. There is no reason to give a teen mommy more public assistance than a senior citizen that has worked their entire life.

Preachin' to the choir, bro. The real problem goes into effect when you get these women who have children. It's almost like an emotional "anchor" baby - if you let her fraudulent, worthless ass die on the street like the common street trash she is, she can cry about how cruel the system is for not letting her bastard prodigy grow up without a mother. THEN we get every liberal breaking out the Stradevarius and singing a sad sad tale of woe.

People wonder why I want sterilization as a condition for emptying the public coffers...

It's like we, as a society, think that you can make an omelet and not break any eggs. Culpability is a swear word in today's America. And if you succeed, YOU didn't succeed. WE succeeded. Thanks for that, Obama.

Is there any doubt as to why I'm a hardcore Aristotlian and meritocrat?

 

[danarhea]

Pretty big assumption. My piss comes out clear quite often because I ALWAYS walk around with a bottled water with me. I bet I drink a gallon of water a day.

If I put down 2 glasses, poured stale Sprite into one and peed into the other, I'd bet you money that you couldn't tell the difference.

Then you would be in HUGE trouble here in Houston. If you pee clear while on probation, they automatically investigate, and frequently revoke probation. Their rationale is that you would have something to hide if you are doing things that make you pee clear.

 

[GottaGo]

Since they are receiving tax payer money, I have no issues with making sure it's not supporting a drug habit. Though several have posted how easy it is to clear the system of drugs, it still could detect those who do drugs that don't clear easy, and instead of leaving them on the street with the money to buy more, they can be put into a rehab or something of the like to help them get off the drugs and hopefully break the cycle that most likely put them in the position they are in.

That I would be willing to pay for.

 

[Gipper]

Then you would be in HUGE trouble here in Houston. If you pee clear while on probation, they automatically investigate, and frequently revoke probation. Their rationale is that you would have something to hide if you are doing things that make you pee clear.

Well, worst case scenario, you get clean pee and then go knock back a Big Gulp of Coke at the stop-n-rob. It'll be lemony yellow in no time.

So maybe you need 2 1/2 days instead of 2. Still beatable.

 

[Dapper Andy]

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.

I see it as more of a requirement to receive government support than the assumption that the poor are habitual drug users.

 

[JackFrost]

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.

Indeed, the intention of the law is the same as the war on drugs, attempting to legislate morality. It is flawed from the get-go.

 

[danarhea]

Well, worst case scenario, you get clean pee and then go knock back a Big Gulp of Coke at the stop-n-rob. It'll be lemony yellow in no time.

So maybe you need 2 1/2 days instead of 2. Still beatable.

Famous last words from a lot of people who I saw ending up in jail.

 

[danarhea]

Indeed, the intention of the law is the same as the war on drugs, attempting to legislate morality. It is flawed from the get-go.

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.

However, I would not be completely against it if the law applied equally to Congressmen, bankers who receive bailouts, and all others who receive Federal money. :mrgreen:

 

[Gipper]

Famous last words from a lot of people who I saw ending up in jail.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that failing an employment drug test won't prompt the would-be employer to call the cops. I'd think that they just don't want to be dragged into it. They just check "do not hire" and their hands are clean.

Fortunately I've never been in a management/personnel position of a place that requires a test. I'd imagine if I was, I'd see the result, file it away, tell the person "you failed, bub-bye" and be done with it.

You'd have to be a real dick to dime someone out for that.

 

[Hard Truth]

..... if you let her fraudulent, worthless ass die on the street like the common street trash she is, she can cry about how cruel the system is for not letting her bastard prodigy grow up without a mother. ...

You must be one of those compassionate conservatives I've heard about.

 

[Gipper]

You must be one of those compassionate conservatives I've heard about.

Yeah, that's me. I take it you must be Jesus, with an endless supply of cheeks to turn, and have no problem giving of yourself to people who would spit on you.

One of these days when you're old enough to work, you may grow to resent people who legally steal from you in an effort to do the least amount possible.

 

[danarhea]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that failing an employment drug test won't prompt the would-be employer to call the cops. I'd think that they just don't want to be dragged into it. They just check "do not hire" and their hands are clean.

Fortunately I've never been in a management/personnel position of a place that requires a test. I'd imagine if I was, I'd see the result, file it away, tell the person "you failed, bub-bye" and be done with it.

You'd have to be a real dick to dime someone out for that.

Probation officers ARE dicks. They have to be, after hearing every excuse in the world why someone violated his probation. LOL.

 

[Gipper]

Probation officers ARE dicks. They have to be, after hearing every excuse in the world why someone violated his probation. LOL.

Is it a law to let potential employers know that you're on probation? See, the jobs I've been involved in hiring for, I receive resumes - I don't have people fill out applications like you would for McDonalds or Wal-mart. As such, I've never sat down with someone and went "so...ever been in the clink?".

I'm guessing not everyone on probation has those cool ankle bracelets, so I have no physical proof that I'm interviewing someone on probation.

Of course, even if I was, THEN it definitely would be a pain in the ass to take the steps to narc on them. I'd just tell them "hey...I don't know you, you never came here...comprende?".

Seems like such a headache to press it.