Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

It just occurred to me that this ruling may be overturned on two grounds. First, it could be viewed as a violation of the 4th Amendment to Constitution under the "unreasonable searches & seizures" portion.

Fourth Amendment wrote: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Second, the people that will be tested will all be from a (pretty much) single economic class - a lower class - and are all pretty much considered guilty of using drugs until proven innocent by a drug test. In essence, they have already been judged guilty and have to prove their innocence by peeing in a cup.

Kate wrote: It just occurred to me that this ruling may be overturned on two grounds. First, it could be viewed as a violation of the 4th Amendment to Constitution under the "unreasonable searches & seizures" portion.

Fourth Amendment wrote: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Second, the people that will be tested will all be from a (pretty much) single economic class - a lower class - and are all pretty much considered guilty of using drugs until proven innocent by a drug test. In essence, they have already been judged guilty and have to prove their innocence by peeing in a cup.

Haven't you heard, the 4'th amendment is dead. <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11475 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11475<!-- l -->

Kate wrote: It just occurred to me that this ruling may be overturned on two grounds. First, it could be viewed as a violation of the 4th Amendment to Constitution under the "unreasonable searches & seizures" portion.

Fourth Amendment wrote: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Second, the people that will be tested will all be from a (pretty much) single economic class - a lower class - and are all pretty much considered guilty of using drugs until proven innocent by a drug test. In essence, they have already been judged guilty and have to prove their innocence by peeing in a cup.

I tried that defense here at work and the answer was "It's our policy, like it or leave." Yeap, the old "Prove your innocent, NOT we don't have to prove your stoned."
I thought ALL were Innocent, until proven gulity. WELL, NOT IN BUSINESS, and the same should hold true in this case!

Kate wrote: It just occurred to me that this ruling may be overturned on two grounds. First, it could be viewed as a violation of the 4th Amendment to Constitution under the "unreasonable searches & seizures" portion.

Fourth Amendment wrote: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Second, the people that will be tested will all be from a (pretty much) single economic class - a lower class - and are all pretty much considered guilty of using drugs until proven innocent by a drug test. In essence, they have already been judged guilty and have to prove their innocence by peeing in a cup.

The are a couple of problems with this line of thought. First off, no one is requiring you to apply for public charity, that is a voluntary act on your part. Secondly, no one is presuming that you are using illicit substances, it is simply a requirement before you receive the public's charity that you demonstrate you are not using them. By applying to receive the public's charity, you are voluntarily submitting to the test. You don't have to take the test if you don't want to, but you will then fail to meet the requirements necessary to be eligible to receive the charity. It is no more intrusive than requiring you to provide an accurate statement regarding your current income, current expenses, list the number and ages of people in your household, your legal name, your level of education, your current employment condition, your past employment history, a person to contact in case of emergency and many more. It works the same way for employment. You have no right to work for a certain company. If they wish to employ only people who are not users of illicit substances and ask you to demonstrate that you meet this requirement before they hire you and at any time in the future while you remain employed by them, you have a voluntary choice that you and you alone get to make. No one is going to force you to work for that company or accept the public's charity - that is a decision you get to make all by yourself.

No one is accusing you of violating the law, you simply have to demonstrate that you meet the eligibility requirements set for public charity before receiving it. If you do, then you are eligible to receive public charity. If you don't, you aren't. Simple as that.

Some people really don't have an economic choice whether or not to apply for assistance. All other avenues have been exhausted and they have no where else to turn. This could be viewed as discrimination against the poor. After all, we don't ask corporations that accept government welfare to take a drug test.

Drug testing is indeed assuming the person is guilty and asking them to prove their innocence. There is absolutely no reasonable suspicion that everyone who applies is taking drugs, like you would have if someone were to be driving erratically, thereby creating reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.

I would have no issue if everyone who receives government subsidies of any sort had to submit to this test. Drug testing the entirety of a union or corporation would be fun.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-drug-testing-poor-could-unconstitutional-081205581.html

This leftie thinks it's un-constitutional to require drug tests for those sucking off the government tit.

I guess the losers and looters should have it easier than those who earn a living.

Yes- the author is a leftie- but check out the comments at the bottom of the story!

http://www.newser.com/story/127011/only ... tests.html

NEWSER) – Florida’s controversial new program to drug test welfare recipients isn’t exactly catching droves of addicts. So far only 2% of those tests have come up positive, the Tampa Tribune reports, with 96% testing clean and 2% declining to complete the application process. That rate of failure may still be enough to save Florida a tiny bit of money, but it undermines Gov. Rick Scott's argument that welfare recipients are more likely to use illegal drugs.

rofllol rofllol rofllol Holier than thou morons.

Kate wrote: Some people really don't have an economic choice whether or not to apply for assistance. All other avenues have been exhausted and they have no where else to turn. This could be viewed as discrimination against the poor. After all, we don't ask corporations that accept government welfare to take a drug test.

Drug testing is indeed assuming the person is guilty and asking them to prove their innocence. There is absolutely no reasonable suspicion that everyone who applies is taking drugs, like you would have if someone were to be driving erratically, thereby creating reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.

The federal government does require that any number of conditions be met in order to qualify for federal funds in many different areas. Transportation requires that the DUI limit be set at 0.08%, speed limits must not exceed X mph, primary offense seat belt laws, certain wages must be paid, along with certain benefit levels for maintenance and construction projects......and that's just the federal DoT for highway funds. It isn't a proof of innocence, it's proof that one meets a requirement for eligibility in the program. You are not presumed to be making more income than allowed for participation in the program, simply required to demonstrate that your income falls within the program requirements. There is no difference between the two, no presumption of guilt inferred by being required to demonstrate eligibility in either case.