Welfare Drug Testing (NRR)
Rockadelic
Out Digging 13,993 Posts
Yay or Nay?
MIAMI -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida plans to challenge the state's law requiring new welfare recipients to pass a drug test.
An ACLU spokesman told The Associated Press Wednesday the lawsuit is being filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Orlando man, Luis Lebron.
The spokesman says Florida's drug testing law is unconstitutional, saying it violates the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure protections.
No further details of the lawsuit were immediately available.
Gov. Rick Scott signed the drug testing bill into law in July. Under the law, welfare applicants must pay for the drug tests. If they pass, they'll get reimbursed. If they fail, they can't get benefits for at least a year, and could face child abuse charges.
MIAMI -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida plans to challenge the state's law requiring new welfare recipients to pass a drug test.
An ACLU spokesman told The Associated Press Wednesday the lawsuit is being filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Orlando man, Luis Lebron.
The spokesman says Florida's drug testing law is unconstitutional, saying it violates the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure protections.
No further details of the lawsuit were immediately available.
Gov. Rick Scott signed the drug testing bill into law in July. Under the law, welfare applicants must pay for the drug tests. If they pass, they'll get reimbursed. If they fail, they can't get benefits for at least a year, and could face child abuse charges.
Comments
I don't know about that child abuse charges part, although "could" is a very vague word. If someone is a parent and smoking weed, but the child is otherwise taken care of and kept out of danger, child abuse charges are complete horseshit. Now, if that parent is possibly putting the child in danger in some way through drug use, then a CPS investigation is in order, which could lead to the children being removed from that danger. But that's still a far cry from actual child abuse charges.
If they're going to have a law like this, then I think they need to offer some way of the person getting treatment, instead of leaving them high and dry.
Seems like a huge waste of money to test that many people when only 2% are failing the tests. I think the figure was close to 5X more than what they are saving by not paying the failing 2%.
Wow, those numbers change things entirely. If the plan was to save money by not giving welfare to, as many people believe, "all of those lazy people who drink and do drugs all day" (not an actual quote, but its how many people view the majority of people on welfare to be), then it is a complete waste. If they offer treatment to those who need help, then it would be worth the money in my opinion. I would pay taxes for that.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/370/660/case.html
Starting with Robinson, I'd say it's an equal protection issue. They are treating people who suffer from drug addiction differently than those who don't.
Does this override treating those who need financial assistance differently than those who don't? How so?
I read that so far its cost exponentially more money to test than it has saved in denied claims.
Only 2% of those applying have failed since the law went into effect....could it be that people who know they would fail just aren't applying?
The child abuse issue seems ridiculous.
Any employer, government or private sector, can make a potential check earner submit to a drug test.
I don't think this law will fly very long.
Would you consider making a potential employee submit to a drug test being treated like a criminal?
No because uder Robinson, drug addiction is recognized as an illness, in other words, you can't help being a drug addict jsut like you can't help being a woman, black, an immigrant. Needing or not needing financial assistance can be the result of many things - bad choices. The state can determine who it wants to give money to as long as they don't arbitrarily discriminate against one group of people. If they do, they need to show a compelling state interest and the lack of a less restrictive way to achieve that interest, which they probably would not be able to do here.
b/w
The more money I have the more drugs I can buy!
Government and cops are the biggest drug dealers anywhere, so I don't see why they would want to cut into their revenues like that either.
Don't forget Jabba the Hut fat as well.
or is this something meant to help addicts kick a habit? if so, are drug addicts likely to respond to punative action like that? maybe, in some cases. but it seems like too blunt an approach. some addicts do love their dope dearly.
if drug testing was mandatory when you enroll in welfare, but not as a punative action - rather to link you up with some counselling to triage your situation, and then maybe to find you a spot in a rehab program, then it would make more sense to me. like, here's your welfare $$ but let's see if we can change your life course a bit and help you spend that $ more wisely.
otherwise, this seems like a really costly and invasive/dehumanizing practice that only adds to the negative stereotypes we have of people on welfare (really?!! only 2% of you are drug addicts?!) and the shame that must be experienced by some who are trapped in that web.
Wow
is that dick van patten?! what's that from. i need to watch it instantly.
thought i would try some "ground-truthing" about this. this is data from the Canadian Community Health Survey:
www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-s/2004000/pdf/4195155-eng.pdf
see table 4. first a few caveats - under-reporting of drug use in surveys is possible, and there may even be variations in under-reporting by factors like income - so, this study suggests that people of lower social class may be more likely to under-report than people of higher social class: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586999/
table 4 above suggests that 0.6% of high-to-middle income Canadians have an addiciton to an illicit drug, while the prevalence is 2.8% among low income Canadians. so yes, drug dependence is higher in the lowest income population, but it's nowhere near "the norm". and given the radically different early childhood and environmental factors that people of low income experience, we might "expect" higher rates of addiction in the lowest income groups.
i agree with rich. corporations exist to make profit, and everyone knows that. they're not trying to treat people like criminals when they make you piss in a cup - they're just trying to protect their investment in their employees.
it's more ambiguous in the case of getting a welfare cheque.
i've seen that too...but i have to watch it again now...
Not to mention that their insurance companies almost certainly require it, and if they don't require it they would just raise the premiums substantially if testing isn't done.