ATTN Lawyer Types...Having difficulty....

[ManagingPrime 0]

...wrapping my head around this one.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/26/court-nix-fla-law-drug-testing-welfare-applicants/

Private employers can require drug tests.
LEO departments can require drug tests.
Military can require drug tests.

...But the state cannot require drug tests for welfare applicants or state employees on the basis of "...constitutional protection from unreasonable searches that all other citizens enjoy,”

This argument does not make sense.

[lawrocket 3]

Read this.

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201115258.pdf

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Read this.

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201115258.pdf

But, but, but, that's written in Lawyer. I need my information translated to Sound Bite, please.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Read this.

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201115258.pdf

Thanks!

So, it's an issue of special needs. Got it.

The WT article did not go into any detail, other than the 4th amendment, as to why the court ruled this as unconstitutional.

While I agree with the idea of drug testing, I can see how the program, as setup, is unconstitutional.

Any ideas on how to drug test welfare applicants while not infringing upon their constitutional rights?

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

Read this.

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201115258.pdf

But, but, but, that's written in Lawyer. I need my information translated to Sound Bite, please.

But, But, But, my mother always said there were no dumb questions.

Now I feel dumb...and lazy for asking.



MODS! She's picking on me!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Any ideas on how to drug test welfare applicants while not infringing upon their constitutional rights?

OK, so an indigent person tests positive for drugs. Now what would you do with them?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

OK, so an indigent person tests positive for drugs. Now what would you do with them?

Take away his guns and anything that might be fashioned into a weapon. Seize him and place him in jail for a while. Once he's charged, sent to prison and released, immediate take him and put him in a mental health long-term custodial facility so that we can be sure he doesn't kill a bunch of schoolkids.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,110]

>Any ideas on how to drug test welfare applicants while not infringing upon their
>constitutional rights?

Make it voluntary. Give them a cookie if they agree.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Any ideas on how to drug test welfare applicants while not infringing upon their constitutional rights?

OK, so an indigent person tests positive for drugs. Now what would you do with them?

Stop giving them cash.

Provide treatment options.
Make sure they have access to food, shelter and work...and more.

But, I would most assuradly start looking at ways to not enable them.

I'm not anti-welfare. But, I'm also not blind to the fact that a lot of people are abusing the system amd those kind of abuses threaten the availability of services for those who are in real need.

What if a friend came to you asking for financial help, lets say rent and being a good friend you help. Later you find out they've got a nasty drug problem and spent all the money you gave them on drugs. Soon after that another friend comes to you for help and you don't have the means to help them.

Would you be inclined to blindly help that first friend again?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I'm not anti-welfare. But, I'm also not blind to the fact that a lot of people are abusing the system amd those kind of abuses threaten the availability of services for those who are in real need.

I read a fair bit of that opinion. A big reason the plaintiff won the injunction was that Florida failed to establish any sort of factual basis for the sort of argument you are using here.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[normiss 892]

So since you voluntarily accept the use of public roads, should you voluntarily allow them to search your home?

Car?

Desk?

Pockets?

Person?

Cavity search?

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

I'm not anti-welfare. But, I'm also not blind to the fact that a lot of people are abusing the system amd those kind of abuses threaten the availability of services for those who are in real need.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html

108 of 4,086 is "a lot"? That's 2.6% by my math. I'll grant you that 2.6% is "a lot" in certain circumstances (manufacturing error tolerance, for example) but in this case, seems pretty darned low.

Quote

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state’s net loss? $45,780.

But it's a good thing the good taxpayers of Florida aren't subsidizing those drug users anymore.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

So since you voluntarily accept the use of public roads, should you voluntarily allow them to search your home?

Car?

Desk?

Pockets?

Person?

Cavity search?

I agree to the fact that I can't drive on public roads drunk, or at an unsafe speed, or on drugs, etc. If I do, there are consequences, the least of which is usually the loss of the ability to drive on public roads for some time.

I'm in the finance industry. Not to long ago, I went longer than two weeks without a job for the first time in my adult working life. It was depressing and at times it was terrifying. I took advantage of unemployment benefits. They allowed me the breathing room to find another job in my industry as opposed to taking the first thing that came along so that I would not starve to death, which probably would have hurt my prospects in my industry. I fully understand the benefit of that and other social safety nets and I would like to see them stick around for future generations.

However, there's ample evidence that there is a lot of "fraud, waste and abuse" in these systems. If these social programs are something we really value then we will look at all ways of preserving them, to include making sure the funds are not used in ways not intended. I don't think looking at ways to stop the diversion to drug use is a bad start.

It would seem that florida and the other states tried to address the issue without giving any thought to the constitution. I think the same stated desired outcome can be reached while still giving consideration to the constitution.... it might actually end up costing us more in the short term.

I'm going to leave it at that before I get labeled a "liberal".

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What if a friend came to you asking for financial help, lets say rent and being a good friend you help. Later you find out they've got a nasty drug problem and spent all the money you gave them on drugs. Soon after that another friend comes to you for help and you don't have the means to help them.

You have to decide if your goal is to spend money well, or make sure your friends aren't having too much fun.

The idea that welfare recipients are getting high, or not really trying to get off welfare, makes people angry. But detecting drug users costs extra money. And still leaves the question of what to do with those who test positive.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

However, there's ample evidence that there is a lot of "fraud, waste and abuse" in these systems. If these social programs are something we really value then we will look at all ways of preserving them, to include making sure the funds are not used in ways not intended. I don't think looking at ways to stop the diversion to drug use is a bad start.

Again, there was not ample evidence supplied by the state of Florida that diversion to drug use was any problem at all. That is why they lost. You are trying to argue using facts that are not in evidence. That may work on a message board but it doesn't fly in a courtroom.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not anti-welfare. But, I'm also not blind to the fact that a lot of people are abusing the system amd those kind of abuses threaten the availability of services for those who are in real need.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html

108 of 4,086 is "a lot"? That's 2.6% by my math. I'll grant you that 2.6% is "a lot" in certain circumstances (manufacturing error tolerance, for example) but in this case, seems pretty darned low.

Quote

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state’s net loss? $45,780.

But it's a good thing the good taxpayers of Florida aren't subsidizing those drug users anymore.

Care to take a guess as to how many people in that 4, 000 actually did have "hot" urine?

I get the influence that labs have on drug policies.

I'm not advocating for Florida's system or any other for that matter. But, presuming the actual intent is to give people a little dose of "tough love" and save tax payer dollars, I'm all about that general idea.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Care to take a guess as to how many people in that 4, 000 actually did have "hot" urine?

Imma go with 108, because that's what the article said, and I wasn't overseeing each and every one of those 4,086 drug tests.

But you go on believing there's a huge problem that, so far, hasn't been shown by the publicly-available evidence. Or show me some actual numbers to back up your side. I'm all ears (or eyes, I guess, this being a forum).

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

Care to take a guess as to how many people in that 4, 000 actually did have "hot" urine?

Imma go with 108, because that's what the article said, and I wasn't overseeing each and every one of those 4,086 drug tests.

But you go on believing there's a huge problem that, so far, hasn't been shown by the publicly-available evidence. Or show me some actual numbers to back up your side. I'm all ears (or eyes, I guess, this being a forum).

Well shit. Maybe getting on public assistance is the way to cure drug use. Based on those numbers welfare applicants in florida use less drugs than the general population.

I don't think playing the numbers game will result in anything meaningful. These programs, I would like to think, came about from a higher ideal than just "the numbers". However, these programs are being threatened by the numbers. There are a number of issues that need to addressed in order to try and ensure thier viability. Why not start with the issue of diversion of funds to drugs?

If there is a reasonable wager involved I could be persuaded to find supporting evidence that over $100 million dollars a year are diverted from public welfare programs to illegal drug purchases.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

OK, so an indigent person tests positive for drugs. Now what would you do with them?

Take away his guns and anything that might be fashioned into a weapon. Seize him and place him in jail for a while. Once he's charged, sent to prison and released, immediate take him and put him in a mental health long-term custodial facility so that we can be sure he doesn't kill a bunch of schoolkids.

there's some funny posting/mocking - thanks, I needed the chuckle

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I could be persuaded to find supporting evidence that over $100 million dollars a year are diverted from public welfare programs to illegal drug purchases.

Just think of all the free cell phones we could give away

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

I'm not anti-welfare. But, I'm also not blind to the fact that a lot of people are abusing the system amd those kind of abuses threaten the availability of services for those who are in real need.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html

108 of 4,086 is "a lot"? That's 2.6% by my math. I'll grant you that 2.6% is "a lot" in certain circumstances (manufacturing error tolerance, for example) but in this case, seems pretty darned low.

Quote

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state’s net loss? $45,780.

But it's a good thing the good taxpayers of Florida aren't subsidizing those drug users anymore.

It's definately a higher percentage than the number of homicides done with an AR15, and we're trying to ban them!

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not anti-welfare. But, I'm also not blind to the fact that a lot of people are abusing the system amd those kind of abuses threaten the availability of services for those who are in real need.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html

108 of 4,086 is "a lot"? That's 2.6% by my math. I'll grant you that 2.6% is "a lot" in certain circumstances (manufacturing error tolerance, for example) but in this case, seems pretty darned low.

Quote

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state’s net loss? $45,780.

But it's a good thing the good taxpayers of Florida aren't subsidizing those drug users anymore.

It's definately a higher percentage than the number of homicides done with an AR15, and we're trying to ban them!

I was wondering who'd be the first to turn this into a gun thread. Here we have it.

[davjohns 1]

I wonder if the whole issue can be re-worked. No more welfare. You just work for the government instead. That would make the testing easy enough. You still get the check, it's just not welfare anymore. Maybe you spend 20hrs per week cleaning a public building or something? The rate would have to be something below minimum wage to encourage a return to the private sector. The hours could only be part time to provide time to look for employment. There shouldn't be any benefits.

I don't know. Just a thought.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 2]

If the proponents were intellectually honest, they'd simply insist that all welfare be paid in debit cards that can only be used by the named recipient, and can only be redeemed for reasonably-defined food and clothing items, rent and utilities, lawful medication, etc. That can be done, and some states are already well on their way to doing just that. But instead, they use the issue to back-handedly attack an entire class of people, under the guise (and that's all it is) of social engineering to promote a healthier lifestyle.

I'm all for preventing welfare funds from being used to buy non-essentials, alcohol or illegal drugs, luxuries, etc. But if a person otherwise qualifies for aid to put food in his mouth (which is a separate issue), being a drug user shouldn't disqualify him from eating it to keep himself alive.


ETA: @davjohns: You're referring to what's often been called "Workfare". The devil's in the details, of course; but in basic concept it's a great idea.

[davjohns 1]

Thanks, Andy. I've never heard the term before.

As to your post, I can ALMOST get on board. The problem is one of substitution. Even if the welfare, food stampes, whatever only goes to essentials for life (which they clearly don't always do), then that gain can free up other money to be used for drugs, alcohol, etc. I think the legitimate goal behind drug testing is to create some form of litmus test. Not saying this is the true motivation of all, but it is a possible means test. If you can afford drugs, do you truly need public assitance? That kind of thing.

I'm not sure there are many who truly want to take support away from those in genuine need. There are probably some. But I hope most Americans want to help those in need. We just vary on the means to do it and what side we want to err on.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.