Bill requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests headed to [Florida] governor

Miami Herald ^ | May 6. 2011 | Jodie Tillman, Herald/Times Tallahassee bureau

[microgood]

Not true. If the government searches everyone, for example at airport screening, or sobriety checkpoints it is permissible and has been upheld by the courts. You can refuse to be searched at airport screening points, but you will be denied boarding. You can refuse to be greeted at a sobriety checkpoint, but you will lose your driver's license.

Those are special exceptions granted by the Supreme Court to the 4th Amendment and are related to public safety (like drug testing certain occupations and not others). This situation is not a public safety issue.

[Popman]

The problem with this is that it is unconstitutional.

Horse pucky....

"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."

Taking a drug test qualifies you to continue to receive benefits for your children. In no way or fashion is it unreasonable.

That same welfare queen would probaly take a drug test when and if she ever got off her ass to find a job

[marktwain]

Thank you for your report. It deserves to be a separate article.

[CholeraJoe]

There is an implied consent in driving and traveling by air - in exchange for allowing me to drive, I will consent to sobriety checkpoints or giving a breathalyzer if stopped for speeding. In exchange for allowing me to travel by air, I consent to allowing my person and luggage to be searched.

This law legislates an implied consent into welfare payments. In exchange for receiving welfare, the recipients agree to be periodically tested for drugs.

Search with the consent of the owner can reveal evidence admissible in court.

[TxDas]

welfare is voluntary, if you don’t want to get searched then you do not have to take welfare.

[khnyny]

What about company’s that demand:
1. Drug test
2. Criminal background check
3. Credit report

Just to get hired and receive “payment”? What is the difference? If you want to be paid (by we, the taxpayer’s), you have to play by the rules. If these druggies have children, they should be placed in loving homes where they have a chance of a normal life. The drug abusers themselves should be given the chance of treatment. Treatment, not jail. The system that is currently in place is not helping these people, but perpetuating the problem - the Federal Government has become the ultimate enabler.

[khnyny]

Welcome to the plantation...
The rich white woman at the desk is representative of the new slave holder. What a scam. Horrendous, really - what a sick world we live in.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

No, but if you “want” to gather welfare, then you must meet the Government’s requirements, such as “earn under X amount of money” or “be drug free”. Now they can search your tax records to see how much money you earn as their enforcement of the first requirement just as they can search your urine to see if you are drug free as their enforcement of the second requirement.

[wally_bert]

I have dealings with the state welfare handout office and see all kinds of real “winners” every day.

The bling, piercings, and tattoos are at times overwhelming for me to be around and I don’t interact with the clientele. The wonky networks and flaky power is enough.

There are a small group of us who go around to every county office to swap out PCs and laptops. Supposedly there is a minimum standard of units to have in and properly configured.

Most of the configuration is a script and just putting the unit together. I typically make the standard number by lunch time or so if things don’t weird out. There is another guy who is close to me. There are two others who are good guys and all but get the bare minimum done. I see a lot of talking to the women, forgetting where units in process are, endless gabbing on phones, and most of the configuration problems.

[microgood]

There is an implied consent in driving and traveling by air - in exchange for allowing me to drive, I will consent to sobriety checkpoints or giving a breathalyzer if stopped for speeding. In exchange for allowing me to travel by air, I consent to allowing my person and luggage to be searched.

Sobriety checkpoints are allowed in some states based on a Supreme Court ruling that carved out a special exception in the 4th Amendment. Even the Supreme Court acknowledged in that case that sobriety checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, but they granted an exception. 11 States do not allow them.

This law legislates an implied consent into welfare payments. In exchange for receiving welfare, the recipients agree to be periodically tested for drugs.

I know of no Supreme Court ruling that allows for an exception to the 4th Amendment in this case. They can write such a law but it can be challenged and eventually make its way to the Supreme Court.

[Let's Roll]

Will they also be required to pass the drug test? And what will passing mean? No recreational drugs in system or mostly no drugs in the system etc.?

We are talking about the government here.

[Let's Roll]

Will they also be required to pass the drug test? And what will passing mean? No recreational drugs in system or mostly no drugs in the system etc.? Will it be zero tolerance and for which drugs?

We are talking about the government here.

[microgood]

What about company’s that demand:
1. Drug test
2. Criminal background check
3. Credit report


Just to get hired and receive “payment”? What is the difference? If you want to be paid (by we, the taxpayer’s), you have to play by the rules. If these druggies have children, they should be placed in loving homes where they have a chance of a normal life. The drug abusers themselves should be given the chance of treatment. Treatment, not jail. The system that is currently in place is not helping these people, but perpetuating the problem - the Federal Government has become the ultimate enabler.

The Constitution does not protect you from a private corporation but something far more evil, the government. The Constitution restricts what the government can do. And apparently alot of Freepers are not to happy about those protections. Personally I like all 10 of the Bill of Rights, but many Freepers only care about #2.

The question is, when you go on welfare, do you give up your constitutional rights including:

the right of free speech, the right to pursue your own religion, the right to own a firearm, the right to be free from unreasonable searches.

If you are saying the government has the right to search you, you are allowing them to take all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

I would rather they stop welfare completely rather than allow the government to violate the Constitution, but that is just me.

[microgood]

No, but if you “want” to gather welfare, then you must meet the Government’s requirements, such as “earn under X amount of money” or “be drug free”. Now they can search your tax records to see how much money you earn as their enforcement of the first requirement just as they can search your urine to see if you are drug free as their enforcement of the second requirement.

The government cannot force you to give up your Constitutional rights except in cases recognized by the Supreme Court or if you join the military. This case does not qualify and I guarantee this law will be struck down in the Federal courts.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Colt 45 will give you a heck of buzz if you gun it down. Same with MD 20/20. College was so fun.

The worst hangover of my life was as a college freshman in 1970 with Colt 45. I was at a party at an apartment complex next to the dorm I lived in. BTW, Colt 45 glows very nicely under a black light.

Colt tall boys, I didn't get out of bed the next day until dinner was being served in the dorm cafeteria.

Took me until the middle of my junior year to get my GPA where it belonged after the debauchery of my freshman year.

Still, all things considered, it was (painfully) fun.

[Joe Boucher]

As a long time Florida boy I say good,
It’ about time

[central_va]

I would rather they stop welfare completely rather than allow the government to violate the Constitution, but that is just me.

I guess it is silly to check id before voting too? And this thing about a border pfffff. Where does it say in the Constitution a draft is legal? Lincoln's conscription act of 1863 was probably unconstitutional. PS: the states are block granted welfare so it is the state that is requiring the test.

I smell a libtardarian.

[central_va]

We are talking about the government here.

We are talking about government blood suckers here.

[Indy Pendance]

You spelt no one wrong. No one is two words. That nulls all your points. Learn English.

[eyedigress]

Dude.........attaching the Bill Of Rights to applying for welfare is not only disingenuous, it is just wrong.