solid argument against this:
Minor custodial children of drug users will be denied benefits if the drug using guardian fails the drug test?
Without probable cause, why should the state be allowed to demand a DNA sample?
Having spent time in Florida, I understand why people wanted this law on the books. Still, it constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure,
How so? They can demand a drug test if you want a state job. They can demand a drug test if you want to apply for the job of welfare recipient. This is different than the Michigan law where it was a random test. This is a requirement to get the “job”.
But I’m sure a liberal judge will overturn it; however, this one has a chance to be upheld at higher courts.
Another option is to cut welfare benefits in 1/2 every year and just get rid of the program completely. Make everyone suffer—I’m sure that will please the libs.
Children's benefits will remain intact, but their benefits will only be given to a person who passes the drug test.
Without probable cause, why should the state be allowed to demand a DNA sample?
This is not a "search" nor is it compulsary. This is an application for benefit. As part of the application process, a drug test is required. If you don't want to give a drug test, you do not have to apply for benefits.
Just like if a company has a requirement of drug testing before employment is offered. If you don't want to take the drug test, the company does not have to offer you the job.
“Still, it constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure,”
I respectfully disagree. No one is forced to accept public assistance, so a person can reasonably avoid these intrusions. Once a person accepts government help, they must abide by certain conditions. And of course there are government rules and regulations that recipients must abide by such as reporting assets, income, number in household. If a recipient makes too much money, they are obviously denied the benefit. The government is simply adding another condition to receive a benefit; the recipient is free to take it or leave it.
“Minor custodial children of drug users will be denied benefits if the drug using guardian fails the drug test?”
True, this presents a hardship for an innocent party, but who is primarily responsible for this situation- the parent or the state? Some exceptions should exist in this law, but we should ask if these children are well served by being raised by drug addicts? Several things could occur as a result of this law: some parents will straighten up when confronted with losing benefits or even custody of their children. Some parents may actually lose custody of their children, and in most cases it will be to the benefit of the child not to be raised in a home filled with drug addled adults.
An unreasonable search and seizure only if a positive result could be used for criminal prosecution. Hopefully,the drafters of the statute prohibited this. If they did, I see no problem because drug tests are commonly required to obtain certain jobs and benefits.
I don’t think any of the subsequent comments have refuted your points.
Those who say the drug test is not compulsory because a voluntary application is involved should be required to give DNA, urine and blood samples and receive a colonoscopy when applying for their driver’s licenses.