Judge Blocks Florida Law Requiring Welfare Applicants to Pass Drug Test

[osan]

Liability? How was that handled prior to the War on Drugs?

You appear to be missing the salient point that I have repeatedly, and apparently ineffectually, been making: context has changed. We must act rationally within the context given us, particularly when we are powerless to change it in any immediately meaningful way.

One of the core problems we face is out of control torts based on a seriously derailed set of trends and established precedents that have created an extremely hazardous operating environment for businesses. The widespread acceptance of the notion of the "evil corporation", for example, has helped the degradation of the business environment. Consider the archetype grifter who intentionally slips at the supermarket, secures counsel, and sues the pants off the company, and settles for some healthy cash outlay. The nature of "the system" (equity, business, culture, etc.) has nurtured the rise of this sort of hazard such that businesses feel the need to resort to such testing to best minimize their liability exposure. Add to that the the insane regulatory frameworks set into place by so-called "government" that requires such testing in certain industries, and we end up just where we find ourselves.

The world is gone wholesale looney. Government has done nothing to help this situation and much to exacerbate it. Many companies are firmly and most uncomfortably wedged between a rock and a hard place.

I would also point out that Drug testing does not detect LSD.

It was just an example. Substitute cocaine, meth, smack... whatever you might.

However I did function and handle Military Weapon Systems while under the influence and afterwards,,, a long time ago.
my job performance was never questioned.

Different days. I would note that I would not want anyone watching my back who was stoned. Call me overly particular.

On the job drug testing was mandated by Insurance Industry in collusion with Government.
Employer Insurance was also mandated by that same Government.

So? It is there. It may be wrong, but it is nevertheless fact. Until that regulatory framework is removed, one must toe a line or face annihilation. Those are the practical facts of the matter. They may suck, but that is how it is. I would also add that a private firm is well within its rights to demand its employees remain drug free. I'd not want a tweaker on my staff - not even to mop the floors.

And Businesses have been leaving this country for elsewhere ever since.
perhaps a coincidence.

For far more significant reasons than just that.

 

[pcosmar]

One of the core problems we face is out of control torts based on a seriously derailed set of trends and established precedents that have created an extremely hazardous operating environment for businesses. .

While i will agree that we have an entirely too litigious society, and many blame Lawyers and judges, they are only part of the problem.
Once again the culprit is insurance companies that will pay off spurious claims without even a minimal fight.

Easy money will attract a certain subset. And insurance claims are easy money.

I know some here LOVE insurance. I do not, based on personal and professional experience with them.
And their collusion with government is a great evil. It is the cause of many of our problems.

 

[libertarian4321]

I'm not liking it. Why not test for levels of fat for High Fructose Corn Syrup intake?

This is government control of behavior. If you don't like subsidizing bad behavior, cut the subsidy - don't try and use it to control people.

If I take a check from the government as a soldier, I have to be clean.

I also have to wake up before noon, work, and a bunch of other things the welfare losers don't have to do.

Why should welfare slugs have a lower standard than soldiers?

We should eliminate welfare, but as long as we have it, I have no problem with requiring the trash to at least meet minimal standards.

They can still sleep until noon, they can still squeeze out rug rats every 9-months (and collect their "bonus" from the government when they do), they don't have to do a lick of work- but we are going to at least make sure they aren't on crack.

I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Krugerrand]

If I take a check from the government as a soldier, I have to be clean.

I also have to wake up before noon, work, and a bunch of other things the welfare losers don't have to do.

Why should welfare slugs have a lower standard than soldiers?

We should eliminate welfare, but as long as we have it, I have no problem with requiring the trash to at least meet minimal standards.

They can still sleep until noon, they can still squeeze out rug rats every 9-months (and collect their "bonus" from the government when they do), they don't have to do a lick of work- but we are going to at least make sure they aren't on crack.

I don't have a problem with that.

But for what gain? So that you feel better?

You're willing to massively expand government bureaucracy, start a dangerous precedent that can then easily be expanded beyond its original scope, come with a massive price tag - all so you can feel better about people doing something that they constitutionally should be allowed to do anyway?

I can guarantee you the cost will outweigh the savings. So - then what is the purpose? Principle? The principle is that liberty demands we own our bodies and can put whatever we want into them. Liberty demands that government should not steal from one person to give to another. Liberty demands that people should be free from unreasonable searches. Liberty demands that government should not try and control peoples' behaviors. Four wrongs do not make a right.

So - if this is not about liberty - if its not about cost savings ... then all we have is class warfare designed to grow the powers of the State and its control over mundanes.

I still don't like it.

 

[Bman]

But for what gain? So that you feel better?

IS it really any shock that people who ask for socialism, get socialism? These policies and welfare walk hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other, it is the nature of the beast.

 

[osan]

While i will agree that we have an entirely too litigious society, and many blame Lawyers and judges, they are only part of the problem.
Once again the culprit is insurance companies that will pay off spurious claims without even a minimal fight.

Agreed. I find their strategy to be very short-sighted. It costs them more up front to fight, but once they established a reputation for kicking ass and taking names, the frauds would have something to think about many times before plying their trade against insurance companies.

Easy money will attract a certain subset. And insurance claims are easy money.

And that could be changed completely in just a few years. Bring criminal charges against all suspected frauds, fight them in court, and file suit against them. Make it painful for the parasites and the problem would largely subside. Even if the costs were the same, I'd rather fight than pay any of the scum so much as a red cent.

And [unsurance comany] collusion with government is a great evil. It is the cause of many of our problems.

Absolutely.

 

[Working Poor]

I know some here LOVE insurance. I do not, based on personal and professional experience with them.
And their collusion with government is a great evil. It is the cause of many of our problems.

My dad used to sell insurance when I was kid he loved Goldwater and Milton Friedman and he used to rag me about my hippy dippy ways so I started ragging him about what a rip off insurance is and how could any freedom loving individual collude with government and the insurance industrial complex to rip people off. He saw my point and quit his job and bought a gas station where the whole family worked together it was some of the best times of all our lives. Freedom when allowed to grow is so wonderful.

 

[tropicangela]

Jacksonville, FL —

Governor Rick Scott signed a bill into law today that's already gaining criticism from the ACLU.

It's now the law in Florida for welfare recipients to be drug tested before receiving cash benefits. It would require about 21,000 people in Florida - mostly women and children - to pay for their drug testing. They would be paid back if the test comes back drug free.

http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/new-law-drug-testing-welfare-recipients/nCqHt/

The other factor is that drug tests aren't accurate.

Mom's Child Taken Away After Failed Drug Test; Poppy Seed Bagel Blamed

The woman said she tested positive for drugs after delivering her child because she ate a poppy seed bagel before giving birth.

Elizabeth Mort said Children and Youth Services came to her home three days after the child was born at Jameson Hospital to remove the baby from her home. CYS officials said her hospital bloodwork showed that she was using opiates.

http://www.wpxi.com/news/25370016/detail.html

Plus, so many welfare people (all people) are taking prescription drugs that can be just as bad as or worse than "illegal" ones, and they're covered by welfare.

Scary and invasive social engineering bill, probably making it more of a cluster.

 

[Razmear]

Does this apply to corporate welfare too?

 

[bobbyw24]

ORLANDO, Florida (AP) — A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida's new law that requires government assistance applicants to pass a drug test before receiving the benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Judge Mary Scriven's ruling is in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union that claims the law is unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who sought the benefits while finishing his college degree, but refused to take the test.

Nearly 1,600 applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid-July, but they aren't required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families. The majority of positives were for marijuana.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...-esBcA?docId=24fda81f3c324ad98f32176c95755dbe

 

[Krugerrand]

ORLANDO, Florida (AP) — A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida's new law that requires government assistance applicants to pass a drug test before receiving the benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Judge Mary Scriven's ruling is in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union that claims the law is unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who sought the benefits while finishing his college degree, but refused to take the test.

Nearly 1,600 applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid-July, but they aren't required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families. The majority of positives were for marijuana.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...-esBcA?docId=24fda81f3c324ad98f32176c95755dbe

Good. Now let the the block be permanent. This is nothing more than a massive power grab and intrusion of government sold via class warfare.