Comments on: Scott Random Drug Testing For State Employees Ruled Unconstitutional http://www.northescambia.com/2012/04/scott-random-drug-testing-for-state-employees-ruled-unconstitutional Local News for Molino, Bratt, McDavid, Century, Walnut Hill, Cantonment Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:58:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: shasha http://www.northescambia.com/2012/04/scott-random-drug-testing-for-state-employees-ruled-unconstitutional/comment-page-1#comment-125638 shasha Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:01:22 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=92427#comment-125638 It is time for Gov Snott to be voted out of office! After all, he has a back up plan..if his drug testing labs go under because he can not push this judge around, he can always get a job at the doughnut shop where he got his mother a job! It is time for Gov Snott to be voted out of office! After all, he has a back up plan..if his drug testing labs go under because he can not push this judge around, he can always get a job at the doughnut shop where he got his mother a job!

]]> By: deBugger http://www.northescambia.com/2012/04/scott-random-drug-testing-for-state-employees-ruled-unconstitutional/comment-page-1#comment-125590 deBugger Sat, 28 Apr 2012 04:35:04 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=92427#comment-125590 @ Football Mom - it doesn't add up, does it? That''s because ALL drug testing without due process or probable cause is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Yet because the "Ruling Class", businesses, & special interests, (all backed by HUGE sums of money funnelled into trust funds, campaigns, and God Only Knows What Sort of Banking Fictions) have pushed for continual erosion of our God-Given Rights, based on a fraction of a fraction of the population having drug problems, the proper process of Jucicial Review has been subverted. "...about 6 percent of the household population aged twelve and older, use illegal drugs on a current basis (within the past thirty days). This number of "past-month" drug users has declined by almost 50 percent from the 1979 high of twenty-five million..." https://www.ncjrs.gov/htm/chapter2.htm https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/policy/99ndcs/images/image-09.gif This falling percentage is in the face of a growing population--- think about it. Granted, the Government's own language does not allow for "casual users"- ALL users are classified as "abusers"- more propaganda. Statistically speaking, an average of 10% of that 6% will have problems that are serious enought to warrant treatment. As it is, users not showing any difficulties related directly to their drug use, other than legal ones, are shunted into expensive court-ordered programs, and required to inject huge sums of money into this Circus of a Judicial System. The Drug War is nothing more than an excuse to further bloat an already outmoded, beseiged, & defeated cluster of bureacracies. And make Ricky Scott's friends richer & richer while trampling our God-Given Right to Privacy within our homes & persons. @ Football Mom – it doesn’t add up, does it? That’’s because ALL drug testing without due process or probable cause is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Yet because the “Ruling Class”, businesses, & special interests, (all backed by HUGE sums of money funnelled into trust funds, campaigns, and God Only Knows What Sort of Banking Fictions) have pushed for continual erosion of our God-Given Rights, based on a fraction of a fraction of the population having drug problems, the proper process of Jucicial Review has been subverted.

“…about 6 percent of the household population aged twelve and older, use illegal drugs on a current basis (within the past thirty days). This number of “past-month” drug users has declined by almost 50 percent from the 1979 high of twenty-five million…”
https://www.ncjrs.gov/htm/chapter2.htm

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/policy/99ndcs/images/image-09.gif

This falling percentage is in the face of a growing population— think about it.

Granted, the Government’s own language does not allow for “casual users”- ALL users are classified as “abusers”- more propaganda. Statistically speaking, an average of 10% of that 6% will have problems that are serious enought to warrant treatment. As it is, users not showing any difficulties related directly to their drug use, other than legal ones, are shunted into expensive court-ordered programs, and required to inject huge sums of money into this Circus of a Judicial System. The Drug War is nothing more than an excuse to further bloat an already outmoded, beseiged, & defeated cluster of bureacracies. And make Ricky Scott’s friends richer & richer while trampling our God-Given Right to Privacy within our homes & persons.

]]> By: state-employed citizen http://www.northescambia.com/2012/04/scott-random-drug-testing-for-state-employees-ruled-unconstitutional/comment-page-1#comment-125573 state-employed citizen Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:52:12 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=92427#comment-125573 I have no problem with a random drug test, as long as there are no Florida state politicians invested in a drug-test providers. Kinda like investing in a publishing company and then voting in a mandate to buy new textbooks every six years. I have no problem with a random drug test, as long as there are no Florida state politicians invested in a drug-test providers. Kinda like investing in a publishing company and then voting in a mandate to buy new textbooks every six years.

]]> By: David Huie Green http://www.northescambia.com/2012/04/scott-random-drug-testing-for-state-employees-ruled-unconstitutional/comment-page-1#comment-125572 David Huie Green Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:55:16 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=92427#comment-125572 REGARDING: "It would have been cheaper for the state to just pay the benefits than it turned out to be the deny them to the 2% that tested positive. " Considering only the economics of it, we don't really know if it would have been cheaper or not because we don't know how many chose not to request benefits because they knew they would fail the test. Perhaps half of them would have failed, perhaps all of them would have failed, perhaps only two percent of them; we just don't know. We also don't know how many would have requested benefits, maybe twice as many, maybe five times as many, maybe only ten percent more. We just don't know. Therefore, as an economic matter we just don't know if it was cheaper or more expensive to do the testing. And, of course, based on your numbers, if the benefits denied had a value more than fifty times the cost of the test, we would already have saved money. If the test cost ten dollars, benefits would have to be more than five hundred dollars for it to pay out. If the test cost fifty dollars, benefits not paid per positive test would have to be more than $2500. David for clarity even if some have to get off drugs to achieve it REGARDING:
“It would have been cheaper for the state to just pay the benefits than it turned out to be the deny them to the 2% that tested positive. ”

Considering only the economics of it, we don’t really know if it would have been cheaper or not because we don’t know how many chose not to request benefits because they knew they would fail the test. Perhaps half of them would have failed, perhaps all of them would have failed, perhaps only two percent of them; we just don’t know. We also don’t know how many would have requested benefits, maybe twice as many, maybe five times as many, maybe only ten percent more.

We just don’t know.

Therefore, as an economic matter we just don’t know if it was cheaper or more expensive to do the testing.

And, of course, based on your numbers, if the benefits denied had a value more than fifty times the cost of the test, we would already have saved money. If the test cost ten dollars, benefits would have to be more than five hundred dollars for it to pay out. If the test cost fifty dollars, benefits not paid per positive test would have to be more than $2500.

David for clarity
even if some have to get off drugs to achieve it

]]> By: Football Mom http://www.northescambia.com/2012/04/scott-random-drug-testing-for-state-employees-ruled-unconstitutional/comment-page-1#comment-125566 Football Mom Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:40:48 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=92427#comment-125566 Not quite understanding how it's an infringment (sp?) on the rights of those working for the government but not on mine since I work for a private company. Seriously, can someone please tell me how that works because I just really dont get it. Not quite understanding how it’s an infringment (sp?) on the rights of those working for the government but not on mine since I work for a private company. Seriously, can someone please tell me how that works because I just really dont get it.

]]> By: bob hudson http://www.northescambia.com/2012/04/scott-random-drug-testing-for-state-employees-ruled-unconstitutional/comment-page-1#comment-125565 bob hudson Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:34:19 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=92427#comment-125565 Good post. But does Florida enforce these rules as as often as the private sector? Just wondering. Seems the ACLU is pushing to test no one. Well back to the Supreme Court. And what ever is good for the government , better be for all off us. Good post. But does Florida enforce these rules as as often as the private sector? Just wondering. Seems the ACLU is pushing to test no one. Well back to the Supreme Court. And what ever is good for the government , better be for all off us.

]]> By: Rufus Lowgun http://www.northescambia.com/2012/04/scott-random-drug-testing-for-state-employees-ruled-unconstitutional/comment-page-1#comment-125563 Rufus Lowgun Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:32:08 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=92427#comment-125563 There wasn't a compelling reason for testing recipients of unemployment benefits either, in the event. It would have been cheaper for the state to just pay the benefits than it turned out to be the deny them to the 2% that tested positive. Look for the Governor to try and decree that state prisons be sold to CCA and the GEO group next, since the legislature refused to cooperate in that scheme for Rick Scott to make back the 75 million of his own money he spent to buy the governship as well. There wasn’t a compelling reason for testing recipients of unemployment benefits either, in the event. It would have been cheaper for the state to just pay the benefits than it turned out to be the deny them to the 2% that tested positive. Look for the Governor to try and decree that state prisons be sold to CCA and the GEO group next, since the legislature refused to cooperate in that scheme for Rick Scott to make back the 75 million of his own money he spent to buy the governship as well.

]]> By: Cantonment mom http://www.northescambia.com/2012/04/scott-random-drug-testing-for-state-employees-ruled-unconstitutional/comment-page-1#comment-125539 Cantonment mom Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:35:39 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=92427#comment-125539 Just an FYI: ALL state emplyees can be drug tested at any time for cause and most positions can be randomly tested. Here is the policy directly out of the State of FL employee handbook, "“The state of Florida acknowledges that drug and alcohol use have serious adverse effects in the workplace resulting in lost productivity each year and poses a threat to public health and safety. Maintaining a healthy and productive workforce with safe working conditions free from the effects of drugs decreases the occurrence of injuries on the job, absenteeism and theft, and promotes employee morale. The Drug-Free Workplace Act promotes the goal of drug-free workplaces within government through fair and reasonable drug-testing methods for the protection of public employees and employers. Prior to actual drug testing, the department provides a copy of the policy to job applicants for safety sensitive positions and employees being tested pursuant to reasonable suspicion. Section 112.0455, Florida Statutes, identifies and defines the types of drug testing: job applicant testing, routine fitness for duty testing, follow-up testing and reasonable suspicion drug testing. “Reasonable suspicion drug testing” means drug testing based on a belief that an employee is using or has used drugs in violation of the employer’s policy, drawn from specific objective and articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in light of experience. A job applicant is defined in Section 112.0455, Florida Statutes, as “a person who has applied for a special risk or safety-sensitive position with an employer and has been offered employment conditioned upon successfully passing a drug test.” Job applicant testing only provides for the testing of safety-sensitive, special risk or other positions specifically required by legislative authority. To learn more about the other types of drug-testing, review Section 112.0455, Florida Statutes, by visiting the website http://www.leg.state.fl.us/. All employees are expected to adhere to the state’s standards of conduct concerning the possession and/or use of drugs or alcohol while on duty or while in or on state property. Violations of this policy will result in referral to EAP and/or disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. [Section 112.0455, Florida Statutes]” Why is Mr. Scott wasting my money with this!?!?!?!?!?!? Just an FYI: ALL state emplyees can be drug tested at any time for cause and most positions can be randomly tested.
Here is the policy directly out of the State of FL employee handbook,
““The state of Florida acknowledges that drug and alcohol use have serious adverse effects in the workplace resulting in lost productivity each year and poses a threat to public health and safety. Maintaining a healthy and productive workforce with safe working conditions free from the effects of drugs decreases the occurrence of injuries on the job, absenteeism and theft, and promotes employee morale.
The Drug-Free Workplace Act promotes the goal of drug-free workplaces within government through fair and reasonable drug-testing methods for the protection of public employees and employers. Prior to actual drug testing, the department provides a copy of the policy to job applicants for safety sensitive positions and employees being tested pursuant to reasonable suspicion.
Section 112.0455, Florida Statutes, identifies and defines the types of drug testing: job applicant testing, routine fitness for duty testing, follow-up testing and reasonable suspicion drug testing. “Reasonable suspicion drug testing” means drug testing based on a belief that an employee is using or has used drugs in violation of the employer’s policy, drawn from specific objective and articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in light of experience. A job applicant is defined in Section 112.0455, Florida Statutes, as “a person who has applied for a special risk or safety-sensitive position with an employer and has been offered employment conditioned upon successfully passing a drug test.” Job applicant testing only provides for the testing of safety-sensitive, special risk or other positions specifically required by legislative authority. To learn more about the other types of drug-testing, review Section 112.0455, Florida Statutes, by visiting the website http://www.leg.state.fl.us/.
All employees are expected to adhere to the state’s standards of conduct concerning the possession and/or use of drugs or alcohol while on duty or while in or on state property. Violations of this policy will result in referral to EAP and/or disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. [Section 112.0455, Florida Statutes]”

Why is Mr. Scott wasting my money with this!?!?!?!?!?!?

]]> By: Kathy http://www.northescambia.com/2012/04/scott-random-drug-testing-for-state-employees-ruled-unconstitutional/comment-page-1#comment-125523 Kathy Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:11:09 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=92427#comment-125523 I always thought republicans were for personal rights, personal responsibility, no interference or suspicion without a basis from the government. So now everyone that works for the government is under suspicion while republicans are in control in Florida? Plus they will spend more of our tax dollars to fight cases like this to make sure their power is absolute? Give me a break. I always thought republicans were for personal rights, personal responsibility, no interference or suspicion without a basis from the government. So now everyone that works for the government is under suspicion while republicans are in control in Florida? Plus they will spend more of our tax dollars to fight cases like this to make sure their power is absolute? Give me a break.

]]> By: bob hudson http://www.northescambia.com/2012/04/scott-random-drug-testing-for-state-employees-ruled-unconstitutional/comment-page-1#comment-125522 bob hudson Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:02:19 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=92427#comment-125522 Well what is good for the government is good for the private sector, all right lawyers time to start those class action suits against private companies that wish to violate your rights under the constitution. Or is it that the government is becoming more elitist and above the law of the common man? Either test every one or no one..And so mush for the ACLU caring about every ones rights, They only care about their own little social agenda.Hey if it takes suing the private sector companies and costing them millions then so be it. BUT THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS COUNTRY PROTECTS EVERY ONE, NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!! Well what is good for the government is good for the private sector, all right lawyers time to start those class action suits against private companies that wish to violate your rights under the constitution. Or is it that the government is becoming more elitist and above the law of the common man? Either test every one or no one..And so mush for the ACLU caring about every ones rights, They only care about their own little social agenda.Hey if it takes suing the private sector companies and costing them millions then so be it. BUT THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS COUNTRY PROTECTS EVERY ONE, NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!

]]>