Comments on: Florida Appeals Court: Welfare Drug Testing Unconstitutional

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 04:21:05 +0000

CONTEMPLATING:
“Yet people have no problem to go fight for other countries send Billon’s to them but if a child here is in need its not OK to ask for help.”

Actually, that is not exactly true.
Few like sending their children to fight in other countries and risk being injured or killed ever for any reason.

Nobody likes giving money to people in other lands if it comes out of our pockets or if we have to borrow it from China.

Politicians have to convince us it is needed.
This works for revenge for attacks against the American people and threats against the American people.

And if you will check, nobody has proposed children not be helped. The fear they have expressed is that money intended to help the children will be used instead to enrich some drug pusher. The interesting thing is that so many are afraid to show they will use the funds to help their children rather than buy dope.

David for actually helping the children
(not that drug pushers aren’t somebody’s children too)

By: freda

freda — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 01:48:58 +0000

Yet people have no problem to go fight for other countries send Billon’s to them but if a child here is in need its not OK to ask for help.

By: Justin Hall

Justin Hall — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 22:12:04 +0000

@mnon

Regarding: “Drug testing is unconstitutional for welfare because we have the right to privacy in our home from the governments eyes.”

You are absolutely right! You have the right to privacy in your home. The government can not force you to open your door without a warrant.

However, I am sure that the testing would have occurred at the Department of Children and Families office. Therefore, your argument is null and void. If we follow the exact phrasing of the constitution then the tests are completely legal. Ain’t wording a bitch.

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 02:34:23 +0000

The problem is that nobody was actually required to agree to be tested.

Imagine I offered a million dollars to anyone who took and passed a drug test.

Imagine I was told I couldn’t make that offer. Whoops, never mind. The government is offering money to employees who do certain things to make themselves healthier, since that will statistically make them more productive and less likely to need health care.

Let’s just force them/you to give the money without proof of compliance.

Yeah, baby!!

David for logical conclusions

By: Rufus Lowgun

Rufus Lowgun — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 18:00:02 +0000

“What is the problem with a test to get taxpayer money?”

This is the problem with it;

“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.”

This is also the problem with having to be tested for a job. It is crystal clear and not at all ambiguous. No probable cause, no search. Do you think you hould you have to pass in IQ test and a psychological screening to own a gun? I think that’s a good idea, but the problem is, the constitution prohibits it. If you claim to to support the constitution, you have to support all of it. You can’t just pick and choose the parts that are convenient for you.

By: christian

christian — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:07:17 +0000

While this is a good concept im opposed to more tax money being funneled to pay for millions of drug tests. That money could go to economic development. Any WF recipient with half a brain could cheat a drug test with detox or hidden synthetic urine(both widely and easily available). That would add to more wasted money buying millions of drug tests, while some corporation profits…probally supplying them to FL government at a 200% markup…then using that money to continue to lobby support for this bill.
No system is perfect.

By: RAF

RAF — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:52:44 +0000

There are three kinds of people in this world – those who make a their living by performing services or producing something other than more children (tax payers), those who make their living by producing nothing other than more of their kind (welfare recipients) and those who make their living by producing havoc (lawyers – which includes all lawyers appointed as judges). Has anyone considered who really “wins” by the court’s decision? Much of our legal system is built around the illegality of drugs. Threatening to stop paying the extortion money …er, uh I mean “entitlements” to the terminally lazy might be an incentive for some of them to stop using illegal drugs or, dare I say, get a job and stop leaching off the system. Thus fewer drug users required fewer prosecution and defense lawyers, fewer judges and fewer cops. These legal bozos are quick to point out the protections of the 4th amendment. Can someone please tell me which constitutional amendment says that U.S. citizens are entitled to the “free” money in the first place? Seems to me that tax dollars are being unreasonably seized from tax payers to fund the drug-using welfare recipients.

By: mnon

mnon — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:50:50 +0000

Drug testing for your job is for insurance purposes in case of injury/accident. That is why you’re drug tested when you have an accident on the job, not because the company is looking to cut you off/fire you. That is also why there are random screenings on some jobs. Some jobs insurance requires the company to test X number of employees every X amount of months.

Drug testing is unconstitutional for welfare because we have the right to privacy in our home from the governments eyes. The government having the power to invade our home when you need help is where the problem is. It would be like asking Iran for help with oil and while helping us they can just walk into any home in the US and ruin your life for no other reason than they hate dirty Americans (or in case of welfare testing, dirty immigrants, dirty low income people, etc).

If that is hard for people to understand then THEY are what is wrong with the US system. Not the ones on welfare or fighting against lives being invaded for no reason other than because you think someone is getting off easier in life than the working folks.

THAT again is the issue, your own biases. Your biases are there already, without it even passing, so again thank God it failed.

By: Flomaton

Flomaton — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 03:12:36 +0000

@rufus so true …wow those who work and pay for these programs via taxes yield to drug screens no problem yet those who get free money are whiney children who cry foul. Sadly, it is very little to ask or expect in order to receive help yet people have such an issue with it ….that in of itself reflects very poorly on our society. I believe if the expectation of passing a drug test for free reread free money is a violation of the 4th amendment then so should be the expectation that one should pass a drug test for employment be a violation of the 4th amendment. Yea, lets just say that. Using too broad a brush while interpreting the meaning can sometimes lead to idiocy as evidenced in this case. Asking for free money should be no less than asking for a job and if by asking for a job you lend yourself to search so too should you by asking for free money. Period.

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:42:09 +0000

“what is so unconstitutional about getting drug tested especially if you have children.”
Seriously? It’s called the 4th amendment. Try reading it sometime.

Amendment IV

Notice this rejected requirement did not involve searches or warrants or seizures or any criminal charges even if tests showed the supplicant were using illegal drugs.
It involved an inducement to give personal information by giving money to those willing to give it.

This creates a take-it-or-leave-it situation. Nobody is required to give help to the needy, but if they do, they aren’t allwed to see if the help is actually helping.

This would tempt many to just drop the whole thing if they were afraid their help was actually hurting the recipients. Others would delve into other systems less likely to induce abuse.

David for truth