Welfare

Florida Judge Rules Drug Testing Welfare Recipients Unconstitutional: Nothing So Immediate About Government Interest in Drug Free Recipients That Warrants Suspending Fourth Amendment

In three months, less than 3 percent of tested recipients tested positive

|

what if the government just made everyone do it? ok then?
CBS

A district court judge in Florida granted summary judgment for the plaintiff in a case challenging the constitutionality of a law requiring welfare recipients to submit to drug testing. The law was in effect for four months after being passed in 2011, before being temporarily suspended by a court order. During that time only 2.6 percent of recipients tested positive for drugs, most commonly marijuana, according to the Miami Herald blog, which also cites a 1998 study that found welfare recipients in the state had a lower rate of drug use than the general population. The crux of the legal case against the drug testing, via the Herald:

But in the Dec. 31 ruling, the court agreed with the 11th Circuit's conclusion that "There is nothing so special or immediate about the government's interest in ensuring that TANF recipients are drug free so as to warrant suspension of the Fourth Amendment. The only known and shared characteristic of the individuals who would be subjected to Florida's mandatory drug testing program is that they are financially needy families with children. Yet, there is nothing inherent in the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a concrete danger that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use or that should drug use occur, that the lives of TANF recipients are fraught with such risks of injury to others that even a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences."

You can peruse the whole ruling here.

More Reason on drug testing and on the Fourth Amendment

NEXT: Rhode Island May See More Pension Struggles in 2014

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We really ought to subject Congress members and their staffs to random and public drug testing.

    1. The wonderfulness of doing this is why it will never happen. I just wish some person would get before Congress one time during some kind of drug hearing and propose this, though, with their final words being “if you haven’t been taking drugs, you have nothing to fear, right?”

      1. If you like the drugs you have, you can keep them……

        1. But only if you’ve purchased them illegally on the black market. If you’ve purchased them legally in a pharmacy through a prescription you’ve been written to treat a valid medical condition using an insurance policy you like, then not so much.

      2. If con is the opposite of pro, what’s the opposite of progress? Answer: congress, the great con, good enough for government work. Being in congress is worse than taking illicit drugs. Would you let slimy fiends like Nazi Pelosi & her boys Reid & 0bama near your kids or anyone you love or even know? Them even being in government is unconstitutional, being cruel and unusual punishment. God save us!

    2. To ensure they comply with their mandatory drug regimens, right? Who doesn’t want Congress staffed entirely by Rob Fords.

    3. Myself and more than a few people I know completely agree. However, we believe the drug testing should also include all law enforcement, judges, and everyone else in a position of authority who has to date been considered to be above suspicion and therefore immune to the invasive, degrading and humiliating treatment of drug screening.

      1. I bet you that lunatic judge wouldn’t let anyone test him for drugs; his test results would be off the scale!

  2. Here’s another example of the government violating people’s rights to slap a band-aid on a problem the government created. I don’t want the state to give welfare to drug users either, but my objection isn’t due to their drug use.

    1. I have trouble seeing how this is either a Fourth Amendment issue or a rights violation issue, unless you’re talking about Equal Protection rights. I did not RTFD, but shouldn’t this boil down to a discrimination claim?

      1. Florida is violating their citizens’ rights by stealing their money and giving a portion to someone else. The taxpayers object that if the state is going to steal their money, at least give it to someone who’s going to buy groceries with it instead of drugs. So the state responds with privacy rights violations by drug testing the welfare recipients. It’s one bad idea compounded with another.

        1. A “privacy rights” violation is a serious stretch here. It’s only a baby step from saying that the welfare program has no right to independently verify the income/assets of the applicant.

          Welfare has qualifications. Income/asset based qualifications are hard to argue. Lifestyle qualifications (do you smoke? do you drink? do you eat tacos?) are harder to justify, particularly in light of Equal Protection. But I’m just not seeing the Fourth Amendment violation here.

          And certainly not “privacy rights”. If you want to be private, don’t apply for welfare.

          1. I don’t see how it’s a stretch at all. It’s none of the government’s business what you do in the privacy of your own home, so long as you’re not violating someone else’s rights. Every state welfare program is designed to coerce desperate people to fork over their rights in exchange for assistance.

            1. It’s not a privacy violation, it’s a voluntary exchange.

              1. I’m sympathetic to that argument. People who get themselves into a position where they have to turn to the government for help should have to show that they legitimately need it. If it were up to me the entire program would be declared unsound and scrapped. But since that’s never going to happen, I agree with the judge’s statement: “There is nothing so special or immediate about the government’s interest in ensuring that TANF recipients are drug free so as to warrant suspension of the Fourth Amendment.”

                1. I’m saying that the fourth amendment doesn’t apply at all. There’s nothing to suspend. This is about bribery, not about criminality. This doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, but if you refuse the test you aren’t being thrown in jail, you are exactly in the same situation as you were before.

                2. People who get themselves into a position where they have to turn to the government for help should have to show that they legitimately need it.

                  LMAO. I’ve had associates get their SSD check and have it spent on crack in less time than it took for the ink to dry on it. But, sure they got themselves into that desperate position.

            2. It’s none of the government’s business what you do in the privacy of your own home, so long as you’re not violating someone else’s rights.

              Take the gov’t out of the equation. It isn’t their business to redistribute wealth either, but there it is. Why is it wrong for someone to demand a certain behavior in exchange for charity?

              1. If it were the church down the street or any number of private charities, I’d have no problem with that.

                1. So what’s the difference?

                  1. The difference is if this stuff slides on welfare, then there’s no reason it isn’t OK for a number of involuntary interactions with the government. Should you be subject to drug tests in order to get a driver’s license? “If you don’t like it, just don’t drive,” doesn’t cut it for me.

                    1. If it’s an involuntary interaction with the government, then it’s a different situation than we are discussing. If it is voluntary, then the government probably shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if they are doing it, they can put conditions on it. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

                    2. “doesn’t cut it for me”

                      Maybe not. But that neither makes it a Privacy violation nor a Forth Amendment violation.

                      Again, if you want to argue this on Equal Protection grounds go for it. But if you want to bitch “ain’t no govment gonna git inna way of MY Welfare”, well, that’s not much of a legal argument.

                    3. That’s not my complaint at all. I don’t want anyone to get welfare from government, whether they’re drug users or not. My complaint is that restricting welfare to people who aren’t drug users is no different from restricting it from people who are homosexual because they might use the money for butt lube, or from gun owners who might buy ammunition. And once that restriction is OK, it’s a short step to placing the same restrictions on getting a driver’s license, or walking in a public park.

                    4. It is okay to place those restrictions, at least in regards to the fourth amendment.

                    5. no different from restricting it from people who are homosexual because they might use the money for butt lube, or from gun owners who might buy ammunition

                      I’m not sure how many times I have to say EQUAL PROTECTION before you hear me.

                      Listen closely…there are specific legal arguments involved in this case. And myself and others are arguing that neither the Forth Amendment nor your claimed “Privacy Rights” hold much water from a legal perspective. The only legitimate legal argument I see here is…

                      EQUAL PROTECTION

                    6. I haven’t been arguing this from a purely legal perspective, which I should have made clear. Practically, that may be all that matters in the end.

                    7. Well then you clearly don’t understand 4th Amendment jurisprudence which is replete with cases of the government attempting random drug tests without particularized suspicion and requiring the submission of blood or urine which can be used to learn other aspects of a persons physical condition which may be private not to mention the violation of physical barriers in order to obtain such fluids.

                    8. Eh, not quite. Use of butt lube or ammunition doesn’t hinder your ability to get a job. Use of drugs often does. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to for a welfare agency to say, in effect, “This support is temporary and meant to help you until you get a job. But if you are using this money to buy things that impede your ability to get a job, no more checks for you.”

              2. “Why is it wrong for someone to demand a certain behavior in exchange for charity?”

                First off, it isn’t charity. A large percentage of Welfare recipients actually WORK and pay INTO the system while receiving limited benefits.

                TANF recipients can only receive benefits for a maximum of 2 years. Most go back to work within that time anyways.

                Communist believe in changing individual behaviors for group-minded behavior that ultimately benefits the government itself.

                Please, read up on what welfare actually is and isn’t before formulating a opinion about it.

            3. Yet the pigs can extract blood and saliva without probable cause if you’re just driving down a road with a sobriety checkpoint.

              You want privacy — don’t suck on government’s tit. If you do, you deserve, and probably need, a nanny state.

          2. If you want to be private, don’t: 1) claim a mortgage interest deduction; 2) drive on government roads; 3) visit government parks, etc. See where this logic leads?

            1. Yes, we should drastically limit the scope of government and get rid of all these voluntary things.

              1. Perhaps, but the judge didn’t have the option of scrapping the entire welfare system or any other government programs. He had to decide whether this condition could constitutionally be imposed. And his reasoning will be used in future cases.

                1. And his reasoning is wrong.

            2. There’s that, and there’s also the fact that the government is doing everything it can to make everyone dependent on welfare, via the Fed and the regulatory state.

            3. None of your examples involve getting cash from the government.

              1. They are all things of value. Why would cash be the line?

                1. You don’t see the difference between the government giving 1) a tax deduction on a big purchase, or the right to travel on a road or to a park, and 2) cash? More fungible = more restrictions.

                  1. Of course there are restriction on the examples in #1: to drive you need a license, not be drunk, have car insurance, etc.

          3. But you’re being rational and reasonable, qualities that don’t pertain to the judiciary; they can make up any reality they please and force us to live according to their religion, like vile Blackmun’s deceitful Roe/Doe pretense to not decide when life begins, so go ahead and kill it anyway!, no different from yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater. He should have been put to death, and would have been in a civilized country. No danger of that with pro-abortion judges; America’s been too mentally incompetent to be self-governing for a long time. God save us.

      2. The 4th Amendment is rather direct, “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation“. Receiving a cash benefit (which is what I believe the Florida law applied to) does not create probable cause for any kind of search, including drug testing.

        The 5th Amendment also includes this little gem, “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself“. Forcing a drug user to take a test would implicate them in the commitment of a crime. I would like to know if there are any other government programs which require a person to prove they are not guilty of a crime before collecting the benefit.

        On top of this I think the 15th Amendment’s equal protection clause, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, is also problematic for Florida’s law. As I mentioned before, I’m not aware of any other benefit which requires a person to prove they are not guilty of a crime before collecting the benefit. Why are people collecting this particular benefit treated differently than people collecting other benefits?

        Of course there is also a question as to whether the law is cost effective. I believe when this all started the incidence of drug among people in the program was lower than among the state’s population overall. If this still holds true, Florida’s law is persecuting poor and mostly law abiding citizens.

        1. We aren’t talking about issuing warrants. We are talking about saying “hey, if you don’t take this test I’m not giving you a check, but you’re free to walk right out the door and have nothing done to you”.

          1. You’re right, there are no warrants involved. We just assume the person receiving the benefit is guilty until they can prove their innocence. Sorry, but I have a problem with that especially since other benefits don’t have similar restrictions.

        2. Of course it does not create probable cause, and no person should be obliged to take a drug test. But one who takes the money can voluntarily consent to such a test as a condition for receiving the cash.

          Geezers on Social Security should be happy with this requirement.

          1. Why should a person be compelled to take a drug test in order to receive this benefit when other benefits have no such requirement? Even if a person tests positive for drug use, it does not explicitly mean they will use the money for drugs. As I mentioned above, in the early tests the percentage of people testing positive was lower than the population at large.

            1. Money is fungible. If they have money for drugs they have that much less of a case for welfare.

              1. Money is not the only way people get drugs…

              2. The guy who does handyman work for cash under the table also has “that much less of a case for welfare” but there is no mechanism to catch him. Should we create one? Of course not. My point is that this type of enforcement is capricious, and doesn’t really solve the problem, assuming the problem is stopping fraud. If the goal is to only stop giving money to drug users I have to wonder why the narrow scope? I’m sure more fraud is committed by the person in my handyman scenario than the drug user.

          2. Sorry but when you PAY INTO A SYSTEM, you have the right to use it when you need it the most.

        3. This is all nonsense of course. Any rational person knows that what the Founders REALLY meant by the Constitution would have had no problem with such drug testing, no matter the endless lies the spin machine spews forth to keep its vile self in power by its illicit votes of stupid welfare kooks, but the deeper issue is that they also wouldn’t have been treasonous enough to overthrow the government with a welfare state like our current commie welfare state has done.

          1. I call BS on this. The Founding Fathers would never imagine a world where the government has the right to control your own behavior in your own home (unless you’re inflicting hurt or damage on someone else or their property.

            Plus your statement of “illicit votes of stupid welfare kooks” truly indicates what a racist idiot you are.

    2. It’s funny, but I’ve long opposed welfare for the usual reasons libertarians oppose such things, but recently, I’m more and more convinced that it’s more about fraud than anything else.

      For example, how many people are getting a full ride on the latest big scam, disability? What percentage of those are incapable of working? Ten? Twenty? Sure ain’t a majority.

      1. If you refuse to partake of the government largess… are you a noble, honest person of principle or just a stupid chump?

        At this point I really don’t know the answer to that question, but I sure do feel like a chump.

        1. There are degrees to such things. I can understand people in dire situations accepting help, even if they aren’t fans of the system. But how often is that really true?

          My wife through homeschooling has met a number of women of working age (some with degrees, even marketable ones) who are intentionally unemployed and staying at home to homeschool their kids, all while taking many different forms of welfare to supplement their spouses’ incomes. That’s not really the kind of desperation welfare was pitched to deal with, is it?

          And we have the misfortune of knowing of a couple of people on disability who aren’t disabled in any work-denying way. They get thousands a month in support, along with medical assistance and the other goodies. Forever.

          1. The most common welfare dodge is for a woman to have children and not marry the father and then move in with their b/f who has a good job while collecting welfare as an out of work single mother. It is just appalling.

            1. I’d love to know just how high the total fraud percentage is in all welfare. I’d be shocked if it’s less than half.

              I don’t think that was always as true as today. I bet the government now barely even investigates fraud in welfare anymore. Why bother? Does it matter how you buy votes?

              1. It’s not in this summary, but when Care Not Cash took effect in San Francisco, the tear-squeezers claimed that the homeless would be dying in the streets. But the homeless population dropped, and it turned out a number of people were driving in from out of town, or even from Nevada, to collect the cash.

          2. Well, if the government didn’t steal so much from everyone in the form of income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, registrations and fees, tickets, and every other little way they siphon money from us, people wouldn’t be so inclined to look for assistance. It’s a vicious circle purposefully perpetrated by the government. It filters as much money as it can through itself to skim off, redirect, and control.

            1. No doubt there is truth in this, too. They create the problem, then offer themselves up as the solution to the problem they created. Over and over and over again.

              I suppose I’m not surprised to find so much fraud in welfare, but it seems almost flagrantly done today, without even the possibility of consequences. Though I guess it doesn’t matter that much, since the whole concept of forcibly taking my money and giving it to others is dishonest in the first place.

              1. Dishonesty and criminality is when rich guys like you don’t report all of your income and your sources of wealth. Welfare recipients getting their fair share of your ill gotten gain, [breaths in the fresh air], that’s democracy!

                /derpderp

                1. This is an excellent point. If you view welfare simply as redistribution of wealth, then fraud really is irrelevant. All that matters is the taking of wealth from some who have more and distributing it to the more who have less.

                  1. An extreme example of this is a friend who, when I told her about people in NYC using their welfare benefits to buy barrels of food to send to relatives in Haiti etc. to sell, wasn’t concerned because all those people are poor.

          3. My son had a classmate who, in his senior year, was legally adopted by his grandparents. Both parents were alive and well, and earning well into six figures.

            So, why the adoption? The punk qualified for Pell Grants and other income-based student aid with grandparents’ income level.

            This crap goes on all over the place. Lots of geezers give away their assets to their offspring so they won’t have to pay their medical and nursing home bills.

            There are a lot of legal welfare scams, but you have to figure out how to work the angles. You also have to be persistent.

        2. The worst thing Progs have done in to this country is putting out the idea that doing an honest but low wage job is demeaning or being exploitative. Progs often disgust me. But they disgust me most when they look down their noses at people who work low end jobs.

          1. They look down their noses at work. As far as they’re concerned, the only noble thing to do every day is telling everyone else what to do.

          2. I think the ‘progs’ you speak of are looking down their noses (if by that you mean disapprove of) the jobs in question, or the pay for it, not the people doing them, John.

      2. This is old, but appropriate: Swedish man gets disability benefits for heavy metal “addiction”

        No one can work with such a disability Pro L, no one.

        1. Well, clearly, some people do need our help.

          1. Do you like alcohol Pro L? Here, take this government check, and go drink on the corner.

        2. Look, Warty has a real problem, okay? I think he’d appreciate if you were a little more sensitive about it.

          1. Pretty sure he has a higher tolerance for metal than that Swedish prick, though.

          2. Warty has no metal problem. Metal has a problem with him.

            1. THIS. And metal had best be careful, if it knows what is good fer it!

        3. In Europe and I’m pretty sure about one guy in Canada as well, there are game modding hobbiest who get government grants for that activity. It is an easy field to prove your worth without government favor, so government supported ‘artist’ typically suck at it.

      3. I have known people who were in real trouble and needed help and couldn’t get it. My mother in law tells a story of her husband being between jobs and her actually getting desparate enough to go to a welfare office. The office told her that couldn’t help her as long as she had assets she could sell. They told her to sell her car and come back. Her response was of that if she sold her car she wouldn’t be able to get a job then. They told her so what. She left and never came back.

        I had another friend who was just out of college and in a bad way who visited a welfare office. They told her that if she didn’t have a child she was too low on the priority list to help. Essentially, they told her to go get pregnant and then they could help.

        Basically those programs seem to be designed to give people the incentive to become dependent. They don’t help people they just harm them by making it hard or impossible for the people to help themselves.

        1. Any such system will of course seek to propagate itself and the jobs it creates. All its employees will be incentivized to increase the rolls of those on assistance, just because it is how the system and its employees will continue to thrive. Even if earlier on in its existence it turned people away as in your examples, over time that will become less and less as the system grows and then becomes more lenient in order to continue to grow.

          It’s just the way this stuff works, which is why it will always be a failure and a tremendous scam and waste over time.

          1. It is also the inevitable result anytime a bureaucracy tries to help someone. Helping people is an incredibly fact dependent thing. Some people are so self destructive they cant’ be helped. Other people just need a little money to get through a tough time and are fine. Still others need to hit rock bottom and giving them money is the worst thing to do.

            But bureaucracies, since they run on rules can’t make such fine distinctions. They can only make uniform rule based decisions. So they always produce insane results. So for example a bureaucracy makes the seemingly rational rule that “we should help those in the most trouble with the least assets” and when put into practice you end up telling my mother in law to sell her car and lose her only means to get to a job.

            Anytime a bureaucracy tries to make decisions that are difficult and fact specific, the result is going to be at best insane and at worst monstrously evil. This is why government run healthcare system always result in monstrously evil things.

        2. That’s basically the story my wife told me of what happened when she sought help. This was before we met. Basically they told her she’d have to sell her car and quit one of her jobs before they’d consider putting her in a six month long line, and she’d better not do anything to help herself or all help would be taken away. They’re not interested in helping people. They’re only interested in the power they have when people are dependent upon them. She left and never looked back.

        3. A buddy of mine has fused disks in his back. He is visibly deformed. SS put him through hell before they admitted he had disability and started paying him.

          1. Apparently, you just need one of those disability lawyers, and you’re set.

            1. Do you practice space disability law?

              1. I’m opposed to space welfare.

                1. What about space worker’s comp?

                  1. That’s right out. In space, no one can hear you scheme.

                    1. Space Jesus, do you practice anything at all? What about space bird law?

                    2. You mean space porn law? Well, I don’t practice it, but I did write a law review article on it: “Space: The Hermeneutics of Coitus in Microgravity Environments.”

                    3. Finally, at least it’s something. Which space law review was that published in?

                      And are you telling me that we can go toe to toe on space bird law, and I might have a change to win?

                    4. The University of Nunavut Journal of Fire and Ice.

                    5. When did they get fire up there?

                    6. They keep it under a pile of rocks and use it to start other fires in the territory.

          2. Since the fraud is so endemic, the deserving get fucked. If you are just working the system, what the hell do you care if the check is low or it takes you six months to get it? It is all free. But since the fraud overwhelms the system, people who deserve it don’t get help.

            1. I challenge the idea that fraud is actually “endemic” within the Welfare system. I would venture to say that Tax evasion and fraud is more prevalent.

        4. That was in the old days, John. Food stamps no longer have an asset test in 36 states.

  3. Curious if it’s legal for the state of FL to drug test state employees.

    1. It is in California.

      1. Well, yes and no. All employees are tested immediately after the offer of employment, and most (not all) are subject to random testing. But if even if a permanent employee tests positive, they have to be put in an intervention program, with no reduction in scale or pay, and if they fail that, then there is another step.. etc. etc. I worked with State and County agencies for many years, I know a few folks who tested positive (all were for pot. I know of no one who actually got fired for testing positive.. excepting the one who showed up drunk at work brandishing a knife.

    2. Depends on the job. Testing state employees w/o a specific job related reason is a violation of their 4th Amendment rights. Government employees enjoy an enhanced version of the BoR that protects their job as well as their liberty.

      1. Ugh, dunphy.

      2. Ugh, dunphy.

        1. That’s how annoying it is.

      3. Well, my wife works in the “Welfare Industry” and is subject to random testing. I worked for a time in the “Writing Federal Grants to Recover some of the Money for the State after the Feds took it Industry” and was also subject to such …. investigation. Admittedly, in both cases, the numbers of such “searches” are exceedingly low.

  4. Just a thought: if drug usage in the state of Florida was not illegal, could the state drug test you as a condition of receiving welfare?

    There would be no criminal penalty for being found to have taken recreational drugs. The consequence would be being denied access to a welfare program, which is not a Constitutional right.

    1. If we had completely socialized medicine, wonder what they could condition medical services on?

      1. You mean we haven’t made nicotine and alcohol testing a requirement for Medicaid yet?

        1. Heck if I know. It might be harder to do such things if they didn’t apply to everyone, like with nationalized healthcare.

      2. Your tax returns. Specifically, your donations to non-profit “apolitical” organizations.

  5. If it’s my quarter than I pick the tune…. Of course I’d rather just keep my damn quarter and repeatedly bounce it into my opponents glass.

  6. Hopefully this rule will stick. Whenever I see my drug warrior conservative friends getting on about this issue, I ask them, if they can test for drugs for welfare, why not for tax deductions or for attending a state university or for getting a driver’s license or really anything else the government issues? They never have a response beyond mumble mumble or “well drug users shouldn’t be getting tax deductions”.

    1. Why not Social Security?

    2. Don’t give them ideas. They already made anyone with a drug conviction ineligible for Federal student loans.

  7. Here’s the thing, just because a welfare recipient test positive, that does not mean that they personally bought the drugs with their own money. Maybe their brother or best friend id getting them high.

    1. That line of reasoning does not help you. If they have a buddy scoring drugs for them, that buddy could be giving them financial help instead and the welfare check reduced accordingly.

      1. Because a buddy wiling to share drugs with you must be a buddy who would loan you money or buy you groceries?

        1. I read it as the check would be reduced by the according value of the drugs.

        2. He could, couldn’t he? And isn’t that what we’d prefer?

          1. None of this is to say that drugs should be illegal. If anything I think it demonstrates the danger of dependency.

  8. id = is

  9. Honestly, I don’t give a shit about what welfare recipients spend their money on. They can waste it on recordings of pit-farts and snare drums, hookers and blow, or porn and booze. I am going to go ahead and assume they have a better understanding than I will of what will make them most happy.

    When we start restricting how they spend the money where does it end? Illegal things? Legal but poor choices? All non-optimal choices? Pretty soon the only thing they are spending the money on is governmentally nutrition optimized gruel, Mother Jones subscriptions, and bus passes.

    1. Good for you. For my part if money is going to be taken from me at gunpoint and given to someone else, I think I’m entitled to have a say in what it’s spent on.

      I find these controversies very interesting. It’s like with the same sex marriage debates. I wonder how many people grumbling about “expanding government benefits” there are celebrating this ruling that does even more of the same.

      As with marriage, the solution is almost certainly to not do it at all. I’m not sure why we’re celebrating a ruling that makes it easier for people to take your money.

    2. You do realize it is not “their” money. It is my money. I earned it. The government took it from me and gave it to them.

      1. My point is that once you decide to have a welfare state, giving str8 ca$h–no strings attached, is the most efficient method of distribution.

  10. One can only wonder what kind of crack so lunatic a judge is on that he’d be so highly incensed at the state’s legitimate interest in protecting families and children from drug use. The Founders would have jailed him as a danger to society, not let him sit soiling a bench with this feces.

  11. lol, speaking of kangaroo court judges lol.

    http://www.BeinAnon.tk

  12. Thank you judge for siding with sanity and thank you Mr. Lebron for standing up for all of us.
    Laws like this if enacted can only work to destroy lives and make the world a worse place to live.
    I hope very much that medical marijuana gets on the ballot in Florida this year.

  13. They never mention the fifth amendment. How can a persons bodily fluids be admissible as evidence when it violates the fifth amendment of self incrimination? How is that “due process”, or a “fair trial”?

    1. Being drug use free is simply a condition necessary to receive public assistance. There is no coercion involved here. If you don’t want to take the money you don’t have to take the test. Simple. No one is being accused of a crime so all your talk about the fifth amendment is completely irrelevant.

  14. Can’t see how being drug use free being a requirement to receive public assistance (ie, money taken from the productive members of society) is in any way unconstitutional. If they don’t take the money they don’t have to take the test. Remember it is not their money. It is my money (“my” being anyone paying taxes.) There is nothing in the Constitution about me giving them my money.

  15. Does this mean we should also get rid of restrictions on what may be purchased with food stamps?

    1. Yes. Next question.

  16. Yet another reason why government welfare is bad. Private charities can require drug testing for the needy to get their help and charity, without violating the 4th amendment.

    The goal of charity, is to help those who deserve it, to get back onto their own feet supporting themselves. Government cannot distinguish between those who deserve it and those who don’t, as government has to create a set of rules to follow, that are limited by the Constitution (rules private charities don’t have to follow). And people can take actions to fit into the category of people who get help at taxpayers’ expense

    Further, the welfare bureaucracy has no incentive to actually remove people from the welfare rolls, and make it so they are no longer a burden on others, and able to take care of themselves (as best they can).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.