Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Blocked By Federal Judge

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/rick-scott-drug-testing-welfare-florida_n_1029332.html


yea BBW got his way!


I'm hoping this goes into affect.

 

I'm not sure on this. You have to submit to a drug test to qualify for most jobs so why would it be anymore of a rights infringement to drug test to receive public aid. :smt102

 

This judge's decision makes plenty of sense to me. Even though most jobs don't require a drug test, it's more about constitutional protection. In the case of employers trying to implement any policy that violates a constitutional right, the employer must show a both a compelling reason, one that's necessary let's say to protect the public, as a pilot flying a plane, and that outweighs the potential harm from implementing the policy. The policy in this case seems to fit directly within the framework of constitutional law. This is one reason that so many of these policies are struck down, or not even attempting as well.

 

I'm confused about that bold section. I thought most do require it. Also if it is about constitutional protection, why is it allowed by employers?

 

I'm not sure why you have this belief? I've never been required to submit to a drug test and I've had several different jobs over the years. Two reasons, really. I gave the first reason in my post, that there's an overriding and substantial need, a compelling need, for the policy. In the case of the gentleman receiving financial aid, there's really no overriding or compelling need, it's more tangential. So, it'd likely be rejected. If you fly planes and might kill people if you're drugged up, now that's a compelling reason, and the only way to know is to test people. Otherwise, just because employers get away with it, doesn't mean that they aren't violating people's constitutional rights. You'll notice that the article pointed out the challenge by the ACLU prompted abandonment of one policy. If there's no challenge, guess what...Most employees are more concerned about their jobs than their constitutional rights. So, you could be the guy who spends a heck of a lot of money, wins the suit, and you ruin your career. most people don't do it.

 

If I always been given a drug test after I got the job. That's why I don't see it your way. Though you may refuse the the drug test, they can refuse to hire you.

 

Too bad the CEO's that got those Government BAILOUTS/HANDOUTS don't have to pee in a cup to get their FREEBIES.

Ya'll love to pile on the little guy while getting buttfucked by the 1%

 

Admittedly there're jobs where drug testing is necessary. But, many employers will use this as a "stick" to force employees to submit to otherwise unconstitutional tests. Whether before of after employment, the same factors and constitutionality issues hold true. Of course they can refuse to hire you, AND, as I mentioned, you could sue them, for violation of your constitutional rights.

Also, as another poster just pointed out, jobs at the 1% level most often don't require drug testing because they have more leverage with employers, they're often recruited to join companies. I've never had people who worked with me, or at similar levels to ever have to submit to drugs tests, period.

 

Let's start with the fact that in cases where this has been done, less than 2% were positive, and move on the massive amount of wasted money this is. Then consider that the drug testing company has family ties to the governor, and the entire process just stinks to high heaven.

 

It's also stupid - job applicants who don't know enough to clean up before a drug test are probably functionally incapable of holding down a job.

Plus no one's testing for alcohol, which causes far more problems in our society. Drug testing also does not show whether or not you have drugs in your system while you are doing a job, only that you're not stupid enough to do them prior to job hunting.

Add in the idea that one can smoke marijuana off hours without it impacting job performance. Stupidity, and basically one more way in which the government/corporations are trying to control personal behavior.

If, as Swirl says, you're flying a plane or doing surgery there's a public health risk. Other wise who cares. Also note: Higher level jobs tend NOT to drug test, so it's places which are hiring unskilled labor or lower skilled jobs which are doing the testing, which indicates a punitive perspective towards the working poor. Stock brokers, who handle millions of dollars an hour, are notorious for having a considerable percentage of coke heads among their number.

 

REP for the knowledge in this post. :smt038:smt038
Some of the biggest weed heads and coke fiends are wearing three piece suits and driving Mercedes convertibles.

 

For there to be a constitutional issue, there has to be government involvement. Assuming we are talking about private sector jobs, there's likely insufficient government involvement to create a constitutional issue. When we're talking about assistance from the public sector, there's clear government involvement.

 

I'm not interested in giving anyone a free ride, whether it be greedy corporate bastards or welfare recipients who are druggies. If you are worried about your rights then don't apply for welfare. Problem solved. :smt102

 

Thanks Chi but I can't see supporting druggies.

 

I'm the last one who will stick up for junkies, just saying that different rules apply when we're talking about state actors or private actors.

My sense is that a small proportion of those on public assistance use drugs, though, and while I certainly don't condone drug abuse, I also hate to see public funds wasted chasing down a few bad apples... even aside from the constitutional issues.

 

THe problem with drug testing welfare recipients is historically the data shows a very small percentage are drug users. It's one of those comfortable stereotypes people have, like the welfare mother who drives a cadillac.

This is a cat nip issue for right wingers, but is not a real abuse that's occurring.

 

moral of the story is




dont do drugs




:smt115

 

I know several doctors, lawyers and high paid IT professionals that smoke weed like snoop and do coke like it's going out of style (yes, cokey doctors). It's funny the image they portray of drug addicts is always the destitute with more children than teeth.

 

don't forget our presidents have done blow and weed while at their Ivy league berths

reminds me of the story of a doc a coworker told me about. she went to a party he had and said there was coke all over the place, and everyone was so casual about it.

I guess snorting a line isn't as upsetting as throwing a baby against a wall after all.

 

[YOUTUBE]9fhSYsb2Gtg[/YOUTUBE]