You might remember that Frank Antenori tried to get a law on the Arizona books to require random drug tests for welfare recipients earlier this year, and while the Senate loved the idea, the bill died in the House.
Such a bill did become law in Florida, but it’s not going so well on the whole “is it Constitutional?” front:
In a blistering 37-page opinion (PDF) issued late Monday night, federal court Judge Mary Scriven put a halt to the tea party Republican’s marquee plan, concluding that “the wholesale, suspicionless drug testing of all applicants” for Florida’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the 4th Amendment….
“Though the State speaks in generalities about the ‘public health risk, as well as the crime risk, associated with drugs’ being ‘beyond dispute,’ it provides no concrete evidence that those risks are any more present in TANF applicants than in the greater population,” Scriven wrote in her ruling against Florida’s government. “It is not enough to simply recite a governmental interest without any evidence of a concrete threat that would be mitigated through drug testing.”
Don’t worry, Frank, I’m sure you’ll find some other way to continue your war on the poor. Just keep brainstorming. The ideas will come.
This article appears in Oct 27 – Nov 2, 2011.
Don’t worry Dan, one activist judge will not thwart the overwhelming will of the people. It will head to the Supreme Court where they will not make the same stretch that it is somehow a violation of the 4th Amendment.
If that were the case, every pilot, police officer, heavy equipment operator and member of the military would have been subject to unlawful searches for decades.
It makes no sense to say that those that have to work and pay taxes to support the program are subject to random drug screening but the people getting the government handout are not.
53%’er: You mean the activist judge nominated by a Republican senator and appointed by a Republican president? [http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Mary_Scriv…]
While I am a Dem. I must agree with 53 on this one. How is it a violation of the 4th when many many other groups have to submit to tests, regardless of whether or not drug use is more prominent within said groups?
Simple and plain, you want free money while you are down and out? Take the test and like it. If you do not want your “rights violated”? Don’t take the check and EBT card.
Easy as that, just as it is easy as – Dont want to be a firefighter then don’t, if you do, take the test.
“If that were the case, every pilot, police officer, heavy equipment operator and member of the military would have been subject to unlawful searches for decades.”
-Yep, that’s about the size of it.
“It makes no sense to say that those that have to work and pay taxes to support the program are subject to random drug screening but the people getting the government handout are not.”
-Those of us who work are not all subject to random drug screenings. Some of us will never work for such a place since we disagree with this invasion of privacy.
Are drug addicts or users worth any less as human beings? It seems like you are saying so since they are not entitled to the basic human rights of food, shelter & health. If your argument is “if they have money for drugs, they have money for food” it doesn’t hold water either. You can get drugs without money. If you can’t think of how this would work you are more naive that you seem… I though tea baggers were for less government. This seems like more government to me.
Are you really so stupid as to want to give away more of your freedoms to the government? Do you think it justified in this case because “drugs are bad?”, or becuase another worthless politician wants to pass a law, any law, in his name. Hell, pie contributes to increased health care costs, so it must be bad too. Should we include a test for pie perhaps? A population that values it’s freedoms never gives them up willingly. It’s people like you who think that “it’s okay in the case” because it doesn’t apply to me. Except that it does, whether you know it or not. Every freedom surrendered to the state, no matter how small or “justified”, affects us all. And somehow it’s almost never in a good way……
@ Karlito, Just as I would not support a brother or sister who was on drugs that would not get help. Why should we support someone who see fit to live off the system, use drugs and not get help. Perhaps if they want help in the form of welfare they need to take some personal responsibility, get help and get off drugs. Giving welfare to someone who is unwilling to do anything to help themselves only enables that person to stay in the gutter. I can tell you this, if I was ever in the position I needed assistance in the form of welfare for just me or for my family I know I would be the first one in line for the drug test if need be.
As to your comment about never working for a employer who did random drug screening. Your choice, sounds like they came out ahead with out ever doing a drug screening on you. What ever they make, sell, fix or whatever, You as a employee, represent them while you work for them. They pay you for time you represent them. What you do during that time has a direct impact on them, in a hundred different ways. Using drugs be it alcohol or any other drug that has a influence on you, has a influence on them, their product, customers and employees.
Perhaps you should be working at the Tucson Weekly, I’m sure they would not have a problem with drug use, or require testing. May even help make their paper better, couldn’t hurt thats for sure.
Frank Antenori:
“Spirit of Business” award from Tucson Chamber
“Friend of Taxpayer” award
Thank you Frank!!!
Sigh…even though I am mostly speaking to either the “choir” or stone heads without ears I will at least voice my opinion. Caffeine is a drug. Alcohol is a drug. Prescription meds are of course drugs. Most people in America take drugs in one form or another. If you were to smoke one joint the metabolites in nanograms per ml amounts could be found in your system for many days later even though they would no longer have any effect on you. So, we all use drugs. Why must the anti-government tea baggers press for more government control over our lives?
I am very certain that the 53%ers are those that have been identified as perhaps being a little loose with their tax deduction claims. Should they all be audited every time they use a government provided product (such as driving down a public street)? Do those that are without a job or any income pose a public health risk such as would be present if a firefighter were driving a firetruck at high speeds while drunk? Of course not.
Go have another beer angry white dudes, get a little fatter, die from heart disease sooner and cost us all a little more for our health insurance! Uh oh, I think it is time to insist on body mass index testing for all. Especially “fat cats”. You people will not be happy until all those you believe are engaging in a lifestyle that does not conform to your definition of “right” be issued scarlet letters. Shame on you all, freedom lovers, ha!
@Neil, i actually agree with you that “You as a employee, represent them while you work for them.” I think we just define “while you work for them” differently. It seems like you define it as every moment of my life as long as I’m employed, where I define it as the actual hours I’m at work. You basically define working for someone as them owning you. Well I don’t know why Home Depot needs to make sure I don’t smoke weed on the weekend so I can safely sell a 2×4 on Tuesday afternoon, for minimum wage. If your supervisor can’t tell if you are fit for work when you show up they are the ones that need to be fired, for incompetence. Nobody has the right to study my pee, hair or blood! If I don’t even own my body then I’m a slave. Should we all be slaves Neil?
Statistics from the United States Department of Labor show illicit drug use was 17.4% for the food industry, compared to the national average of 8.2%. Heavy alcohol consumption shown at 12.1%, compared to the national average of 8.8%. There is still much to be done to reduce these numbers for all caterers will. Having an effective drug detoxifying drinks and alcohol policy is a tool in the arsenal in the battle against drugs and alcohol. Effective drug and alcohol policies and procedures saves your restaurant untold amounts of money in workers’ compensation, training dollars, overall productivity, morale and theft.