Florida and Missouri have passed into law, bills that require recipients of welfare to submit to blood, urine or hair sample tests in order to claim their checks. Thirty-six states have bills pending and many Republican dominated state houses are eager to test those that are “living off the generosity of the real taxpayers.” I’ve been told that as the taxpayers, we are, in effect, their employers and as such, demanding drug tests should be no different than those demanded by many employers in the “real work force.” Or so goes the reasoning for these tests. And so goes thousands of posts and comments on websites by conservative supporters with mini-celebrations announcing the states that have passed these testing requirements: “Two down, 48 to go.” Florida won the race for passing the first Welfare Recipients Pee in a Cup law and then became the first to face a challenge on the constitutionality of it.
These bills are directed strictly at welfare recipients (aka “the poor” or the purportedly poor) and exempt those receiving student loans or individuals employed by the government at the local, state or federal level. They also exempt homeowners who claim a deduction for their mortgage interest, which in all fairness, is welfare. (I enjoy that deduction and would like to think that I’m not using a “welfare” feature but all-in-all, deductions of this kind are a federal and state “gift”–aka “welfare” to help homeowners deflect the costs of home ownership.) Additionally, contractors that bid and receive state contracts that are subsidized for many reasons such as helping minorities or women seeking small business loans are also exempt from peeing in the cup. Corporations, although “people” under Citizens United as well as farmers and Big Oil, who receive subsidies are exempt as well. Basically, only the poor seeking welfare assistance are peeing in cups.
Numerous polls (or at least those posted by the Republican governors in the states with or contemplating said Welfare Peeing Laws) would indicate that taxpayers are “FED UP!” with the lazy, drug addicted, crack dealing, drug smuggling welfare recipients in their states and want an immediate end to this practice and support drug testing. (This is not an endorsement of Rick Perry’s book and while I understand that there is no bill pending in Texas, a group calling itself “The People of Texas” has been circulating a petition to present to Governor Perry upon his return to the state–said petition demanding drug testing of welfare recipients).
Well the day of reckoning has come and Governor Rick Scott has been told to go pee in his own cup. Or words to that effect. According to Mother Jones:
[L]ate 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.
The article went on to quote Judge Scriven:
“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.”
The suit was filed on behalf of Luis Lebron by the Florida Justice Institute and the state’s ACLU. Mr. Lebron, according to the ACLU website , wasn’t concerned about testing positive, but did not believe he should have to submit to this invasive test when he qualified for the program.
Luis, 35, is a U.S. Navy veteran and a single father who fought to establish paternity of his son. He goes to college full-time and cares for his disabled mother. Recently, his veterans’ benefits ran out; he was living day to day on student loans and grants, teetering on the brink of poverty, so he asked the state of Florida for a helping hand and qualified for food stamps and Medicaid.
Luis also qualified for TANF, but there was a catch.
Under a new Florida law, Luis had to pay for and pass a drug test before he could get TANF. He would have to give a sample of his urine to a lab and acknowledge that the state would share any negative results with Florida’s Child Abuse Hotline. Luis knew he’d test negative because he doesn’t use illegal drugs, but that wasn’t the point: he also knew that he shouldn’t have to submit to an invasive search to prove it.
The USDC opinion, in its entirety, has been made available by the ACLU (PDF).
“One down, 37 to go.”
Edited by Wendy Gittleson
If you aren’t a druggy, then your constitutional rights are being violated. Genius.
Really? So then obviously you’d love for corporations to be subject to an extensive third-party audit in addition to testing for ethical fitness AS WELL AS DRUG TESTS prior to being handed billions government bailout money?
Oh, wait. That’s different? Your “convictions” are only in place when they make you comfortable?
And to answer your juvenile and painfully naive question, if you have thing to hide, what you have to worry about is your 4th Amendment Right being unconstitutional. So basically, you’ve just publicly state that you love an unconstitutional law.
(Boy I can’t wait until this hyper-partisan political mind-control wears off. The light has to come on at some point, right?)
I like this idea. Every member of the Board of Directors, the CEO and all officers, every manager, and every rank-and-file employee must pass a mandatory drug urinalysis *BEFORE* any Corporation will be granted any bailout money – and before being permitted to take advantage of any tax deductions (after all, if Corporations are “people,” they should be paying income and property taxes at exactly the same percentage rates as any other “person” making the level of income they make). Plus periodic random UA will be conducted until such time as the bailout is paid back in full, plus interest at the current rate for bank loans made to *real* people.
For all of those out there who feel that these individuals should be peeing in a cup because you do at your Private Employer. The management at your place of work does not see the value of its workforce. You are only a pathetic number to them. Find a job with a company that respects you instead of accepting the disrespect and contempt that is being forced upon you in exchange for a paycheck. In most cases, the people who make the company policy to test employees do not require themselves to be tested.
If you have nothing to hide, why worry about it? The whole time Luis was in the Navy he was subject to a urinalysis at any time for any reason. Personally I love this idea.
So you’re in favor of a massive, unfunded, government spending program?
Haha!!!
But…..but… that was Medicare frauding Rick Scott’s latest money maker! It’snot fair!
I agree. If you got nothing to hide why complain? I wish they passed that law here because I know plenty of people who sit around, have no jobs and are perfectly capable of getting off there ass and making money but they pop out babies and collect off the state then complain when they have nothing as they’re sitting around with a joint or something. Piss testing will save money in the long run. Them types of people don’t diserve to have children. If you can do drugs, then you can afford to pay for everything you need. You can’t expect the state to hand you shit and them not tell you what you can and can’t do. There’s not such thing as free lunch. Why should there be such things as free money, food, housing, childcare, gas, you about name it?? Piss test them and let the real needy have the help rather then the undiserving.
Uh…we don’t agree at all. I’m NOT in favor of a massive, unfunded, unnecessary Government program that would spend more than it would save.
If you respect the Constitution the way you pretend, why violate the Fourth Amendment? The whole time Luis was in the Navy, he was being tested for a real fundamental government interest – the safety and lives of his fellow sailors.
Let’s just have more and more government intrusion into our lives. Yee-haw!
So you won’t mind door-to-door searches by cops in YOUR neighborhood, right? I mean, you have nothing to hide, right? That is one lousy argument you’re hanging out there, bud.
The fact that a minuscule percentage tested positive should have been enough…but wait, it was costing the state hundreds of thousands of dollars a year….and the best for last, it was a company with ties to the crook in the governor’s manse that won the contract to do the testing. So who benefited from this insanity?
A company? Ties? Didn’t that company supposedly belong to his wife? Didn’t Scott own that company and only recently transferred it to his wife???
Gotta love that catchall word “drugs.”
Questions for all the “anti-drug” crusaders out there:
How many put antiperspirant on before they started their day?
How many grabbed that cuppa joe this morning?
How many took an Advil for a headache?
How many lit up a cigarette on break this morning, with yet another cuppa joe?
How many had a beer with friends this afternoon, a glass of wine with dinner or a cocktail at the end of the day?
That many?! Buncha damned druggies…
Until we can get the idiots to make distinctions, it’s going to be the same old crap… and that distinction shouldn’t be just because some words on a piece of paper say a particular drug is “bad.”
I see, it’s a law that vilifies people forced to apply for public assistance, hardly a tribute to the generous spirit of iyr Commonweatlh.