ACLU Challenges Florida’s Mandatory Drug Tests For Housing

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Yeah, you beat me too it. It's not apples to apples. The people in those towns aren't looking for handouts. If the goverment started a free car insurance program I would expect people in both those town to take drug tests. This isn't about profiling, or impeding peoples rights, it's about the proper use of mine, and all taxpayers money. It's about making sure that it is helping the people in the program who are responsible enough to be helped. It's about trying to get the most return out of the tax dollars by making sure it goes to the most deserving people. Oh and by the way.... if they don't want to take part in the program they don't have to take the drug test. So I would say it's not impeding on their rights at all. No one is forcing them to take a piss test.



If they were lining everyone up in the neighborhoods and forcing everyone to get a drug test then I'd say you have a point, but this is all predicated on acceptance into a government funded program where you are the recipient of tax dollars that are not yours. I think I have a right to know that my taxes are going toward people who aren't wasting my money on drugs or getting benefits because of the situation they are in from choices they have made.

To repeat what Klem said BINGO !!!

 

[mikita's helmet]

The "probable cause" is they want taxpayers money.

...the day when a federal court rules that "wanting taxpayers' money" creates "probable cause", and it's upheld by a US Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, it won't be an "unreasonable search."



...until then...

 

[MassHavoc]

...the day when a federal court rules that "wanting taxpayers' money" creates "probable cause", and it's upheld by a US Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, it won't be an "unreasonable search."



...until then...

I'm pretty sure he wasn't expecting you to take it quite so literal.

 

[mikita's helmet]

I'm pretty sure he wasn't expecting you to take it quite so literal.

Oh I know, but the Constitution is serious business.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Correcta mundo Mass and to steal a line from your previous post in this thread to address Mikita's Helmet. "If they don't want to take part in the program they don't have to take the drug test. So I would say it's not impeding on their rights at all. No one is forcing them to take a piss test."

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Oh I know, but the Constitution is serious business.

As for the shaking of the "Green Ass" take that!!!

 

[MassHavoc]

I just had a horrible vision of those two emoticons merging so the MSN guy is slapping the green ass.

 

[mikita's helmet]

Yeah, you beat me too it. It's not apples to apples. The people in those towns aren't looking for handouts. If the goverment started a free car insurance program I would expect people in both those town to take drug tests. This isn't about profiling, or impeding peoples rights, it's about the proper use of mine, and all taxpayers money. It's about making sure that it is helping the people in the program who are responsible enough to be helped. It's about trying to get the most return out of the tax dollars by making sure it goes to the most deserving people. Oh and by the way.... if they don't want to take part in the program they don't have to take the drug test. So I would say it's not impeding on their rights at all. No one is forcing them to take a piss test.



If they were lining everyone up in the neighborhoods and forcing everyone to get a drug test then I'd say you have a point, but this is all predicated on acceptance into a government funded program where you are the recipient of tax dollars that are not yours. I think I have a right to know that my taxes are going toward people who aren't wasting my money on drugs or getting benefits because of the situation they are in from choices they have made.

Just as the government has an interest in making sure that our money goes to deserving individuals, It also has an interest in keeping the streets safe (and not having to use taxpayer dollars for ambulances, firetrucks, extra police and cleaning up the highway after someone drunk goes the wrong way in their SUV and slams headlong into a car and kills someone).



So far neither of these interests, (government assistance and traffic safety) one, albeit, hyperbolic, have trumped the Constitutional right of an individual to be free of unreasonable searches without probable cause.

 

[mikita's helmet]

Correcta mundo Mass and to steal a line from your previous post in this thread to address Mikita's Helmet. "If they don't want to take part in the program they don't have to take the drug test. So I would say it's not impeding on their rights at all. No one is forcing them to take a piss test."

And if the government doesn't want assist people because they refuse to drop a UA, they can close the program down. What they can't do is force them to take the UA without probable cause.

 

[TSD]

It depends on what you mean by "suspicion." If they suspected every person because they were poor, or black, or latino or white, then yeah, that's profiling.



If they're interviewing folks that have glassy or red eyes, or reeks of ganja or are acting intoxicated/high, etc,, then they have probable cause and can force the person to undergo a UA. If, however, they come in for their interview and appear normal, the state has no probable cause and they shouldn't be forced to pee in a bottle. It's unconstitutional.

Many government jobs require drug tests. A victory in this case could put drug testing in general in jeopardy.

 

[mikita's helmet]

Many government jobs require drug tests. A victory in this case could put drug testing in general in jeopardy.

If the governmental interest is "national security" or some other similar interest, it'll trump an individuals right to be free from unreasonable searches.

 

[MassHavoc]

Just as the government has an interest in making sure that our money goes to deserving individuals, It also has an interest in keeping the streets safe (and not having to use taxpayer dollars for ambulances, firetrucks, extra police and cleaning up the highway after someone drunk goes the wrong way in their SUV and slams headlong into a car and kills someone).



So far neither of these interests, (government assistance and traffic safety) one, albeit, hyperbolic, have trumped the Constitutional right of an individual to be free of unreasonable searches without probable cause.

I fail to understand what you are tring to say here?

And if the government doesn't want assist people because they refuse to drop a UA, they can close the program down. What they can't do is force them to take the UA without probable cause.

So you are saying people who are breaking the law should ditacte the programs that the goverment should be able to run. Again, NO ONE is forcing anyone to do anything here. Where is the forcing people to take drug tests? If you don't want to take it you don't take it. Why do you keep bring up probable cause here, it's not the issue. And again, if anything I already showed you the probable cause backed by the data that shows the higher rates of drug use among these populations.



It's like this. You stand outside a bar. Everyone that comes out you say hey, I'll give you a free ride home. Everyone says yes. Then you say, great, you just have to prove you are drunk by blowing in this Breathalyzer. If you don't want to do it, you don't... you move on your merry way. If you want to do it you do it, and you blow. Those who are drunk qualify for a free ride, those that aren't don't qualify.



Simple as that.

 

[Tater]

The guy filing the suit is finishing up his accounting degree this December.

When he goes to get a job, he should try refusing the drug test there too. Good luck with that.

 

[TSD]

If the governmental interest is "national security" or some other similar interest, it'll trump an individuals right to be free from unreasonable searches.

I have mixed feelings on this. It is to a point unreasonable, but the whole thing is I doubt anyone would go to collect benefits while high, so there will never be probable cause.

 

[MassHavoc]

I have mixed feelings on this. It is to a point unreasonable, but the whole thing is I doubt anyone would go to collect benefits while high, so there will never be probable cause.

Unfortunately dumber things have happen.

 

[mikita's helmet]

the probable cause backed by the data that shows the higher rates of drug use among these populations.

The government can't use probable cause against an individual because he's part of a population prone to engage in some behavior it doesn't approve of. The individual who's part of that population may not participate in that behavior, and unless the government has probable cause that the individual - and not the population he's a part of - is engaging in the disapproved behavior, our constitution protects that individual from an unreasonable search. If the government has a strong interest, national security, for example, a court's scrutiny will be less strict in whether the government has probable cause.

 

[TSD]

The government can't use probable cause against an individual because he's part of a population prone to engage in some behavior it doesn't approve of. The individual who's part of that population may not participate in that behavior, and unless the government has probable cause that the individual - and not the population he's a part of - is engaging in the disapproved behavior, our constitution protects that individual from an unreasonable search. If the government has a strong interest, national security, for example, a court's scrutiny will be less strict in whether the government has probable cause.

Why is this a problem now though? Employers government and otherwise have been mandatory drug testing for years. This very man had to get mandatory drug testing in the Navy, now all of a sudden he has a problem with it?

 

[MassHavoc]

The government can't use probable cause against an individual because he's part of a population prone to engage in some behavior it doesn't approve of. The individual who's part of that population may not participate in that behavior, and unless the government has probable cause that the individual - and not the population he's a part of - is engaging in the disapproved behavior, our constitution protects that individual from an unreasonable search. If the government has a strong interest, national security, for example, a court's scrutiny will be less strict in whether the government has probable cause.

The probable cause is not being used against any individual in this instance, it's being used as the reasoning behind requiring drug testing for this program. Again, please show me where anyone is being forced to take a drug test. It is a choice. No one is forcing anyone if they don't want to. If you want to take part in the program you take a drug test, if you don't want to take a drug test then you are choosing to not be part of the program. It's not forcing everyone to take a drug test then using that as a basis for who can and can't be in the program. Same goes for people who aren't on drugs, if they don't want to take the drug test they don't have to but they are treated the same way and will not be allowed in the program.

 

[mikita's helmet]

Why is this a problem now though? Employers government and otherwise have been mandatory drug testing for years. This very man had to get mandatory drug testing in the Navy, now all of a sudden he has a problem with it?

I don't know why he has a problem with it, but in the military he may have had access to information of a sensitive nature or with national security implications, so the government probably had a compelling interest that case.

 

[Tater]

The probable cause is not being used against any individual in this instance, it's being used as the reasoning behind requiring drug testing for this program. Again, please show me where anyone is being forced to take a drug test. It is a choice. No one is forcing anyone if they don't want to. If you want to take part in the program you take a drug test, if you don't want to take a drug test then you are choosing to not be part of the program. It's not forcing everyone to take a drug test then using that as a basis for who can and can't be in the program. Same goes for people who aren't on drugs, if they don't want to take the drug test they don't have to but they are treated the same way and will not be allowed in the program.

Seems like common sense to me.

I'm not sure why this just doesn't seem to sink in with some.