ACLU Challenges Florida’s Mandatory Drug Tests For Housing

[mikita's helmet]

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.

The individual forced to undergo the UA might argue otherwise. Regardless, the courts will decide this issue. And I'm sure the goverment will make many of the points you do.

 

[JOVE23]

Why is it reasonable to assume they're using drugs?

Because they are so poor and they are so black



/wolfblitzer

 

[mikita's helmet]

Because they are so poor and they are so black



/wolfblitzer

That bastard blitzer!

 

[dlrob315]

I say go ahead and test...but they can't test designer clothes, they can't test going to the club and they can't test rims on their hoopties!

 

[R K]

The Constitution of the United States apparently means dick.

 

[JOVE23]

The Constitution of the United States apparently means dick.

"In order to form a more perfect union blah blah blah we hereby ordain and establish this dick."



I like it.

 

[R K]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



Trampling right on through!

 

[dlrob315]

Should the same thing be done for Social Security payouts?

 

[R K]

Should the same thing be done for Social Security payouts?

Isn't that your money?

 

[dlrob315]

Isn't that your money?

Yes, I agree. I was trying to make a point. Some people that are on welfare/general assistance are those who have fallen on hard times due to the economy and these people have contributed to the system by paying taxes when they were working.



This is why drug testing for government assistance has to be stopped, we do not want a precedent set and have to take drug test for SS. They are already looking for reasons not to give it to us now!

 

[R K]

It clearly violates the 4th Amendment. There is absolutely NO question about it.



As for SS it doesn't really matter as by the time "most" of us are eligable the TENS of THOUSANDS of Dollars we've paid into the system will be long gone.

 

[dlrob315]

It clearly violates the 4th Amendment. There is absolutely NO question about it.



As for SS it doesn't really matter as by the time "most" of us are eligable the TENS of THOUSANDS of Dollars we've paid into the system will be long gone.

And that is the day you see us black folks joining the Tea Party in droves!

 

[winos5]

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.

You have no choice ultimately in the military. When you sign the contract you forfeit a variety of rights civilians take for granted. Refusal to submit a urine is the same as a positive result, plus they will tack on other charges ie... refusing a direct order, insabordination, failure to appear ect.... Unless your looking for a painful but quick exit from the military its a waste of time to refuse it as it ends with a similar result, the boot.

 

[mikita's helmet]

You have no choice ultimately in the military. When you sign the contract you forfeit a variety of rights civilians take for granted. Refusal to submit a urine is the same as a positive result, plus they will tack on other charges ie... refusing a direct order, insabordination, failure to appear ect.... Unless your looking for a painful but quick exit from the military its a waste of time to refuse it as it ends with a similar result, the boot.

I thought about that after I posted earlier.



You give up certain rights that private citizen's retain when you join the military, or are hired for any government intelligence agency and many administrative agencies. Of course, once hired, you actually become (part of) the government. I worked in the private sector for 13 years and became a federal employee on 9/26/10. To get hired, I submitted a resume at USA Jobs, took an online written exam for the job opening I was interested in, made it through that, then had another written laptop exam in San Francisco's Federal Building, and then had an in-person structured interview in Alexandria, VA with a group of government employees from OPM and an administrative agency. Then, after numerous references were contacted and a second interview in Northern VA with two more administrative agency managers occurred, I was hired, on the condition that I passed a background check, which included fingerprinting and having my credit history checked before I could start my job.

 

[mikita's helmet]

It clearly violates the 4th Amendment. There is absolutely NO question about it.

...and people so willing to give it up this constitutional right for others (and themselves in the process).

 

[Larmer83]

Oh I know, but the Constitution is serious business.

The Constitution is serious business when it serves a particular political perspective.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

The individual forced to undergo the UA might argue otherwise. Regardless, the courts will decide this issue. And I'm sure the goverment will make many of the points you do.

So as usual, this decision will turn out to be based on the leanings /left or right of the judge or justices hearing this case ?



A liberal will rule against the drug testing, or a conservative will rule in favor.

 

[IceHogsFan]

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, since you seem educated in this area, are you against the concept of giving drug tests to those looking

for state subisidies?

 

[sth]

Why don't they start doing drug testing in high schools and junior high to go to school? How about to get a drivers license? Or how about before you can register to vote? This the part I love all the people that talk about their love for smaller government support this expansion of government power. I recommend a trade off second for fourth amendments. I'll support drug testing to receive government aid if you guys support drug testing before firearms are purchased. Guns are dangerous we don't need drug users buying them. I think that is a fair trade.

 

[R K]

So, since you seem educated in this area, are you against the concept of giving drug tests to those looking

for state subisidies?

Yes. It's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment. If you'd like them to add another amendment putting in certain criteria on who it applies to and who'm it doesn't, feel free.



But as it's clearly written this is a blatent violation of the 4th Amendment. Unreal.