ACLU Challenges Florida’s Mandatory Drug Tests For Housing

[fanof19]

I don't think it's the school's job, but as a parent, if I am suspicious of something, you bet I'll dig around and find out.



As far as the ACLU, they should shut up. Drug testing for subsidized housing or a welfare check is no different than mandatory drug testing in the work place. They aren't saying you are automatically guilty. They are saying we are weeding out the guilty who would cheat the system, and cheating those who are living within the law of the system.

 

[jakobeast]

Not sure if this was touched on, but I had heard about this a few weeks ago, and it was stated that 98% of the people tested pass. Whether it is because the individual is indeed clean or they are using a masking agent is irrelevant. The State has actually be losing more money then saving with this program.



I wish I had the article I read. I didn't save it.

 

[mikita's helmet]

Well in that case he's given you a reason I suppose. So you've taken the next step. I'll let mine learn on his own until I need to step in, assuming that day ever comes, which I doubt. I think there are certain aspects. But then that's you being a parent, not the school arbitrarily doing it for you.

Ditto!

 

[mikita's helmet]

Drug testing for subsidized housing or a welfare check is no different than mandatory drug testing in the work place.

If your talking about private sector workplace, it is different and they can drug test all they want. The government, however, unless there's probable cause is violating the constitution if they force someone to take a drug test. It's an unreasonable search.

 

[winos5]

If your talking about private sector workplace, it is different and they can drug test all they want. The government, however, unless there's probable cause is violating the constitution if they force someone to take a drug test. It's an unreasonable search.

Explain how someone applying for welfare is the government forcing an unreasonable search. No one is being forced. They can simply forgoe the entitlement program.



They also have to divulge personal and financial documents during this process. Does that fall under the same umbrella of illegal search or violation of privacy? I don't think so. They are requirements to determine if someone qualifies for welfare. Demonstrating your not a habitual drug user is just another requirement IMO.



As for 98% testing negative, is that because most poor people don't use drugs habitually or because the testing has become a deterrent to habitual drug users applying for welfare?

 

[mikita's helmet]

Not sure if this was touched on, but I had heard about this a few weeks ago, and it was stated that 98% of the people tested pass. Whether it is because the individual is indeed clean or they are using a masking agent is irrelevant. The State has actually be losing more money then saving with this program.



I wish I had the article I read. I didn't save it.

I bet more than 2% of people leaving sporting events, concerts, etc., would blow over .08 BAC. Should the police be allowed to randomly pull folks out leaving the venue and make them take a UA?



I bet more than 2% of the population uses illegal drugs. Should the police be allowed to randomly show up at your house and force you take a UA?



Could they cordon off a whole block in a residential area and make everyone there take a UA?

 

[mikita's helmet]

Explain how someone applying for welfare is the government forcing an unreasonable search.

Explain how there's probable cause to test if they're dirty if 98% test clean?

 

[winos5]

I bet more than 2% of people leaving sporting events, concerts, etc., would blow over .08 BAC. Should the police be allowed to randomly pull folks out leaving the venue and make them take a UA?



I bet more than 2% of the population uses illegal drugs. Should the police be allowed to randomly show up at your house and force you take a UA?



Could they cordon off a whole block in a residential area and make everyone there take a UA?

This anecdotal, but every major sporting event or entertainment event I've ever been to had a prominent law enforcement presence.

 

[winos5]

Explain how there's probable cause to test if they're dirty if 98% test clean?

The testing is a deterrent to habitual drug abusers applying for welfare to finance their jones.

 

[mikita's helmet]

The testing is a deterrent to habitual drug abusers applying for welfare to finance their jones.

And regardless of the constitutionality of the what Florida is doing, that's unresponsive to my question.

 

[mikita's helmet]

This anecdotal, but every major sporting event or entertainment event I've ever been to had a prominent law enforcement presence.

That still doesn't mean that folks over the legal BAC limit aren't driving home from sporting events/concets. Why shouldn't the police be allowed to randomly select someone leaving a sporting event and make them drop a UA?

 

[Tater]

I bet more than 2% of people leaving sporting events, concerts, etc., would blow over .08 BAC. Should the police be allowed to randomly pull folks out leaving the venue and make them take a UA?



I bet more than 2% of the population uses illegal drugs. Should the police be allowed to randomly show up at your house and force you take a UA?



Could they cordon off a whole block in a residential area and make everyone there take a UA?

These people aren't there applying for aid though, they're at a concert or sporting event.

 

[winos5]

And regardless of the constitutionality of the what Florida is doing, that's unresponsive to my question.

I disagree. 98% test clean because the testing requirement successfully deters habitual drug abusers from applying for welfare benifits in Florida. That stat is evidence the program works, not evidence that it's a waste of money.

 

[winos5]

That still doesn't mean that folks over the legal BAC limit aren't driving home from sporting events/concets. Why shouldn't the police be allowed to randomly select someone leaving a sporting event and make them drop a UA?

They already do. They have random sobreity check points set up regularly, at least in Texas. To no ones surprise they coincide with sporting events, concerts, holiday weekends, downtown club/nightlife areas ect.... The local PD where I live even has a random check for drivers licenses and proof of insurance at the highschool several times a year, because wouldn't you know it some parents are irresponsible and allow their kids to drive without a license or insurance.

 

[mikita's helmet]

I disagree. 98% test clean because the testing requirement successfully deters habitual drug abusers from applying for welfare benifits in Florida. That stat is evidence the program works, not evidence that it's a waste of money.

You can disagree all you want to, but that still doesn't create probable cause that when you, I, someone applying for state aid or someone is just walikng down the street, that any of us is using illegal drugs?

 

[mikita's helmet]

They already do. They have random sobreity check points set up regularly, at least in Texas. To no ones surprise they coincide with sporting events, concerts, holiday weekends, downtown club/nightlife areas ect.... The local PD where I live even has a random check for drivers licenses and proof of insurance at the highschool several times a year, because wouldn't you know it some parents are irresponsible and allow their kids to drive without a license or insurance.

All constitutional violations. Just more reasons not to live in Texas.

 

[jakobeast]

I bet more than 2% of people leaving sporting events, concerts, etc., would blow over .08 BAC. Should the police be allowed to randomly pull folks out leaving the venue and make them take a UA?



I bet more than 2% of the population uses illegal drugs. Should the police be allowed to randomly show up at your house and force you take a UA?



Could they cordon off a whole block in a residential area and make everyone there take a UA?

Not disagreeing. I feel it is an infringement on rights, however, as a taxpayer, I feel my monies could go to something better then keeping a junkie housed.



I think most here know I am all for personal responsibility and legalization. It is no ones business if some asshole wants to destroy their life with drugs. The second that your habit effects anyone else, that's when we have a problem.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

All constitutional violations. Just more reasons not to live in Texas.

How are those constitutional violations??? Owning/operating a motor vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege.

 

[winos5]

All constitutional violations. Just more reasons not to live in Texas.

I thought you were of the opinion that in the interest of public safety sometimes these searches were both needed and okay. Which is it? Always unconstitutional or just when the liberal filter of ACLU deems it so.

 

[winos5]

You can disagree all you want to, but that still doesn't create probable cause that when you, I, someone applying for state aid or someone is just walikng down the street, that any of us is using illegal drugs?

It's an issue of meeting a requirement to get public welfare IMO. To get public welfare you submit loads of personal and financial info to prove you qualify for the help and in the state of Florida you have to submit to a urine test to prove your not a habitual drug abuser to qualify for the help.