Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I give a resounding "HELL NO!" In fact, I would go a step further and implement random drug testing for existing recipients too. Why on earth should the taxpayers foot the bill for people to buy weed (or worse)? I spent a VERY long time amidst welfare recipients in Cincinnati, Ohio. I have seen soooo many people abuse the welfare system. I knew a family of 5 that would spend the $380/mo. cash on a limo and a night out partying and use the $400+ in food stamps to buy all the expensive t-bones and what-not, only to feed their kids baloney and ketchup sandwiches 2 times a day for the last week of the month. This was over and over and over every month. So many people sold their food stamps for .60 cents on the dollar and bought crack, weed, beer, whatever.

I see NOTHING at all wrong, immoral, or unconstitutional in any way. They get reimbursed if they pass the screen. They don't DESERVE to piggy-back off of the work of legitimately employed Americans if they spend the money (or any part of the welfare benefits) on drugs.





Here's a link to the yahoo story: Florida drug testing welfare applicants


Ghidorah

You ask for a legal opinion then give a personal response with no legal basis. I find this confusing. Do you have any precedent or foundation (in law) for your decision that it isn't Constitutional beyond "I don't like it"? Why don't you just make poor people come to a public square and publicly flagellate themselves for their failings as humans to get assistance?

Also, stupid Democrats trying to control people based using their 'social experiments' to curb behavior they don't. Oh, wait.

I agree, last thing I want to do is pay for someone else's habits. These days, more and more people are getting on government assistance that don't even need it, so, it's becoming a burden on the government. I have this neighbor, who's 23, perfecly capable of working, but is on disability for ADD. He does nothing but play second life all day, and spends money on that game, so, in short, we're paying for his habits.

I can't speak for your Gov't over there, I'm hopeless on US politics, but surely they could use some of the welfare money to put the worst offenders on some sort of rehab?
Same deal with the screening though. If they don't attend they lose the welfare money.
Also, the current administration could impose a new law, provide proof that you are at least trying to find a job or lose the welfare money. It's carrot and stick really.

Apologies if this comes across as slightly naive, but surely it's better to try and help these people rather than creating a load of homeless families?

What if it is a false positive? What if the person doesn't have a habit but smoked a joint at a party provided by someone else? You aren't paying for their habit then. What about alcohol? If they have had a beer can we cut them off? Alcohol is much more expensive than water, is a drug, and not can put one under the influence. Should we do drug tests on everyone to determine whether the fire department should come to their house? To use public transportation? I find bigotry more distasteful than someone who might smoke marijuana or have alcohol, can we cut off people that are in the KKK or other hate group? What if someone is illiterate? Can we cut them off please? Perhaps a reading test to get the funds. There are people that find LGBT to be a bad choice of lifestyles. They shouldn't have to pay for some poor transgendered dudes dresses if they find that unsavory and distasteful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote: Apologies if this comes across as slightly naive, but surely it's better to try and help these people rather than creating a load of homeless families?

Commie!

There are essentially two steps to determine if a power exercised by Congress is "Constitutional":
1) is it within the authority granted to Congress?

2) does the law violate some other right (bill of rights, equal protection, due process...)?

Part 1 is easy: welfare is enacted under the tax and spend clause.

Part 2 requires an affirmative assertion that I'm not seeing.

Does this violate any of the bill of rights? Doesn't appear to. Does it violate equal protection? Nope. Does it impinge on due process? No.

Therefore, probably not unconstitutional.

I'm sure Time has some logical reason for asserting that it's unconstitutional. Hah, just kidding, it's Time.

HELL NO. It seems like common sense, if someone is doing something illegal or buying something COMPLETLEY unnecesary with our money, then why should they live for free. As for getting them help, screm em'. Sounds sort of heartless, but hey if they've got an addiction its their problem and their families problem(if they haven't already alienated them). Plus it would probably cost more to put them through recovery when they very likely might relapse, this is all from a fiscal standpoint, as for my religious views, i believe we should always lend a hand(not be forced to) to someone truly willing to get well.

Ahtman wrote:What if it is a false positive? What if the person doesn't have a habit but smoked a joint at a party provided by someone else? You aren't paying for their habit then. What about alcohol? If they have had a beer can we cut them off? Alcohol is much more expensive than water, is a drug, and not can put one under the influence. Should we do drug tests on everyone to determine whether the fire department should come to their house? To use public transportation? I find bigotry more distasteful than someone who might smoke marijuana or have alcohol, can we cut off people that are in the KKK or other hate group? What if someone is illiterate? Can we cut them off please? Perhaps a reading test to get the funds. There are people that find LGBT to be a bad choice of lifestyles. They shouldn't have to pay for some poor transgendered dudes dresses if they find that unsavory and distasteful.

No, that's why it would be good to do follow ups, because there's a difference from a joint at a party and habitually buying drugs with your welfare money, and, I'm not sure, but I believe the government. Foodstamp program doesn't cover non-food, non-medicine. I'm not being bigoted, I just stated that there's people on government assistance that don't need it. And as far as that last statement, I'm hoping you don't mean me, because I pay for everything I own, I've never needed assistance.

I have seen soooo many people abuse the welfare system. I knew a family of 5 that would spend the $380/mo. cash on a limo and a night out partying and use the $400+ in food stamps to buy all the expensive t-bones and what-not, only to feed their kids baloney and ketchup sandwiches 2 times a day for the last week of the month. This was over and over and over every month.

Doesn't mean that all or even a majority in receipt of benefits are behaving like this or taking drugs.

Not condoning such behaviour. If this is true and if you had hard evidence they ought be reported to the relevant authority.
Their childrens' welfare should take precedence over a jolly on the town.

Am not sure about this, or whether I would feel bad about being asked to take a drug test.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

Am not sure about this, or whether I would feel bad about being asked to take a drug test.

But everyone has to take it, its not as if it discriminates against certain welfare recipients.

It's almost assuredly constitutional. It's terrible policy (despite making people feel better), but I don't think it's unconstitutional.

the only real argument to made is that it's an illegal search. This gets tricky, because the expectations of privacy varies depending on circumstances. I expect the most in my house, the least while crossing a border or getting unto an airplane.

Welfare has always required a lowered expectation of privacy in terms of financial disclosures and the like. As long as the tests aren't used for criminal prosecutions, I think it's constitutional.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Doesn't mean that all or even a majority in receipt of benefits are behaving like this or taking drugs.

Really a segment of the population just doesn't want welfare programs period, and this is another way to go after that. The other is to demonize the few abusers to appear either tough on crime and/or against welfare in general, regardless of whether the majority don't abuse it. If some do everyone must be punished. We actually are a fairly vicious group of people sometimes, going after the poor in such ways. Politicians don't lose anything going after them as the poor aren't really a constituency to be worried about and it makes the middle class feel good to see them not getting so many 'perks'.

My workplace has the right to drug test me at any time. My workplace gives me money because for a specific reason (I fit a particular criteria).

The government should have the right to drug test welfare recipients due to similar circumstances.

It's terrible policy for a lot of reasons. First, IIRC the governor of florida is connected a drug testing company, which shows the real impetus. Second, it'll cost money in testing, appeals, etc. Third, what exactly are people that don't get welfare going to do? If you say "get a job," you're naive. Fourth, policies like this ignore the massive benefits working, middle, and upper class people derive from the government without needing a drug test.

I think, as a non-drug user, that all benefits should come with a drug test. Want to drive on a highway? Visit a national park? Get a student loan? Take a tax deduction? Pee in a cup!

Polonius wrote:As long as the tests aren't used for criminal prosecutions, I think it's constitutional.

Do you think it would be unconstitutional to use these tests for criminal prosecutions? I don't think so. There's no right to welfare, and a government agency could conceivably link welfare need to drug use (if you're buying drugs you don't need welfare maybe?) to eliminate any Pickering issues.

Polonius wrote:Want to drive on a highway? Visit a national park? Get a student loan? Take a tax deduction? Pee in a cup!

Inefficient.

A hair sample test can go back a few months.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

I have seen soooo many people abuse the welfare system. I knew a family of 5 that would spend the $380/mo. cash on a limo and a night out partying and use the $400+ in food stamps to buy all the expensive t-bones and what-not, only to feed their kids baloney and ketchup sandwiches 2 times a day for the last week of the month. This was over and over and over every month.

Doesn't mean that all or even a majority in receipt of benefits are behaving like this or taking drugs.

Not condoning such behaviour. If this is true and if you had hard evidence they ought be reported to the relevant authority.
Their childrens' welfare should take precedence over a jolly on the town.

Am not sure about this, or whether I would feel bad about being asked to take a drug test.

You'd be suprised how many people abuse the system. Where I live, it's almost an everyday thing.

ahtman wrote:Really a segment of the population just doesn't want welfare programs period, and this is another way to go after that. The other is to demonize the few abusers to appear either tough on crime and/or against welfare in general, regardless of whether the majority don't abuse it. If some do everyone must be punished. We actually are a fairly vicious group of people sometimes, going after the poor in such ways Politicians don't lose anything going after them as the poor aren't really a constituency to be worried about and it makes the middle class feel good to see them not getting so many 'perks'

Not true, the problem is people are getting on these programs when they are capable of working, if you've got a lot of kids, and can't afford to feed them all, that's ok to get on assistance, but, if you're a 23 year old, single male, with no children, and capable of working, then there's no need to get on assistance. With all the people not needing assistance getting on assistance, it : a) makes it harder for the people who need it to get it, and b) becomes a problem for the taxpayers. Now, I have no problems with my money feeding ms jones and her family, since she can't afford to, but, I don't like the idea of a guy who is able bodied, no children, no responsibilities being paid that same money that could be used to assist families that can and will use it appropriately.

kronk wrote:

A hair sample test can go back a few months.

And that is how we proved my Aunt's scumbag, cheating Husband was less successful version of Charlie Sheen!

The problem is that the SCOTUS ruled welfare benefits, disability (which is also essentially welfare), public assistance, etc., are all property rights. So, in effect, it is a right...

When you look at these forms of assistance and analyze them within the context of property rights, then that is an entirely different animal.

I'm all for drug testing (as well as alcohol and tobacco for that matter), particularly for disability matters when it relates to the exacerbation or continuance of a particular disorder, in order to receive public assistance. But placed within the context of a property right, then the analysis changes significantly.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:As long as the tests aren't used for criminal prosecutions, I think it's constitutional.

Do you think it would be unconstitutional to use these tests for criminal prosecutions? I don't think so. There's no right to welfare, and a government agency could conceivably link welfare need to drug use (if you're buying drugs you don't need welfare maybe?) to eliminate any Pickering issues.

I'm not even sure if drug use is a crime in Florida, so it might be moot. And if they do start prosecuting use, nobody is saving any money.

But I'm not sure if it would be a 4th Amendment violation to use it as evidence. I know it'll come down to how Kennedy feels about welfare that day.

But everyone has to take it, its not as if it discriminates against certain welfare recipients.

Am aware of that.
Just not certain exactly how it will work. The scheme may end up costing more to implement than save.
What percentage of claimants are actually using drugs?
If someone tests positive for drugs, what happens to the claimant next?

Has this been thought through fully? Sounds like populist posturing rather than an attempt to address a perceived problem.

Eldanar wrote:The problem is that the SCOTUS ruled welfare benefits, disability (which is also essentially welfare), public assistance, etc., are all property rights. So, in effect, it is a right...

Only to the extent that depriving someone of these benefits requires due process. But the initial grant does not require due process. I disagree with the rationale, but it's hardly as dire as you suggest.

Polonius wrote:I'm not even sure if drug use is a crime in Florida, so it might be moot. And if they do start prosecuting use, nobody is saving any money.

But I'm not sure if it would be a 4th Amendment violation to use it as evidence. I know it'll come down to how Kennedy feels about welfare that day.

Well, there is the unconditional conditions doctrine that would be relevant here. I don't think it would be as murky as you expect, the Supreme Court tends to be harsh when it comes to drug use. The last big case on drug use (Kentucky v. King) featured only Ginsburg in dissent.

remilia_scarlet wrote:Not true

Really? There are no politicians or people that have railed against welfare? Someone better tell some of the people in the Republican Party, the Libertarian PArty, and the Tea PArty that they don't exist so that they will stop.

As for who deos and doesn't get assistance, a 23 year old probably wouldn't get assistance unless they were disabled. It isn't as simple as being poor, you have to show need.

remilia_scarlet wrote:You'd be suprised how many people abuse the system. Where I live, it's almost an everyday thing.

Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. If I lived in Cabrini Green I would think the world consisted almost entirely of black people living in projects, but it isn't. No one has said that there is no abuse, but we act as if all it is is abuse. We are prepared to throw the baby out with the fraudulent bathwater.

I think it's perfectly fine. If they test positive, refer them to a rehab program and make continuation of benefits dependent on completion.

Commisar Von Humps wrote:

kronk wrote:

A hair sample test can go back a few months.

And that is how we proved my Aunt's scumbag, cheating Husband was less successful version of Charlie Sheen!

Well, he sure wasn't winning.

My very first job in america was a housekeeping job, where I would go to people's houses, and clean them, and there would be people hiring us who lived in the section 8 apartments, and they'd hire us every week to clean for them, despite the fact they could do it for less money. The section 8 apartments are strictly for section 8 assistance.

biccat wrote:Well, there is the unconditional conditions doctrine that would be relevant here. I don't think it would be as murky as you expect, the Supreme Court tends to be harsh when it comes to drug use. The last big case on drug use (Kentucky v. King) featured only Ginsburg in dissent.

Well, I do disability law, so I promptly forgot all the criminal procedure I knew for the bar exam.

Polonius wrote:Well, I do disability law, so I promptly forgot all the criminal procedure I knew for the bar exam.

Had I not recently sat for another one (2 bar exams isn't enough, obviously), I would have as well

remilia_scarlet wrote:

Commisar Von Humps wrote:

kronk wrote:

A hair sample test can go back a few months.

And that is how we proved my Aunt's scumbag, cheating Husband was less successful version of Charlie Sheen!

Well, he sure wasn't winning.

My very first job in america was a housekeeping job, where I would go to people's houses, and clean them, and there would be people hiring us who lived in the section 8 apartments, and they'd hire us every week to clean for them, despite the fact they could do it for less money. The section 8 apartments are strictly for section 8 assistance.

Your sitution might be different, but in general, few apartment buildings are secion 8 only. They'll all take any rent they can get. Most just turn that way quickly.

There's a ton of fraud in welfare. There's also a lot of spending on dumb stuff. Which makes people on welfare exactly like everybody else. People cheat their employers and blow paychecks on dumb stuff.

I'm puritanical enough to find people that not want to work morally inferior. Why are we shocked that those people that are already on shaky moral ground would be just as corrupt as those of us working for a living?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, I do disability law, so I promptly forgot all the criminal procedure I knew for the bar exam.

Had I not recently sat for another one (2 bar exams isn't enough, obviously), I would have as well

Federal Admin law is the best: practice in any state, and you need to learn a pretty small body of law.

biccat wrote:

Eldanar wrote:The problem is that the SCOTUS ruled welfare benefits, disability (which is also essentially welfare), public assistance, etc., are all property rights. So, in effect, it is a right...

Only to the extent that depriving someone of these benefits requires due process. But the initial grant does not require due process. I disagree with the rationale, but it's hardly as dire as you suggest.

Hence the entire rationale for the existence of administrative law courts. When they get denied benefits, there is an entire appeals process that they can go through , IIRC, 7 levels (with the SCOTUS at the top level), before ultimately having complete administrative finality.

I agree with you, that it is a weird distinction to make, that government asistance benefits are somehow "property." The problem is that once you have boot-strapped these things into property, then you are adding an entire new level of constitutional analysis, and a much higher threshold that has to be crossed in order to implement it.

And there are lots of policy rationale's for not all of a sudden taking away people's government assistance. Welfare payments are essentially the State's way of, to a large degree, bribing people not to go out and lie, cheat and steal as much as they might otherwise would; and the State's way of preventing having hordes of destitute people living in shanty towns and unfettered slums (much worse than what they already might be living in). Very few people living now remember the Great Depression and what it was like then. Imagine 5-10 million people all of a sudden being thrown off of the rolls. Add to this, that wellfare payments are essentially direct stimulus to the economy, because whatever those people spend it on, they do indeed spend it, and almost immediately. And finally, in lots of instances, drug use, etc., is a means of self-medication. Quite often these folks cannot afford a doctor or medication, or have easy access to them; but they can buy a cheap hit of something from the corner down the street. That may not be the best option, in our eyes; but for them, this may be the only option.

remilia_scarlet wrote:but is on disability for ADD.

Man, I need to get some of that action. I was disagnosed with ADD/ADHD when I was a teen...