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.

Dogface 76 wrote:+1 to Smacks and Crom....

+1 to your +1...

Smacks hit the nail on the head.

Re:Is drug testing welfare applicants unconstitutional?

And now, we have the expected answer: no, it is not constitutional. Appeals to follow, of course.

//it's not threacromancy if you're adding something useful

No surprise from me.

The plot thickens.

This could become extremely interesting.

Ouze wrote:And now, we have the expected answer: no, it is not constitutional. Appeals to follow, of course.

This is not technically correct.

The decision (opinion here) was directed to whether a preliminary injunction should be granted. It was not a finding that the drug testing was unconstitutional, it was a decision that the plaintiff (the welfare applicant) is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

There is certainly some problems with the judge's decision here (particularly the almost summary dismissal of Wyman and the consent of the applicant to the search), but that's more from the scholarly end and probably isn't all that interesting to non-lawyers.

biccat wrote:

Ouze wrote:And now, we have the expected answer: no, it is not constitutional. Appeals to follow, of course.

This is not technically correct.

The decision (opinion here) was directed to whether a preliminary injunction should be granted. It was not a finding that the drug testing was unconstitutional, it was a decision that the plaintiff (the welfare applicant) is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

Fair enough. What I also found interesting was that of the 7,000 people tested, 32 people tested positive. So, that's less then half of 1%. Assuming the worst case - that every single one of the failures was for a family of 4, thus eligible for the maximum $4,368 per year payment, and presuming none of them pass a drug test and hence are ineligible for a full 12 months - then the state saved at best $139,776, yes? How much do you think they spent setting up this program? How much will they spend defending it in court? Do you think it's less then $139,776?

Ok, Forget the legal battle for now - we don't need that to calculate that. Since the test costs $35, and the people who passed the tests (6,968) are reimbursed by the state, we know this program cost at least $243,880.

Maybe they'll save money on volume, though. /snicker

Ouze wrote:Fair enough. What I also found interesting was that of the 7,000 people tested, 32 people tested positive.

...and 1600 refused to take the test.

If we assume that those 1600 refused to take the test because they knew they would fail, that makes 19%. That means the state saved $7.1 million (using your numbers).

As always, the intent of laws is not simply to punish but also to deter the undesired behavior. How much does it cost to prosecute murderers and maintain a homocide division of the police force? Does the benefit of prosecuting murderers (measured by earning potential of future victims) outweigh the cost? I doubt it.

Ultimately, I agree that there should be an investigation into whether this makes sense financially or not. But the benefit of the deterrant effect that these laws have should not be discounted.

I'm more interested in the legal side, however.

biccat wrote:

Ouze wrote:Fair enough. What I also found interesting was that of the 7,000 people tested, 32 people tested positive.

...and 1600 refused to take the test.

If we assume that those 1600 refused to take the test because they knew they would fail, that makes 19%. That means the state saved $7.1 million (using your numbers).

As always, the intent of laws is not simply to punish but also to deter the undesired behavior. How much does it cost to prosecute murderers and maintain a homocide division of the police force? Does the benefit of prosecuting murderers (measured by earning potential of future victims) outweigh the cost? I doubt it.

Ultimately, I agree that there should be an investigation into whether this makes sense financially or not. But the benefit of the deterrant effect that these laws have should not be discounted.

I'm more interested in the legal side, however.

We have no idea why they refused to take the test, though. My numbers all came from the actual data, the rest is wholly supposition. One possibility - and call me crazy, but I could see this - is that people so poor as to need TANF might not have an extra $35 to pay for the test up front.

This was never advertised as a deterrent. It was advertised as a cost-savings program - ""The goal of this is to make sure we don't waste taxpayers' money" - Scott's own words. It's spending nearly $2 for every dollar it saves.

Ouze wrote:We have no idea why they refused to take the test, though. My numbers all came from the actual data, the rest is wholly supposition. One possibility - and call me crazy, but I could see this - is that people so poor as to need TANF might not have an extra $35 to pay for the test up front.

Sure that's possible. But it's no more possible than people refusing to take the test because they're likely to fail.

Most people don't balk at paying $35 to get $4,000, in my experience.

Or people are feel that it's wrong, are outraged, feel that they shouldn't have to submit to the test for whatever reason they have. Like the fellow in the article.

biccat wrote:Sure that's possible. But it's no more possible than people refusing to take the test because they're likely to fail.

Most people don't balk at paying $35 to get $4,000, in my experience.

Most people don't need TANF, either.

Infreak wrote:Like the fellow in the article.

He consented to the test, actually.

I think it's far more likely that people avoid the test knowing they'll fail than because of the cost. that's supposition, but that's based on my experience reading case files of welfare recipients. Nearly everybody can come up with $35, illegally if not legally. (which leads to some interest consequences). Let's say this: rarely do I read a case file where a person says they can't afford booze, drugs, or cigarettes. But the same people will say they can't afford a $5 co-pay for treatment.

You could probably make a decent "tragedy of the commons" argument about the $35 as well, given the massive psychological difference between something you pay a small amount for and what you get for free.

biccat wrote:

Infreak wrote:Like the fellow in the article.

He consented to the test, actually.

I reread the article and all I could find was this:

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the state last month on behalf of Luis Lebron, a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father from Orlando who is finishing his college degree.

Lebron met all the criteria for receiving welfare, but refused to submit to a drug test on the grounds that requiring him to pay for and submit to one is unreasonable when there is no reason to believe he uses drugs.

Where did you read that he consented to the test?

Infreak wrote:Where did you read that he consented to the test?

You'll have to read the opinion (linked above): "It is uncontested that Plaintiff electronically signed a “Drug Testing Information and Consent Form,” which is clear evidence of his consent to be drug tested."

He agreed to be tested and then revoked that agreement (by refusing to take the test). That raises a significant constitutional issue that the court hand-waves away.

Ouze wrote:Fair enough. What I also found interesting was that of the 7,000 people tested, 32 people tested positive. So, that's less then half of 1%. Assuming the worst case - that every single one of the failures was for a family of 4, thus eligible for the maximum $4,368 per year payment, and presuming none of them pass a drug test and hence are ineligible for a full 12 months - then the state saved at best $139,776, yes? How much do you think they spent setting up this program? How much will they spend defending it in court? Do you think it's less then $139,776?

So, like I was saying, that whether or not it was constitutional to test people for drug use, an open slather test everyone who applies for welfare is a stupid policy.

It's logic built around the assumption that all those welfare people are just drug taking losers, a position deeply held by many people, but utterly wrong, and completely at odds with any street level look at the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I think it's far more likely that people avoid the test knowing they'll fail than because of the cost. that's supposition, but that's based on my experience reading case files of welfare recipients. Nearly everybody can come up with $35, illegally if not legally. (which leads to some interest consequences). Let's say this: rarely do I read a case file where a person says they can't afford booze, drugs, or cigarettes. But the same people will say they can't afford a $5 co-pay for treatment.

I think the most likely explanation is principle. People refused to take the test because they don't believe that the government has any right to test them. A decision made easier by the knowledge that there was every chance of this program being overturned in court.

Given the number of people who threaten to resign or move on from their jobs when a drugs policy is brought in, I think seeing a tick under 20% of people taking a stance on principal is about right.

I'm gonna be the donkey-cave that suggest that people applying for welfare are less concerned with principle and more concerned with getting a check.

And "threatening to resign" is a far cry from "not having any money."

sebster wrote:

I think the most likely explanation is principle. People refused to take the test because they don't believe that the government has any right to test them. A decision made easier by the knowledge that there was every chance of this program being overturned in court.

Given the number of people who threaten to resign or move on from their jobs when a drugs policy is brought in, I think seeing a tick under 20% of people taking a stance on principal is about right.

Do you really think that people who most likely need welfare to keep themselves and their families from being hungry, homeless or both, are going to refuse a drug test that would at the very least delay their benefits over a principle?

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:

sebster wrote:

I think the most likely explanation is principle. People refused to take the test because they don't believe that the government has any right to test them. A decision made easier by the knowledge that there was every chance of this program being overturned in court.

Given the number of people who threaten to resign or move on from their jobs when a drugs policy is brought in, I think seeing a tick under 20% of people taking a stance on principal is about right.

Do you really think that people who most likely need welfare to keep themselves and their families from being hungry, homeless or both, are going to refuse a drug test that would at the very least delay their benefits over a principle?

Some might, based on principle, others based on the fact that they use drugs. Some might be principled drug users.

It’s a simple matter from my perspective; it costs more to imprison someone than it does to keep them on welfare.

If they believe you are in possession of drugs. Then yes, it is constitutional especially if you are on campus and you signed stuff for high school that literally says "You will be subject to drug testing"

Asherian Command wrote:If they believe you are in possession of drugs. Then yes, it is constitutional especially if you are on campus and you signed stuff for high school that literally says "You will be subject to drug testing"

At the very least read the thread title. Not to mention that its arguable whether or not schools can administer drug test with out reasonable cause or suspicion.

Polonius wrote:I'm gonna be the donkey-cave that suggest that people applying for welfare are less concerned with principle and more concerned with getting a check.

And "threatening to resign" is a far cry from "not having any money."

I'm going to question the assumption that welfare recipients 'have no money'.

There are generally options available, in the short term, for a whole lot of unemployed folk. They can admit defeat and move back home, or borrow from friends or family, or max out credit cards. These aren't good options, they certainly aren't long term options, but there are options besides 'not eating'.

And when you consider folk might believe there's a job for them just around the corner, or that this piece of legislation might be overturned, I can see a decent number making that decision.

I'm not saying that accounts for every case. I just think biccat's assumption that all 1,600 people are drug users is pretty fanciful.

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Do you really think that people who most likely need welfare to keep themselves and their families from being hungry, homeless or both, are going to refuse a drug test that would at the very least delay their benefits over a principle?

Like I said to Polonius, I don't think each welfare cheque is the difference between no food and food.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crablezworth wrote:Some might, based on principle, others based on the fact that they use drugs. Some might be principled drug users.

It’s a simple matter from my perspective; it costs more to imprison someone than it does to keep them on welfare.

Yeah, there's also the number of people who will simply move to other means to get their hands on enough money to keep going. Turn to theft and, ironically enough, selling drugs.

The constitutionality of drug testing those on welfare will depend a lot on how the law is written. A federal court can approve a state's law and the cut down another state's law. When dealing with a complicated legal issue such as drug testing those on welfare it's often not so much what a law says as how it says it.

The better question to ask is this: What are you going to do about it if a parent comes up positive?

Are you going to have DCFS remove a child from their parent's care and throw the parent in jail because they came up positive for weed?
If the parent is on crystal meth are you not going to tell DCFS about the problem, deny benefits, and ignore the child knowing their parents won't feed them?
Do you really think for 1 minute a heroin or crank addict will choose to voluntarily drug test to a government agency rather than just let their kids go hungry?

Drug testing for food stamps is a poorly thought out idea. If you want to hammer the druggies that neglect their kids while on food stamps make it an additional felony fraud charge and extra years in prison if parents are convicted of child neglect while collecting food stamps for the kid.

schadenfreude wrote:Drug testing for food stamps is a poorly thought out idea. If you want to hammer the druggies that neglect their kids while on food stamps make it an additional felony fraud charge and extra years in prison if parents are convicted of child neglect while collecting food stamps for the kid.

It's poorly thought out because we have little if any statistical evidence to establish that a person who collects welfare is particularly more likely to be a drug user.

That said, it also speaks volumes that the punishment for the crime is to lock the person up, rather than seek rehabilitation and maybe, you know, help them become a useful member of society.

sebster wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Drug testing for food stamps is a poorly thought out idea. If you want to hammer the druggies that neglect their kids while on food stamps make it an additional felony fraud charge and extra years in prison if parents are convicted of child neglect while collecting food stamps for the kid.

It's poorly thought out because we have little if any statistical evidence to establish that a person who collects welfare is particularly more likely to be a drug user.

That said, it also speaks volumes that the punishment for the crime is to lock the person up, rather than seek rehabilitation and maybe, you know, help them become a useful member of society.

Punishment is NOT rehabilitation, nor should it be. A crime can (should) be punished. That is a separate issue to rehabilitating the person. Two different processes, sometimes they do occur at the same time, but still different.

sebster wrote:I just think biccat's assumption that all 1,600 people are drug users is pretty fanciful.

You quite clearly missed the context of that statement then.

The argument that only 32 people out of 7000 failed the drug test is not indicative of the number of welfare applicants on drugs. It's only indicative of the number of people who took the test and failed. It's possible that a number of those who refused the test (or didn't apply knowing that the test was required) were also drug users.

In fact, I'm going to flatly state that I find the assumption that only 0.5% of welfare applicants are drug users to be completely absurd. Especially given that national marijuana use (monthly) is around 5%. (possibly biased site, but it's only used to show that the 0.5% result is absurd, which I think is pretty evident).

Would Bayes Theorem allow a calculation of the probability of failing among people who did not take the test?

It iis also possible (I would submit likely) that some of the 7000 that passed are drug users, and either 'beat' the test or stayed clean long enough to take it.

That has no bearing on the constitutionality of the law.

sebster wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Drug testing for food stamps is a poorly thought out idea. If you want to hammer the druggies that neglect their kids while on food stamps make it an additional felony fraud charge and extra years in prison if parents are convicted of child neglect while collecting food stamps for the kid.

It's poorly thought out because we have little if any statistical evidence to establish that a person who collects welfare is particularly more likely to be a drug user.

That said, it also speaks volumes that the punishment for the crime is to lock the person up, rather than seek rehabilitation and maybe, you know, help them become a useful member of society.

Do you think our society has reached a point to which after all the annecdotal and narrow sampling sizes of data with what we regard as social ills and vices that they see no recourse for those who break the law other than jail? I mean, just look at sex offenders in America. Not on iota of remorse for them and they're hounded by the law and community until they're driven out of society.