-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Governor Rick Scott (R-Florida) imagines that welfare recipients were likely drug addicts so he signed a law that mandates drug testing before they can receive cash benefits from the state. “The goal of this is to make sure we don’t waste taxpayers’ money,” Scott said. How’s that working out? About 2 percent have tested positive and ninety-six percent proved to be drug free — leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.
Financially, Florida taxpayers may save a whopping $40,800-$98,400 for a program that has been predicted to cost $178 million. That’s before the legal costs from a threatened ACLU challenge to the law’s constitutionality.
Scott has never been one to let constitutional niceties get in the way of a political issue that’s sure to anger voters. Anger directed at welfare recipients is a classic motivator from the Reagan era that has never gone out of style.
If the ACLU follows through, they will probably rely on two federal court decisions. The first is the Supreme Court opinion in Chandler v. Miller (1997). In that case, the Supreme Court held that:
Georgia’s requirement that candidates for state office pass a drug test does not fit within the closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches.
As in Georgia, Florida’s testing of welfare recipients is symbolic, not “special.” Welfare recipients “do not perform high risk, safety sensitive tasks, and the required certification immediately aids no interdiction effort.” As J. Ginsburg wrote: “The Fourth Amendment shields society from state action that diminishes personal privacy for a symbol’s sake.”
The other case is Marchwinski v. Howard (2003), wherein the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in a rehearing of the case en banc, split 6-6 on the constitutionality of a Michigan law that required drug testing of welfare recipients. The tie vote had the effect of affirming the district court’s judgment striking down the program. No opinion was issued for the en banc rehearing.
H/T: FourthAmendment.com, WTSP10, Tampa Bay Online, Steve Benen, ACLU.
1996 Pres. Clintons Welfare Act, Fed govenment can denied food stamp if a recipients has a Drug Felony Conviction. Use the Fed Law to denied any Claim.
Unfair to the poor and Florida taxpayers. Doesn’t Governor Scott have a personal interest in the company that is giving the tests? I understand his wife has ownership in the company.
BTW, some people buy urine for drug testing.
A person chooses to apply for a job, they may have to take a drug test. If someone CHOOSES to apply for welfare (yes, because of need), then it’s only fair that they may ALSO need to pass a drug test in order to recurve a “paycheck”. I hope my state follows suit. I’m tired of seeing drug addicts, able to work, unemployed and living off the government.
Why shouldn’t they drug test welfare recipients? When you are employed a drug test is mandatory, and whenever they want to randomly check thru out the job. Fair is fair.
I went for a job and was drug tested..what is the difference??? i was on public assistance too and went to the office for my application and there three men in a truck smoking weed…what are they spending the taxpayers money on?? As on costs.. Im sure a lab company will greatly reduce costs for the exclusive contract, bid it out. I do agree that all people in public service need drug testing. Megyn usually I agree with you but you are way wrong on this.
I am required to take a drug test to obtain a job so why not test people who are trying to collect benefits. I have seen many times in the past that people who receive these benefits are driving a nicer car than I am and wearing nicer clothes than I am and I am working a 40+ hour a week job and can’t afford those things. It really boils down to being fair. If I must test to obtain and retain a job to keep my benefits from that job then why should someone who is receiving money that we as taxpayers are paying in to be used for “necessities” and alot of the time are being abused. I also know of people who receive the Link card or SNAP card which are programs used in Illinois that go to the parking lot of a large retail chain and sell off there cards to obtain cash so that they can go buy drugs and alcohol. Now I am not saying that all people are doing this but If I do drugs and my job tests me and I test positive then chances are I lose my job or at the very least am put on probation at the job and have to attend some sort of drug counseling. I just think that there are too many loopholes in the assistance programs and those loopholes need to be looked at and fixed. End of story.
What happened to liberty? Sounds like big gov’t to me. I thought we wanted less gov’t.
I have three step daughters on welfare in Florida and all three of them get a fake pee kit that they stick in their underwear when they go. Don’t ask me but they get away with it. If their is a way around it the druggies will find it.
I think you are all missing the point. If you fail a drug test at your job interview you do not get the job. If you do not qualify for a job based on your drug test, why should we give you money tosit home? Give it a shot yourself, go to Walmart ot McDonalds and see if they would hire you. Every company I know drug tests. They want to be that drug free environment. By the reasoning for not drug testing to receive public money, it should be illegal for a company to drug test as well.
Megan
What is not being covered is the statistics are drawn from a self selecting group. Because they know they will be tested, drug users will avoid applying until the test is dropped.
In fact, the normal application volume is at least 1500 per month. During the first month, the number of applications dropped to about 1000. If this trend continues for several months, it will be apparent that savings will be more like 33% rather than 2%
Regards,
John Duffy
Keep in mind, the question isn’t rich or poor using drugs. It is a question of government funded money being used for them. If you use drugs, get off them, get a job and no need for welfare. If you need government funds and are NOT using drugs than by all means, you should receive it.
*guaranteed…
How do we know that the idea isn’t working? How many people don’t bother to sign-up for welfare knowing that they won’t pass the test?
Someone who collects welfare is violating the private property rights of one who is paying taxes and being productive. When you kill someone, you lose your right to life in this country (in several states), so when you steal from someone(aka take welfare) you also must give up some rights. I recently had to take a drug test before taking a job, so should someone who is unproductive not have to do the same before stealing money that constitutionally belongs to me?
You are all missing the point!!!! If you are going to pop-positive, you will not take the test and therefore will not apply for welfare. Claims will drop. This law will work!
As a Florida taxpayer, I am happy with this new law. Why shouldn’t welfare recipients have to undergo drug testing? I have to undergo drug testing to take a job. Quit stirring the pot, Kelly.
You have to take a urinalysis for a job, even more specifically a STATE job… So why not for welfare? Makes no sense… Once again trying to give a specific section of the population different standards than the working stiff… Arthur is right, it is a hand out not a guarented right. Wow…
If I have to pass a drug test to earn a living, people who are drawing off my income (welfare recipients) should also have to pass a drug test to recieve the fruits (tax dollars which support their lifestyle or living) of my labor.
If they do not like submitting to a drug screen I would suggest they go out and get a job that wouldn’t require them to do so.
Does nothing for those that are getting drugs to sell drugs – to supplement their income.