Latest Headlines
- Homeowner Reportedly Opens Fire On Known Attackers In Bratt Assault
- FPL Seeks To Raise Bills For All Of 2025 To Cover Hurricane Costs; Here’s How Much
- Cat Country 98.7 Is The 2024 CMA Radio Station Of The Year (With Gallery)
- Gonzalez Man Gets Two Life Sentences For Abusing Children
- ECUA Employee Golf Tournament Raises $10K For Children’s Hospital
- Creative Painting: Squeegee Art Saturday At Century Library
- Eagles Vs. Eagles: Ernest Ward Middle Falls To W.S. Neal
- Cantonment Man Sentenced To 25 Years For Child Sex Abuse
- One Airlifted After Highway 97 Rear End Crash
- Semi, Pickup Crash Closes Highway 29 For Hours In Cantonment
Drug Testing Law Heads To Appeal Court
October 29, 2012
A federal appeals court will hear arguments next week in a battle about a 2011 Florida law that would require people to pass drug tests before they can start receiving public-assistance benefits.
The state is asking the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a district judge’s ruling that blocked the law because of concerns it violated the federal constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches.
The Republican-controlled Legislature and Gov. Rick Scott approved the drug-testing requirement for applicants to the program known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, which replaced more-traditional welfare in the 1990s. Florida carried out the testing requirement for more than three months, before U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven issued a preliminary injunction in October 2011.
In a brief filed early this year, the state said requiring urine tests does not violate the constitution and that TANF is designed to improve family stability and help beneficiaries get jobs.
“Drugs are antithetical to both goals, and thus drug testing furthers the program’s purposes,” the brief said. “TANF applicants, who must disclose a broad range of private information in order to participate in the program, have a substantially diminished expectation of privacy. Moreover, drug testing is commonly required in today’s society — particularly in the very job market that TANF prepares participants to enter.”
But opponents, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the non-profit Florida Justice Institute, said in a brief that the district judge properly found the state had not shown a “special need that would allow the government to impose blanket suspicionless drug testing on all TANF applicants.”
“Since 1996, the TANF program has operated in Florida without forcing applicants or recipients to submit to suspicionless drug testing,” another part of the brief said. “There is no evidence of a sudden epidemic of drug use or abuse by TANF recipients; no indication that recipients of TANF were using those funds to purchase illegal drugs at all, let alone more often than other recipients of federal funding, including students, veterans, the elderly and government contractors.”
The lawsuit, which was filed in September 2011, includes a named plaintiff, Luis Lebron, who at least at the time was a college student, a single father and a Navy veteran. Lebron applied for TANF in July 2011 and met the program requirements, but he challenged the constitutionality of the drug-testing requirement, according to court records.
The appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments Thursday in Atlanta. The case is being watched in other states, with Alabama, Kansas, Michigan and Oklahoma filing a joint brief in support of Florida’s stance.
Meanwhile, a separate case is pending in the appeals court about a Scott effort to require drug testing of state employees. A lower-court judge this year blocked that plan, prompting the governor to appeal.
In the TANF case, the state contends that the 2011 law does not force people to take drug tests, though they must pass a test to receive benefits.
“If a TANF applicant objects to the drug-testing condition, he is free to decline the offer to participate in the program and no drug test occurs,” the brief said. “If the applicant consents, he may participate in the program upon passing a drug test.”
But opponents disputed that argument, saying the district judge was correct that “requiring TANF applicants to undergo universal suspicionless drug screening as a condition for even determining their threshold eligibility for benefits is an unconstitutional condition. Applicants have no ‘right’ to receive benefits, but they do have a right to apply for them; that right cannot be conditioned on their waiver of constitutional protections.”
By Jim Saunders
The News Service of Florida
Comments
37 Responses to “Drug Testing Law Heads To Appeal Court”
REGARDING:
“Not for nuthin’ but they have tested the theory here. They tested 4,000 people and got a hit on 108.”
According to you 2.7% tested positive.
If the test cost $50 each, then it would cost $1,852 per positive test. ($10/test would cost $370/positive test) So if the sole goal were to save money, not paying that 2.7% $370-$1,852 or more would break even, depending on test expense.
And that’s ignoring the people who just wouldn’t ask because they knew or suspected they’d fail the test. Further, if the test is easy to fool, it’s the wrong test.
It might also find people who were abusing children by their actions, but probably not since the smarter ones wouldn’t ask or agree to be tested.
David contemplating numbers
and child abuse
REGARDING:
“I’m all for it IF they include all welfare recipients. When you test the heads of BP, Exxon, Goldman-Sachs and all the CEO’s of companies that take tax dollars, then you may have a case for it. Otherwise it falls under the equal protection clause.”
Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“nor shall any State – - -deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
deprive
1. not allow to have: to prevent somebody from having something
2. take away: to take something away from somebody
Not allow them to have money from the government unless all are deprived the same way.
So you believe tax deductions are welfare?
Of course, we’d have to be unbalanced to think that, otherwise we would have to drug all people receiving tax deductions or not drug test pilots and commercial drivers.
And as to Goldman Sachs, “Goldman Sachs’s borrowings totaled $782 billion in hundreds of transactions over these months. – - – The loans have been fully repaid in accordance with the terms of the facilities.”
( per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#Actions_in_the_2007.E2.80.932008_subprime_mortgage_crisis )
So we are also to believe all loans are also welfare?
Interesting.
David for rational thinking
Not for nuthin’ but they have tested the theory here. They tested 4,000 people and got a hit on 108. That’s waaaaaaaaay lower than what they would find in the general population. This was on a surprise test, no warning. If people have a few days advance warning, 90% of them wouldn’t fail. The company doing the testing gets paid either way. In any question with political implications, I always start with “follow the money’. It’s worth noting that the most crippling drug problem in Florida is prescription drugs. They aren’t even mentioned here. This is a dumb, ineffective, meaningless punitive test that accomplishes nothing except to enrich Governor Scott’s ‘blind’ (ahem) trust. If you buy the argument for it, you are relying on your own version of blind trust.
People are always quick to give away someone else’s rights. What business was it that Rick Scott was in that paid the largest fine in the history of fines for? Scott should be making little ones out of big ones.
I’m all for it IF they include all welfare recipients. When you test the heads of BP, Exxon, Goldman-Sachs and all the CEO’s of companies that take tax dollars, then you may have a case for it. Otherwise it falls under the equal protection clause. If your goal is to root out drug use from people feeding at the public trough, do it right. While you’re worrying about someone smoking a joint or buying a bag of potato chips with tax money, Exxon put $9,000 in their pocket, in the time it took to read this sentence.
would save alot of tax payers money by stopping all the lazy spongeing people
“Applicants have no ‘right’ to receive benefits, but they do have a right to apply for them”
__________
That’s just plain funny, right there.
@ Henry Coe
I imagine it’s tedious (tiresome or monotonous) for taxpayers to go to work every day also – but they do it. Most companies and all gov. jobs require drug testing to work in their facility, so drug testing should be required for benefit programs that spend their hard earned money.
REGARDING:
“You should go through the application process for food stamps.”
Naw, I shouldn’t try to sponge off the people unless I actually needed help. In fact, I could probably miss several meals without starving even if broke.
David for helping only the needy
good law. I am tierd of paying taxes so others can lay around and not work and or do drugs and drink all day. perhaps people should take some accountability for themselves.
@David Huie Green,
You should go through the application process for food stamps. You can apply on line, but you still have to verify everything in person, plus they get a copy of your ID. The application process is tedious enough as it is.
CONCERNING:
“Only a very very small percent of people across the state wouldn’t pass it because those who wouldn’t pass it, aren’t going to pay for getting the test probably because they don’t have the money.”
Those who won’t pass don’t ask.
“Then others who are just broke and not using drugs, won’t be able to get the help they legitimately need with buying food because they are broke and can’t afford the test. Just think if you had to buy some medicine for your kid who would die without that medicine and you have enough money to buy either medicine for your kid or food. You buy the medicine and then don’t have money to take the drug test so you can get food.”
As opposed to the ones who when having to decide between food for their children and drugs for thems opt for the drugs.
Really, though, if their friends figure they’ll pass, they won’t mind lending them the money for the drug test since they will be getting it back. They DO have friends, don’t they? if not, why not?
David for cheap, fast, accurate tests
@sunshinegrl, You couldn’t have possibly read what I wrote? Your tax dollars still have to cover the cost of paying for the test, even if the person passes the drug screen and gets their money back, the test has to be paid for by the state. Only a very very small percent of people across the state wouldn’t pass it because those who wouldn’t pass it, aren’t going to pay for getting the test probably because they don’t have the money.
Then others who are just broke and not using drugs, won’t be able to get the help they legitimately need with buying food because they are broke and can’t afford the test. Just think if you had to buy some medicine for your kid who would die without that medicine and you have enough money to buy either medicine for your kid or food. You buy the medicine and then don’t have money to take the drug test so you can get food.
All this idea does is discriminate against poor people. It doesn’t do anything to stop drug use.
Individuals getting state aid should be drug tested prior to receiving state aid. A volation of their rights of unusual search and sezure. what a joke. If you are in need of assistance, what are you trying to hide? Not only should they pass a drug test, if they are getting assistance, they should also be signed up for some type of job. Picking up trash on the side of the road, cutting grass, or working in the community, they should be doing something else besides waiting for the next baby to pop out.
@Henry Coe Jr
If you pass the test you don’t have anything to worry about cuz you get your money back. But if you can’t pass the test then you pay and you don’t get your help that me as a taxpayer is paying for..Boo hoo nothing in life is free…
Question? As controlled drugs are illegal for those who use, distribute, manufacture. etc. these substances, could this ruling possibily lead to prisoners
confined in county, state, and federal prisons be eligible for free government benifits?
Just a thought.
Walket you are right about 99% of jobs requiring drug screenings. Put away that bong and work smart, focus and invest wisely and one day you can retire. Then you have the rest of your life to do as you please, within the range of your Operating and Maintenance budget anyway.
99% of the jobs out there today requirs pre employment drug testing then our taxes help pay for these programs so if we have to take them to get the job then they should have to take them to recieve benafits its only ritIf thats unconstitutional the so is pre employment drug testin
Hey, here’s a novel idea…don’t abuse drugs and this won’t be an issue for you.
Sorry Charlie, you are absolutly right. I forgot about truck drivers. But most people are not required by law. Hell, I think in my line of work doing drugs is a requirement . Not LOL!
REGARDING:
“Lord says no judge no one least ye be judged.”
So the Lord forbids the existence of judges? If so, why did He appoint judges? Further, whenever you condemn those who choose to judge, you are judging them — making yourself a judge.
Do you ever get the impression that it is more complicated than the thought, “Let anyone and everyone do whatever he or she wants to do because stopping them is forbidden.”? Taken literally and with no discernment, it would allow killers to kill, robbers to steal, rapists to rape. Do you really want that to happen?
Oh, but you figure the small things like drug use should not be judged? That’s fine. I’ve long favored legalization as long as the users don’t endanger others and I’m not required to pay for it. But is it really judging to require certain things before giving The People’s money away?
Do you want to give it to millionaires? No? So means testing is in order.
Do you want it financing the drug gangs which terrorize the people? If so, no verification is needed; in fact you might make drug use a requirement if that is your real goal.
Do you really believe nobody asking for money is using illegal drugs? If so, the tests will always come back clean and the state will soon stop wasting money on them.
This isn’t about Governor Scott or his wife — nobody really cares about them. It is about The People deciding how they want to spend their money.
David for freedom to decide
My 14 year old has to submit to random drug tests in order to play sports at Escambia County Schools. Seems funny that a child can be tested but an adult cannot?
Brian, just checked the bill of rights. Couldn’t find the one that requires anyone to give money to drug abusers. Years ago, people would have freaked out if they were told to hand over their money to the government so they could give it to people to buy dope.
People suggesting that people getting benefits should get drug tested because you get drug tested at your job, that is a completely false argument or comparison. If your employer chooses to have their employees drug screened, they have that option. If it is required by the state or Federal Law, then the cost of doing it incurred through their charges or it might even be a tax write off.
For food stamps, all applicants have to re-apply twice a year and report what benefits or income they have. On a monthly basis, one person might qualify for 40 dollars in food assistance, another 100 another 175 or someone else 300 or etc,,. It is a different amount for everyone who applies.
The cost of drug testing, if it were allowed, would need to be done fairly to everyone that applies along with all the family member benefiting from the assistance.
Drug testing through the state, with lab and administrative fees could easily cost 100 dollars per test in actual and hidden charges.
The people who support drug testing, per their comments, sound as though they think everyone getting food benefits is using drugs. I think it would be a very small percentage and a little higher if you want to include alcohol as being a drug.
It just wouldn’t be cost effective to test everyone getting benefits that applies twice a year.
@ Brian – if you don’t want the government in your business, don’t take their money. You can’t have it both ways.
A drug test is not a judgement. It’s a test period. The judgement happens after the test results are determined. If this testing really offends you, offer to give your money to any one who fails the test and is turned down for assistance.
I hope they have to be tested. I hate seeing tax payers money go to crack heads and no goods who sell their benefits. I really don’t see what the issue is. if you don’t want to be tested don’t apply for the benefits! If you have nothing to hide then you will not mind PERIOD!
Years ago I was on food stamps, briefly (while working), after a divorce. At NO point would I have minded being drug tested. It’s even crazy that people will dispute this, unless there is something to worry about.
Also it is not about passing judgment, it’s about asking for a handout and making sure you are not breaking the law while the government helps subsidize your food!
smokey on October 29th, 2012 6:29 am @ Hill. You are NOT required by any law to be drug tested for employment. That is something your employer chooses to do for a cheaper insurance.But as far as welfare recipients,they should be tested.
You are dead WRONG. Every truck driver that has a hazmat endorsement has to take a drug test or their right to haul hazzardest waste is revoked.
Here we go again, You do realize we have rights in america. Why do we not fight for them anymore? I guess its ok to let the government more and more into are business whats it going to hurt. Years ago people would have completely freaked out if this was even proposed, but not in are new better america I guess. But then again it is the peoples government so surely everybody likes
this new direction for are great country.
So busy worrying about the speck in some one else’s eye that the log in our own eyes blocks vision all together. Lord says no judge no one least ye be judged.
@ Hill. You are NOT required by any law to be drug tested for employment. That is something your employer chooses to do for a cheaper insurance.But as far as welfare recipients,they should be tested.
SAY YES take a DRUG TEST to get benifits i know a few people around thats on drugs that sell their food stamps and that makes me sick!!!!!!!!!!!! i have young kids in my home they can;t draw FOOD STAMPS if i could get them i would do a drug test everyday!
They should also have to pass a physical to see if they are able to work. If they are able to work and refuse to, they should be cut off of the government support. We have to pay back 16 trillion dollars somehow!
I work hard for my money why should I have to be drug tested for employment and someone living on assistance (my dime) not be tested !!! I am tired of the whining !!!
In order to be employed, I am required by law to consent to be drug tested. Why shouldn’t you be required by law to be drug tested if you receives food stamps or assistance. Where is the fairness? We (the employed) pay for food stamps & assistance.
People who do drugs often sell/trade their EBT cards to buy drugs. Why should we pay for their drugs?
Not to mention, Gov Scott’s wife own a bunch of clinics that do drug testing and the idea of testing everyone applying for benefits twice a year ins’t even close to being cost effective.