A federal judge in Orlando on Monday temporarily blocked Florida’s controversial law requiring welfare applicants be drug tested in order to receive benefits.
Judge Mary Scriven issued a temporary injunction against the state, writing in a 37-page order that the law could violate the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on illegal search and seizure.
“The constitutional rights of a class of citizen are at stake,†Scriven wrote.
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.
Gov. Rick Scott, who signed the measure into law on May 31, touted it as a way to ensure taxpayer money isn’t “wasted†on those who use drugs. “Hopefully more people will focus on not using illegal drugs,†he said then.
I think there's a lot of racism behind it. They never bitch about the government assistance that benefits mostly white people, like farm or oil subsidies.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^][v]#241,695
@241,692 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
It is interesting to note that Republicans once encouraged even slaves to be counted in the voting. Party of Lincoln and all...
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^][v]#241,702
@previous (C)
They were only trolling. I thought everyone knew this by now.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^][v]#241,704
I think it's a good idea.
@241,693 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w) > They never bitch about the government assistance that benefits mostly white people, like farm or oil subsidies.
But farms and oil companies help the economy. People who claim welfare don't.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^][v]#241,705
Finally someone with a brain stepped in and did something.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^][v]#241,706
@241,704 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
Many people on assistance are the working-poor, oil companies make outrageous profits as it stands, they really don't need subsidies or breaks. Farming is an overly-complicated issue... there are many good arguments for and against subsidies, but its such a mess I can't begin to know where to stand on it.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,796
If the working man has to take drug tests to keep their job, why shouldn't welfare recipients have to take drug tests to use the taxpayer-provided assistance?
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,804
@previous (G)
How would you feel if you are required to take a piss test before being allowed to vote? How about being required to piss in a cup to receive a Driver's License or piss on a strip before being allowed to board a plane? How about Taking a piss test before you can own a piece of property? You could feasibly use Gov. Rick Scott's argument to bar these citizens from doing any of these in the future if this law is allowed to remain unchallenged. The Government should not be allowed to force someone to give up their rights, period.
hamfist !!snnYcROO9 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,805
Sounds like a good law if they tweaked it. Instead of denying them welfare if they come up positive they could offer rehab
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,806
@241,804 (H)
They should give up their rights when they must rely upon the paycheck of the working man. The least we could ask of them is to not spend the taxpayer money on drugs and other criminal things. If they don't want to take a piss in a cup to ensure our money goes to legitimate purpose, then they should just get off their ass and get a fucking job.
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,807
The argument against voting is an interesting one. Once you get enough people on the dole they can just vote in whoever is going to give them more free stuff at the expense of the few, with no consequences to themselves. It's a point we've reached with income taxes, less than half actually pay in now.
Everyone should pay in something, even if its a token amount.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,808
@previous (J)
That's why I believe we need to instate a form of workfare to replace the welfare system to not only cut down on taxwaste, but cut down on crime and drug use as well!
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,810
@241,796 (G)
Have you ever read the fourth amendment?
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,812
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
It isn't unreasonable because the government is providing MONEY to the recipient. If they decline, they just don't get their check. Plain and simple.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,813
@previous (G)
So anyone who receives money from the government should be subject to drug tests?
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,814
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
That's not what is being said.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,815
@241,813 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
I don't see why not. Those who receive money from the government are either public servants, sociopaths or those who are truly in need of the money. I think all who receive money from the government should be subject to drug tests.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,817
@previous (G)
Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, workman's compensation, subsidized student loans, grants, and scholarships, tax refund checks, small business loans, subsidies...
It's a pretty small group of people who never receive any money from the government. Is it reasonable to drug test just about everybody?
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
!hEyBrieeXM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,818
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,819
@241,817 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
As long as they rely upon it, they should be tested. They shouldn't be arrested, but they shouldn't be free to use taxpayer money on recreational drugs.
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 32 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,830
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,837
@previous (buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY)
Yes. Matthew Miller is a great example of why my ideas should be put into practice.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,838
@previous (G)
You mentioned nothing about alcohol testing. What about other stupid crap that would hurt you, like McDonald's?
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,842
@previous (buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY)
The food industry situation is a whole 'nother can of worms. I believe that many health problems in the US would be solved when the agricultural subsidy laws are abolished.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,847
I think that my country should ensure that people on food welfare should be given vouchers (or e-credits on a card) for specific ingredients instead of money. This way you can ensure that they will be eating plenty of fruit and vegetables, dairy, iron etc, drinking more water than pop and not eating McDonald's every day.
I think it is unfeasible even in the UK right now, never mind America. But when I seize control of the country I will invest so heavily in IT that such a thing would work within just a few years.
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,849
Only allowing them to buy raw ingredients would also promote home cooking and less reliance on convenience foods which are high in salt, sugar and fat, which people on benefits are, in my experience, more likely to eat (You have no idea how many times I've heard that they can't afford to buy fresh fruit and vegetables). Plus with my plan to bring back local libraries, nobody will be able to go without recipes.
I'm ashamed of the state of my country at the minute. I've heard that my generation and the next can expect to live to an average age of 70/60 because so many of us are obese.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,853
This thread is why poorfucks in America will never have a net worth greater than the price of a Honda Civic. Trying to get money for the government by going after the poorest rung of society. That's farming on rocks you idiots.
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,854
@241,851 (M)
You would have to educate people as well, otherwise this would never work. Fruits and veggies might be more expensive to a point because they have a lower calorie to price ration. also, grocery stores in poor neighborhoods tend to have very expensive produce and a low quality selection of healthy choices. I've seen this myself.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,858
We've been bitch-whipped by Tesco, Asda and Sainsbury, so all food everywhere is pretty much the same here apart from in independent stores. Of course there would be education, as a matter of course. A lot of it ties into my community ideas. Easy to access libraries giving Internet access to all. Community centres that aren't constantly shut. Free adult learning for English, Maths and ICT for everybody. I have many ideas but I'm going off on tangents now. Someday.
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,860
@previous (M)
I want these things as well, but so many people are unwilling to pay for it.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#241,863
I think I would have to re-nationalize many things in order to raise investment money for the long-term investments. Trains especially. But also probably I would have to look at the private sector.
Either way, Britain would be on its way to becoming one of the leading IT nations in the world by the time I'm done with it, with one of the highest quality of life ratings. As long as the successor governments don't fuck it up.