Drug testing for welfare blocked

/ Monday, October 24, 2011

The state’s effort to drug-test welfare recipients hit a roadblock Monday, as a federal judge barred the state from following the plan until there’s a final ruling in the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Mary Scriven rejected the state’s arguments that the drug-testing program did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and would instead ensnare thousands of would-be welfare recipients in an impermissible dragnet.

“The constitutional rights of a class of citizens are at stake, and the Constitution dictates that the needs asserted to justify subverting those rights must be special, as the case law defines that term, in order for this exception to the Fourth Amendment to apply,” Scriven wrote. “That showing has not been made on this record.”

Scriven also wrote that the state’s attorneys did not produce “competent evidence that any TANF funds would be saved by instituting a drug testing program.”

Opponents of the drug-testing regimen, which passed during this year’s legislative session and has proven popular in polls, hailed the decision. It came in the case of Luis Lebron, a 35-year-old Orlando resident who applied for benefits in July but refused to take a drug test.

“This should send a message to all lawmakers that the 4th Amendment protects everyone,” said Randall Berg of the Florida Justice Institute, which represented Lebron along with the ACLU of Florida.

Supporters of the measure continued to defend the new law, but said they were trying to decide how to move forward following the judge’s decision.

“Drug testing welfare recipients is just a common-sense way to ensure that welfare dollars are used to help children and get parents back to work,” said Jackie Schutz, deputy press secretary for Gov. Rick Scott. “The governor obviously disagrees with the decision and he will evaluate his options regarding when to appeal.”

“I still believe it’s definitely the right law for Florida and Florida’s children,” said Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Inverness, who sponsored the drug-testing bill in the House.

The decision also threw a fresh spotlight on the Foundation for Government Accountability, a think tank based in Naples that produced a study and said the testing regime had saved the state $1.8 million in the first quarter and could save hundreds of millions of dollars if applied nationwide.

But Scriven slammed the report, saying it made faulty assumptions and “is not competent expert opinion, nor is it offered as such, nor could it be reasonably construed as such.”

Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, specifically applauded Scriven for tackling the study by the foundation, headed by a Scott ally.

“It’s bad enough they’re actually defending this privacy-gutting law,” she said. “But it’s especially troubling when they’re relying on the self-serving musings of the governor’s friend to justify it.”

The foundation’s president and CEO, Tarren Bragdon, fired back.

“Judge Scriven’s ruling against Florida’s drug-testing requirement for taxpayer-funded welfare cash is disappointing, and removes needed accountability from our welfare system,” Bragdon said. “Our analysis of the law shows that the requirement is saving the state millions in welfare benefits, and helps ensure taxpayer dollars are reserved only for the truly needy.”

Last modified: October 25, 2011
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published without permissions. Links are encouraged.

ADD A COMMENT (Limit 5,000 characters)

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards,terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
VIEWING 27 COMMENTS
avatar
Michael
Monday, October 24, 2011 at 6:31 pm

The Bill of Rights was given to protect us from Government Intrusion. The Bill of Rights protects rich and poor, black and white, and Democrat and Republican. This is important so when masses of people are fed extreme propaganda to scapegoat the poor for the waywardness of the ruling elite we can work through it until times of clarity. I agree with Tea Party people that we have got to get back to Constitutional Government and I agree with liberals who argue the poor and needy are our sacred obligation as given to us in Bible. The ideals of both ends of the spectrum are upheld by the court in the case, and it’s a great day to be American.

avatar
pamela
Monday, October 24, 2011 at 7:18 pm

I as a tax payer in the state of Florida want this bill to go forward! As for the rights of the people who are reciving welfare checks when you ask for help you should not have a problem ensuring the money is being used as it was intended.
Further more it is not my responsibity to support the local junkie. Put the money where it should be and then and only then will the truly needy be getting the help
that they deserve. After all it is the taxpayers money that is being used.

avatar
Ed Smith
Monday, October 24, 2011 at 10:36 pm

Take the money, take the test.

avatar
Victor
Monday, October 24, 2011 at 11:16 pm

If it is legal to have to pass a drug test to get hired into a job, it should be legal to have to pass a drug test to receive welfare benefits. I am sick of these twisted interpretations of laws that defy common sense and protect and promote the lawless.

avatar
Brad Hardin
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 12:18 am

If you have had no experience with welfare recipients (such as while volunteering in neighborhood soup kitchens or in homeless shelters), it is likely that you will have difficulty putting yourself in their shoes. Anyone that I know that has done volunteer work and has talked to these unfortunate people has come away feeling that but for the grace of God, go I. Sure, there are some free loaders taking advantage of the system, but if you take the time to investigate you will see that they are a very small minority. Most welfare recipients started out like you and me but have ended up living in a nightmare existence. Many have mental issues and some have drug issues. They do not deserve to be further humiliated by being subjected to drug testing. Such testing should have no place in determining if they are deserving of help. We degrade ourselves by doing so. Brad

avatar
Karen
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 7:49 am

Requiring drug testing is not government intrusion. It is making sure who is worthy of a handout. Big difference.

Nonetheless, will drug testing really save the tax payers money? It seems the money just gets handed out to another family member anyway. I hope it will keep government dollars from being spent on drugs, and spent more on those who need it for food and shelter.

avatar
Jim
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 8:25 am

Odd – I don’t seem to recall a “Charlie Christ Watch” (or far less likely a “Lawton Chiles Watch”) in the SH-T. Could it be that its editors and reporters have a double standard? I’m shocked – SHOCKED I tell you!

avatar
Jeanie Costner
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 8:30 am

As a Gaurdian-Ad-Litem for the 12th judicial circuit(Manatee, Sarasota and Desoto Counties) of the state of Florida I say DRUG TEST. It will not only save money but could save the lives of children living in drug homes.

avatar
Flyboy
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 9:14 am

If the government wants to test welfare recipients receiving cash benefits then why is there no accountability for the custodial parents whether it be mom or dad when they receive childsupport ? It’s a known fact that alot of mom’s spend the funds intended for the support of a child on self serving needs hair, nails as well as the dad’s ie alcohol, marijuana, etc… There is no agency that follow up to ensure that the recipients of childsupport are meeting the basic needs for the welfare of their children. Alot of these children’s basic clothing items hygiene ie, haircuts are not being met, these kids look like children from a third world country. Let’s make sure the Department of Revenue business practices are FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, because I know from experience that the non-custodial parent has to bring in proof of income, ie the last three paycheck stubs and the custodial parent usually the mother just has to tell the DOR how much they’re making without a requirement of proof as in paycheck stubs and the non-custodial parent gets the shaft, because the DOR isn’t ensuring the custodial parent is being truthful about their income.

avatar
CAROL
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 9:22 am

As a young college education divorced mom of two, though no fault of my own, I needed to collect aid for my children which put life saving food on the table. The Agency encouraged working and helped with training and getting people self-sufficient. Thanks to that help, I paid into the system big time over the following years. Most people I saw were hard-working struggling individuals who needed a lift. And they give back. How insulting for me to have been required to be tested and how small minded to think that all people in need are just in it to ‘game’ the system. Sure some may be. But this isn’t the way to ensure it won’t happen. You want to give drug tests to people who are ‘taking’ from taxpayers unfairly. Then how about testing members of Congress, Bank officers, and other people who are doing the ‘designer drugs’ while raping the majority of hard working Americans – on and off the ‘welfare’ rolls.

avatar
Henry
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 9:31 am

This was a bad law. Saves some money at the expense of innocent, needy children. Probably costs more to implement than the savings.Dehumanizes and denigrates the vast majority of welfare recipients who are not drug users but who are in many cases out of work because of our misguided economic policies.

avatar
Mark
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 10:34 am

Ed Smith seek help.

avatar
Mark
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 10:35 am

Rick Scott start producing the 700 000 jobs you promised.

avatar
scarroll
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 11:41 am

Everyone should be concerned with this type of legislation. The current Republican crowd would prefer we gut a number of our bill of rights. In this case it’s the 4th amendment. The Republican relegious right would like to gut the 1st amendment as well. The latter are particularly troublesome – they are much like the Taliban. In the name of religion they try to remove a womans right of choice (abortion), if you are gay you should have no rights and are an abomination – really, they are just as intolerant as the Taliban -

avatar
Ed Smith
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 1:32 pm

take the money – take the test

avatar
bob
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 2:20 pm

Nobody is forcing you to take welfare money. I would agree this is an unreasonable intrusion if it was required for something you HAD to do by law. Nobody says you have to take a handout. But, if you chose to, then be prepared to demonstrate you are clean. Not unreasonable.

avatar
CAROL
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 8:23 pm

Totally unreasonable. We can’t help the needy without asking them to submit to humiliation? We can paint the needy with a brush that says they are guilty before proven innocent. When you are in need, is it required to undergo government scrutiny to determine you are worthy or not get help. I think the next time I want to lend a helping hand, I’ll just say if you aren’t willing to show me how you are going to use my help, you can just starve. ‘Let them eat cake’ comes to mind. And again, who is holding the people who created this mess accountable for how they use the money they stole from us that put people in this sorry position in the first place.

avatar
Sean
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 10:44 pm

I will support this law when it is a requirement for every person that takes a Bush Tax Cut will need to submit to monthly drug testing for the months they want to take the Government Handout…

Substance Abuse is a social issue and a medical condition. We should not be allowing people using the Bush Tax Cuts to use the money on drugs it was not intended to purchase drugs it was designed to create jobs so say the Conservatives.

avatar
Edward
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 6:55 am

all testing should be illegal even when companies test new employees a violation of rights should not be tolerated. Does Bachman get tested to receive her 245 million a year in farm subsidies? how about Scott himself? I heard he swindled a bunch of medicare tax monies is he going to take a test? And when is Scott going to realize that A large part of the Economy in FL is based on Tourism?

avatar
Scout2241
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 10:29 am

Odd that the current Republican party can house both the evangelical movement and the right wing tea party. Their viewpoints are so obviously at opposite
ends of the spectrum. “No health insurance, just die.” “The more government
executions, the better.” “Down with privacy rights and abortion rights.” “Get
rid of gays and muslims.” “Electrify the fence on the Mexican border.” “To
hell with rights under the first and sixteenth amendments.”
Its fairly obvious that those espousing these viewpoints may be Republican, but
they’re phoney Christians. False piety used to attack and vilify their fellow
human beings. By the way, the Bible addresses people who loudly proclaim their
faith. And its NOT a celebratory message.

avatar
Dono
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 11:15 am

If we have the shame of testing the poorest among us for taking Government money, then test them all. Test everyone getting Government money for whatever reason. Test the Governor, Congress, the aides in Congress, Cops, Home Inspectors, Teachers, the DMV and every bastard that took Bush’s first half of the TARP money that didn’t have to pay it back. All of the bastards that took Obama’s second half of the TARP money that DID have to pay it back with interest. All the folks on Longboat Key that get subsidized insurance rates for National Flood Insurance. Drug test Ed Smith, the police keep his neighborhood civilized, one of the kids around him goes to school so they don’t have to rob him to survive, he drives on government roads, has a phone that gets government subsidies and uses the internet that the government gave away to the TelCos.
But, can we PLEASE not have Mrs. Rick Scott administer all the test kits? Wait a moment!!!. Mrs. Rick Scott makes a bundle on all the stock that Rick gave her to secure this massive lucrative market for his 62 million dollars in Solantic stock. Every poor person tested – she gets money, so test that woman.
Take the money-take the test!
Everyone that takes the money, including Ed Smith – Take the test.

I’d pass. Most people would.
So far 2% of the welfare folks drug tested bad or dropped the program.
It’s cost us millions to do this measly 2%. We lost money.
The national average is 7 – 9% will be users.
—-
Welfare people then use drugs LESS than the national average.
What a stupid program for stupid people looking to be vindictive.
—-
Drug test all of Ed Smith’s family and friends, too. When pain meds are found in Granny’s blood stream, kick her off Medicare!

avatar
Ed Smith
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 12:32 pm

Take the money – take the test. My family isn’t taking the money.

avatar
Ryan
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 3:35 pm

This is another fake issue created to distract you from the fact that the banks and credit card companies are robbing the middle and lower class blind while being completely responsible for the failing economy for the benefit of the CEO’s and every single politician they buy. Not to mention the trillions of dollars spent on blowing up and rebuilding Iraq that could have been used for education, infrastructure, healthcare, and social security. We’ve signed away our future to the banks. There is no hope.

avatar
Ed Smith
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 6:48 pm

Ryan, All it takes for you to become a CEO is $135 and a good idea. Instead of complaining about your problems, why not become a part of the solution? You can start your own business at http://www.sunbiz.org – you can be the CEO. Surprisingly, CEOs are human beings just like you and me.

avatar
Ed Smith
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 7:16 pm

DONO – so the poorest are taking “government money”? Perhaps a simple concept should be explained to you. Governments don’t have money. They don’t make money. There is no such thing as “government money”. People have money. People make money. The only way our government has access to money is to take money from us. The poor aren’t taking “government money” because “government money” doesn’t exist. The poor are taking other people’s (taxpayers) money.

take the money – take the test

avatar
RJK
Saturday, October 29, 2011 at 6:10 am

Nobody wants to see drug users receive tax dollars to feed their habit. But that’s not the point. In the 1990s, a federal appeals court in Michigan ruled that if one class of citizens (welfare recipients) can be drug tested as a condition of participating in a state-funded program, this would allow legislatures to, for instance, mandate drug testing parents who send their children to state-funded public schools.
____

Or, as “Ed Smith” says, “take the money, take the test.” The court held that if accepting a welfare check from the state creates a reasonable presumption a person is using drugs, then accepting a free education from the state could create a similar presumption. Or Meals on Wheels, subsidized public transportation and other senior services.
___

Want to drug test welfare recipients? Then be prepared for a court to dictate that everyone – from parents to grandma – who accepts services from the state must be made to pee into little bottles. Of course, a urine-based state economy would create a ton of new jobs. And with our bat guano-crazy legislature, you can’t rule out anything.

avatar
Dono
Saturday, October 29, 2011 at 7:25 am

Take the money take the test.
Every politician, every cop, all the recipients of Flood Insurance, test them all.

Test the Rich, they take more of the money than the rest combined.