iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Drug Testing For People Seeking Welfare In Georgia Likely To Face Legal Challenges

By RAY HENRY 03/17/12 10:29 AM ET AP

Georgia Drug Testing

ATLANTA -- A push to require drug tests for people seeking welfare payments in Georgia is nearly certain to be challenged in court if passed, as judges have already struck down similar laws in other states.

The U.S. Constitution bans governments from randomly drug testing people. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined special exceptions to that, when a serious public need outweighs a person's right to privacy. But exactly what falls within that exception can get murky.

"We're not naĂŻve to the fact that it will receive a court challenge," said Rep. Jason Spencer, R-Woodbine, a testing supporter. Advocates say the bill is needed to protect children and make sure tax money isn't spent on illegal drugs, though opponents say such measures amount to illegal searches of people when there is no evidence they have committed a crime.

Drug testing requirements for people seeking welfare payments have been given initial approval in Georgia's Republican-dominated General Assembly. Similar bills requiring testing for people seeking welfare, food stamps, health care or other assistance are pending in at least two dozen other states. Such laws have already been deemed unconstitutional in Michigan in 2000 and Florida last year.

People who fail a drug test would lose their benefits at least a month until they test clean under one of Georgia's proposals. Those who fail several tests could lose their welfare money indefinitely under the strictest plan. Final details are still being worked out.

Budget officials estimate the testing program proposed by Georgia's Senate would cost anywhere from $126,000 to $393,000 annually. That cost takes into account the money state officials expect to save by not paying drug users.

About a quarter of the 19,200 eligible people who make new welfare applications annually could be tested under a Senate version of the bill, according to an analysis by budget officials. The state expects 17 percent – or 816 people annually – will fail drug tests, a rate based on a 2007 federal study that examined drug use by people ages 18 to 25.

There are variables. Some drug tests are more expensive than others. People who fail drug tests could also reapply. If they pass a subsequent drug test and are enrolled in welfare, that would decrease the savings for the state. And no one knows for certain how many people would fail the drug tests, especially because different studies produce different results.

Judges have made clear exceptions to privacy in previous rulings – for instance, the Supreme Court has said railroad employees can be tested if they are involved in accidents because of the need to maintain railroad safety and the link between drug abuse and accidents.

However, there are limits to how far the government can intrude on a person's private life, even when it comes to illegal drug use. In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down a Georgia law that would have required candidates for statewide office to pass a drug test to get on the ballot.

The nation's high court has not specifically ruled on whether drug tests can be a condition of getting government benefits, though legal scholars say the court's earlier decisions suggest it would be unconstitutional. So far, lower courts have agreed.

"The mere fact that you're getting a government benefit is not sufficient, I would think," said Peter Meyers, a law professor at George Washington University who studies drug testing laws.

In 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts struck down a Michigan law requiring drug screenings for welfare applicants. She said the state failed to prove that its testing was a response to a public safety issue. While Michigan authorities said the testing would protect the children of drug abusers, Roberts said that argument could open the door to testing a much wider range of people getting government assistance. She called it a "dangerous precedent."

A three-judge appeals panel initially reversed that ruling, though Roberts' ruling ultimately stood when the full 6th U.S. Circuit of Appeals split on the issue.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Mary Scriven halted Florida's law until a lawsuit over it can be resolved. She ruled the state did not prove welfare recipients were more likely than others to abuse drugs. Furthermore, she was unconvinced the tests were needed to ensure tax dollars were not spent on drugs. That could lead to the government testing anyone who received any type of government benefit, which would be unconstitutional, Scriven said.

"The constitutional rights of a class of citizens are at stake," she wrote in her ruling.

Her ruling has been appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

In Georgia, one of the bill's sponsors said the proposal could overcome that reasoning. Sen. John Albers' legislation lists four reasons the state's need for drug testing outweighs privacy concerns: Making sure taxpayer money is not spent on illegal drugs, protecting children from the consequences of drug abuse, rehabilitating addicts and protecting public health.

Welfare applicants who fail the tests would not be reported to police, so it's not an unreasonable search, Albers said. Test results could not be released without an applicant's permission. If people want to avoid drug tests, they should not apply for welfare, he said.

He added that lawmakers have a duty "to make sure that the dollars we use – our state tax dollars – are not funding illegal activities."

Critics say the proposals could further harm already poor families. One version of the bill would deduct the cost of the testing from welfare payments. Poor children could still receive welfare payments if their parents failed a test.

In protest, Democratic Rep. Scott Holcomb has backed legislation that would force state lawmakers to take drug tests.

"We should lead by example and not just pick on part of society," he said.

___

FOLLOW POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
ATLANTA -- A push to require drug tests for people seeking welfare payments in Georgia is nearly certain to be challenged in court if passed, as judges have already struck down similar laws in other s...
ATLANTA -- A push to require drug tests for people seeking welfare payments in Georgia is nearly certain to be challenged in court if passed, as judges have already struck down similar laws in other s...
Filed by Paige Lavender  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 92
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Catalina hime
Humor and Pocky is how I get by.
01:18 AM on 03/27/2012
"Shouldn't you have to pass a urine test to collect a welfare check? ... Since I have to pass one to earn it for you" Just saw this on facebook and it makes complete sense.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sawyer116
08:22 AM on 02/08/2013
Do your legislators have to pee in a cup to run for office? They are being paid by you too at a much higher rate than a welfare recipient. I want to see the ones in my state's drug tests! We already know that we've got legislator's who would be LUI...Legislating under the influence!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
03:37 AM on 03/19/2012
""We're not naĂŻve to the fact that it will receive a court challenge," said Rep. Jason Spencer, R-Woodbine, a testing supporter."
--------------------------------------------------->

So then it must make perfect sense to the republicans to travel down this same path, with no new evidence or supporting data. If they feel that strongly then they shoud stop accepting federal money, terminate all "welfare" programs and let people fendfor themselves. Put their money where their mouths are (and see how they will fare with reelection.)

This pursuit is dumb, irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
03:28 AM on 03/19/2012
When the matter came up and prior to it being struck down in Floridad Drug testing was being sought for people receiving unemployment compensation. That was widely publically unpopular and there was no evidence to support the republican claims that prompted the legislation. Additionally there was anything but agreement that unemployment is in fact "welfare."

Now a wider net is being casted. Food stamps and many other programs are being included in the scope. The republicans are bound and determined to find someone receiving some sort of funding from the government who tests positive in order to fulfill their prophesy. Still they have no proof that what they say is true. They want to implement the law, then collect the information with the hopes of back-validating their initial claim.

But the harder they push this issue le less likely they are to succeed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gunrunner99
freedom of speech
04:42 PM on 07/03/2012
Well, if I had children and, was receiving help with them,( from taxpayers),I would be in line for a drug test,why wouldnt I? Why in the world do I have to go through random drug test at my job,when I pay taxes,which supports 53% of the population and,they dont have to take a drug test to get FREE money..etc. ??? Why would anyone be against this???
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
01:57 AM on 07/11/2012
You have provided an almost perfectly circular argument.  But the point is that if drugs weren't part of the condition of the termination (for UEC) by federal law it can't be part of the consideration of approval of benefits.  So it really doesn't matter what your preference is.  So now imagine yourself being okay with being tested because the rest of the bumbs and scumbbags don't pay taxes and they get benefits and you want to prove a point.  So you get turned down on a false positive on a test that YOU paid for out of your pocket for which you aren't reimbursed, so now you CAN'T feed your family.  That self-righteousness and authoritarianism doesn't buy much at the market. Just sayin'..
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ronp121
12:03 PM on 03/18/2012
Se if they aren't spending their money on drugs than it's buying Representatives to stop illegal searches of their pee pee. Probably had to give up drugs to take on the challenge. Don't they know they should just lay down and give up? Sounds to much like they still want to be the old America. Remember that was the place where you could live and still have rights.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Ernst Angst
Recovering Republican. Clean since 1980
12:27 PM on 03/18/2012
'Remember how we danced
And remember what we sang
In America So many years ago?'

--Diana Part 2
by SlickKantner
"Sunfighter" CD

Parts 1 & 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtn8hhf591E
photo
chinacatsunflower
never tease a weasel
11:52 AM on 03/18/2012
i'm not getting it - how does denying benefits protect children???
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gunrunner99
freedom of speech
04:44 PM on 07/03/2012
How does having a druggie living off the system,(that is a parent),protect children?
nothingchanges
too soon old, too late smart
10:19 AM on 03/18/2012
I ran my own small business for decades. I remember (fondly) one employee came up to me one day saying "you know, I work harder for you than anyone I've ever worked for in my life, and I enjoy it, I'm just trying to keep up".

I've always felt the best leaders, were those who lead by example.

Who is in the position to damage our society more. The Unemployed? or those in positions of power?

Think drug tests are a necessity?...................You first Representatives.

Put you bodies where your mouth is...................lead by example.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gunrunner99
freedom of speech
04:46 PM on 07/03/2012
Well, I do agree that ALL politicians should have to take drug test or lose their job,but the same goes for the ones living off our system,why wouldnt they take the test?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sawyer116
08:34 AM on 02/08/2013
How many 6 year olds have no control over "living off the system"...??? Those are the ones you're punishing...and the results have CLEARLY shown that more of your tax dollars are paid to the labs than are paid to the recipients! What kind of investment is that???
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nutzodriven
09:43 AM on 03/18/2012
Do not know why it not done in all states, We have to take a drug test to work They should take a drug test to get our tax money. Only reason people upset is they cant do drugs and get paid for it. Always see people in line with a foodstamp credit card, welfare check, why pull out a wad of cash to pay for what is not allowed, Think we need to audit the entitled class and see if they really need it. Cause if they have more cash in their pocket then the average worker, then they dont need welfare. Go to a grocery store, observe. I do. I cannot afford lobster or other high end food products, but they can.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sawyer116
08:38 AM on 02/08/2013
There's no way you regularly see people on food stamps buying lobster!!! If you have one example of that, report it! The bizarre examples are nothing but an excuse!! We have 16 million kids that are at risk of going hungry every day in this country. When you can produce a single one of those children that deserves to go hungry, I'll listen!
09:00 AM on 03/18/2012
The benefits are currently given as welfare or assistance.

If the recipient is hired as an employee or contractor of the state the drug test may be legal.

I don’t really care if welfare recipients are tested but it seems a focused requirement.

Shouldn’t people awarded contracts with the state be tested?

Railroad employees are tested if there is an accident. How about doctors and nurses after a death in a hospital?

The subject testing does not appear to be a way to curb drug use but to save money.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sawyer116
08:43 AM on 02/08/2013
They test employees in GA when there is a work related injury. The employers get a discount if they have a drug testing policy like this. I've seen the results, and those that test positive are extremely, rare! The testing for this investment in starving more GA children is a dismal failure. The only ones benefiting are our GA legislators who have invested in the labs testing these people! It's a prime example of the GA attitude! GA politicians are leading the nation in pure ignorance and stupidity...all GOP touted as Tea Party favorites!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grf67
06:00 AM on 03/18/2012
How about drug testiing for anyone paid with public funds? The military already does this; why not the politicians?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nutzodriven
09:45 AM on 03/18/2012
Most politicians be thrown in jail that why they dont do it. Good idea tho.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sawyer116
08:45 AM on 02/08/2013
They'd make more money if they drug tested the ones in the companies that are given the "corporate welfare" in GA. That would produce some of those positives the baggers are just giddy at the prospect of seeing. Notice the excuse they used for the dismal negatives..."Maybe it's just not being reported enough"....Seriously????
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dennidus1680
03:17 AM on 03/18/2012
"Supreme Court struck down a Georgia law that would have required candidates for statewide office to pass a drug test to get on the ballot." That was because it was politicians. Our lowly people however, are considered another animal altogether by the Supreme Idiots.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Seymourhiney
03:08 AM on 03/18/2012
The economy is struggling, people need jobs, Iran might go nuclear. These people only want to pee test the poor. They have lost any compass.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dennidus1680
03:18 AM on 03/18/2012
Just changing the subject to distract the credulous from what they are not doing or are trying to get away with.
RealistBC
Micro-bios must pass muster.
02:33 AM on 03/18/2012
As easily as drug testing results can be faked, and with the shoddy chain of custody rules preventing protection from tampering, and with a clear bias by the current ruling party of Georgia toward those who don't look and spend exactly like them, this is not going to be anything more than a 21st Century Jim Crow activity.
12:43 AM on 03/18/2012
I'm so glad I live in a blue state.
photo
Shrank
We are sorry, your micro-bio is not PC
12:15 AM on 03/18/2012
Drug tests? Then why not intelligence tests? Or reading tests?

We can't have stupid people who can't read on welfare. It endangers our national security.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dennidus1680
03:19 AM on 03/18/2012
Or for politicians. They cause much more harm.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gunrunner99
freedom of speech
04:51 PM on 07/03/2012
I think the point is....people use OUR tax money for drugs,if they dont,then why fight pissing in a bottle? If they cant read,that doesnt affect my paycheck,,(although,they have free help for that problem.)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sawyer116
08:48 AM on 02/08/2013
Did you read the results? What the article failed to tell you is how much is being spent (and going into these politician's pockets) of YOUR tax money! The money spent in GA on drug testing is where the waste is, gunrunner99...not the pee in a bottle folks! I'd love to see the free help plan...where and what??? They haven't gotten that far because they've had ONE...ONE negative! So what's really the point because it's not getting undeserving children off food stamps is it?????
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
idisVA
08:40 PM on 03/17/2012
These laws are unconstitutional but yet right wing politicians in Red States keep coming up with them wasting tremendous amount of limited resources.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Fattonecat
whoops !!
12:38 AM on 03/18/2012
They're trying to drown the government so they can complete their slow motion coup d'etat.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nutzodriven
09:50 AM on 03/18/2012
No they are not. Majority of the workers are required to take one, By Federal law, since it is federal law its not unconsitutional.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jaredbrain
10:36 AM on 03/18/2012
federal laws can be unconstitutional. we strike them down all the time for being unconstitutional.
12:42 PM on 03/18/2012
I don't know why you keep saying the majority of workers have to take a drug test. I have had many jobs through my life, but yet only one place asked for drug testing. That place sold copiers. I have worked in security for a city for ten years and have never been asked to take a drug test. If the majority of workers are required to, it certainly has not been an issue with me or my friends and family. Please provide some info on your findings.