In the last few days there's been a lot of national attention paid to legislation introduced in over 20 states proposing drug testing applicants and recipients of public benefits. Last week, USA Today ran a piece highlighting this disturbing trend and the Associated Press ran another story last weekend. Both of these pieces highlighted the ACLU's work nationwide, on the ground in state legislatures and in the courts, to stop these nefarious laws from going into effect.
Both articles talk about the dozens of states where these bills have been introduced, but they both neglect to mention a key point: two months into the state legislative session, not a single welfare drug testing bill has passed into law. In fact, in state after state these bills are dying, in part due to the high costs of implementing such laws. Virginia decided that spending $1.3 million in the first year of implementation to create a drug testing program was just too much for a program that was projected to save the state only $229,165 in its first year.
There are other problems with the bill as well, perhaps most concerning that they target poor people for unconstitutional privacy violations without any proof that it's necessary. As the ACLU's Jason Williamson told USA Today, the proposed laws inaccurately suggest that people on welfare use drugs more than others. He went on: "This exemplifies the extent to which folks are willing to scapegoat poor people when it suits political interests… Subjecting people who are receiving public benefits to government intrusion, and the singling out of poor people in this country under the guise of saving money is worrisome to us."
So far, the courts agree with us as well. We've written here before about the case of Luis Lebron; he's the single father, full time student and Navy veteran who cares for his young son and disabled mother. Luis also happens to live in Florida, the state which passed the most extensive welfare drug testing law in the country last year. Luis refused to give up his privacy and submit to a drug test in order to access welfare and, with the assistance of the ACLU of Florida, sued the state to stop this unconstitutional law. We won the preliminary ruling and a judge stopped the Florida law from being implemented.
Unfortunately the state of Florida would not stop there and appealed the decision. Last week, the ACLU of Florida filed our response to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. We are prepared to keep fighting this case and these proposed laws, as long as necessary.
Follow Rachel Bloom on Twitter: www.twitter.com/aclu
Some of the laws being proposed don't automatically remove recipients from the welfare roles. Instead they direct them to seek counseling... paid for by the tax payers.
Drug test are most likely to identify marijuana users since THC remains in the system much longer than residuals from other drugs like cocaine, opiates, etc... I don't know how you feel but I believe marijuana should be legal.
The 14th amendment may be our last chance to turn it back around.
If I must prove innocence in advance to receive money from the government, then so must Haliburton, BP, GE, Westinghouse, etc. That's what equal protection means.
I think the suggestion is more accurately that if you are poor you need to be taking steps to get yourself off the dole, rather than chasing the next high.
Has anyone asked who stands to profit by mandating these tests? Bring the supporters of such legislation in front of a Senate committee, put them under oath, and ask them what medical companies/corporations would be providing these services and would stand to profit by such legislation.
Read the link below for a revealing news article:
"One of the more popular services at Solantic, the urgent care chain co-founded by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, is drug testing, according to Solantic CEO Karen Bowling.
"Given Solantic's role in that marketplace, critics are again asking whether Scott's policy initiatives - this time, requiring drug testing of state employees and welfare recipients - are designed to benefit Scott's bottom line.
"The Palm Beach Post reported in an exclusive story two weeks ago that while Scott divested his interest in Solantic in January, the controlling shares went to a trust in his wife's name."
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html?printArticle=y
It appears to have become a cottage industry that we the tax payers are on the hook for. These are the same people arguing for less government and against so called "Obama care."
Let's face it if you are getting a "free ride," you can afford to belong to these radical groups...at tax payer expense.
Throughout your post you make references to Social Security which is not welfare. I am on Social Security Disability and do not consider myself to be on welfare. I've worked most of my life and paid into it, I had already exceeded the required units to retire at the time I was determined to be disabled, I just didn't want to wait until I was 65 to file for Social Security Retirement. Actually I wanted to keep right on working but couldn't because I had been seriously injured in a job related accident.
I know full well that HuffPost only allows comments to be a certain length which prohibits being able to fully explain ones position on an issue. This results in misunderstandings as to what a person is talking about sometimes.
Which is why I have my HuffPost account "shared" with my Blogger account so the issue can be further discussed without limitations or restrictions. Even though we are [supposedly] no longer able to post a link to the "shared" blog with our posts.
This is actually a great idea because if the 1% want this law, then they can provide the funds for it and the poor can bankrupt them by passing the test.
teacons got to hate it when the control factor they so desparately want actually costs money
I never thought, in America, that a citizen would be assumed Guilty until proven Innocent of a charge pulled out of the air with no basis in fact. Um, oh yeah, Gitmo.