Florida governor orders random drug testing of state employees and welfare recipients

[TastesLikeChicken]

Doesn't matter what the Legality is. Chances are this Law is Unconstitutional though.

What part of the Constitution is involved?

 

[sandorski]

How so?

This sounds like a good idea to me. Random checks for people that are living off others. I support it.

Of course you support it, because it makes no sense. Save Money? No, it Costs money.

 

[sandorski]

What part of the Constitution is involved?

Privacy.

 

[Matt1970]

Drug tests have been ruled constitutional. The government already gives them to a lot of their employees.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Privacy.

Does the privacy clause allow you to break the law in the process?

 

[sandorski]

Drug tests have been ruled constitutional. The government already gives them to a lot of their employees.

Only for specific circumstances, such as where Safety is a concern. Not some sweeping "test them all" way.

 

[sandorski]

Does the privacy clause allow you to break the law in the process?

Doesn't matter.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Doesn't matter.

I'm pretty sure it does. For example, claiming "Judge, I was printing those counterfeit notes in the privacy of my own home." probably won't fly. Just like "I was smoking that crack on my own time in my bedroom." doesn't quite cut it.

 

[xj0hnx]

Privacy.

It has nothing to do with invading anyone's privacy if they are coming to the government asking for taxpayer money, don't want to be piss tested, don't take welfare. It's no different than them checking you bank accounts and the last few months of bank transactions, which they already do if you ask for welfare, or other social handouts.

 

[Zorkorist]

It's unavoidable, that knowlege is used by an employer.

Like the movie Gattaca, we will all become who we are.

But, just like in the movie Gattaca, there will be exceptions to the rule.

-John

 

[sandorski]

I'm pretty sure it does. For example, claiming "Judge, I was printing those counterfeit notes in the privacy of my own home." probably won't fly. Just like "I was smoking that crack on my own time in my bedroom." doesn't quite cut it.

You're way off topic, that has nothing to do with this issue.

 

[sandorski]

It has nothing to do with invading anyone's privacy if they are coming to the government asking for taxpayer money, don't want to be piss tested, don't take welfare. It's no different than them checking you bank accounts and the last few months of bank transactions, which they already do if you ask for welfare, or other social handouts.

Incorrect. You do not rescind your Civil Rights in order to collect Government Assistance.

 

[HendrixFan]

I would love to see any and all politicians who draw public salaries be subjected to drug testing.

 

[xj0hnx]

Only for specific circumstances, such as where Safety is a concern. Not some sweeping "test them all" way.

Wrong, the military does exactly that if they want. Sounds like it's nothing but random, or situational testing of current employees, and applicants.

 

[xj0hnx]

Incorrect. You do not rescind your Civil Rights in order to collect Government Assistance.

They aren't violating anything, especially civil rights, by insuring that the people asking for assistance from the government aren't using illegal drugs and trying to pay for them, or things they would be able to afford if they weren't doing them, with taxpayer money

 

[sandorski]

They aren't violating anything, especially civil rights, by insuring that the people asking for assistance from the government aren't using illegal drugs and trying to pay for them, or things they would be able to afford if they weren't doing them, with taxpayer money

Moot points.

 

[xj0hnx]

I would love to see any and all politicians who draw public salaries be subjected to drug testing.

If they started at the President, and tested everyone all the way down to the lowest intern there would be no problem's here. Personally, I think the entire War on Drugs™ needs to come to an end, but that still doesn't change that if you want to work for the people, and be paid by the people, than the people have the right to make sure you aren't abusing drugs on their dime.

 

[xj0hnx]

Moot points.

Sorry just because Failorski thinks they're moot doesn't make them moot, and they aren't ...at all.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You're way off topic, that has nothing to do with this issue.

Your response was "Doesn't matter."

You opened it up to be off topic. Maybe if your posts didn't trend towards the generic, non-specific type of response that wouldn't happen?

Define specifically how it it doesn't matter, if you're not afraid to do so.

 

[sandorski]

Your response was "Doesn't matter."

You opened it up to be off topic. Maybe if your posts didn't trend towards the generic, non-specific type of response that wouldn't happen?

Define specifically how it it doesn't matter, if you're not afraid to do so.

The Legality of Drugs has nothing to do with the Need of someone for Financial Assistance. aka, your points were moot.

 

[sandorski]

Sorry just because Failorski thinks they're moot doesn't make them moot, and they aren't ...at all.

Troll is weak.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The Legality of Drugs has nothing to do with the Need of someone for Financial Assistance. aka, your points were moot.

If someone on welfare is buying illegal drugs they don't deserve welfare in the first place. It's a concept. It's not hard to comprehend. You still haven't explained how that would be unconstitutional as you claimed. Plese explain where, specifically, such a thing would be unconstitutional. I'm waiting. Simply replying with "privacy" doesn't mean squat.

 

[sandorski]

If someone on welfare is buying illegal drugs they don't deserve welfare in the first place. It's a concept. It's not hard to comprehend. You still haven't explained how that would be unconstitutional as you claimed. Plese explain where, specifically, such a thing would be unconstitutional. I'm waiting. Simply replying with "privacy" doesn't mean squat.

Why?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Why?

Because.

 

[sandorski]

Because.

That's what I thought.