You seem to be under the impression that
Scott Walker and his minions give a damn
about you and your children. They don't.

She's just speaking out to get others to see reality.

Already get drug tested when they are offered a job. So why should they have to go through it again for the government? Doesn't seem fair to me. Scott Walker is an asshole.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

i think we need to recognize the symptoms of projection. have seen damn few republicans accuse others of sins they themselves do not commit.

so, sure scotty, drug test everyone. everyone elected to jack shit should pee in the cup if you have to do that to get food stamps or a minimum wage job.

but I'm sure they would have an excuse as to why they can't do that.

The wealthy and their bought and paid for politicians hate anyone who requires assistance and regard you as nothing more than freeloader. Republicans are the scum of the earth and those who vote for them are stupid ignorant brain washed nincompoops.

PLEASE

It flouts the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures and our 5th Amendment right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty--due process.

Drug testing of welfare/food stamp recipients implies you're presumed guilty of drug use until you prove yourself innocent, something that's more befitting of dictatorial regimes than constitutional democracies.

but how is it any different than drug testing job applicants? Perfectly legal in that case.

Thanks to the 14th Amendment revoking the states' license to ignore protection against unreasonable searches/seizures and due process.
Private employers, on the other hand, are not, at least not regarding drug testing as a condition of employment, provided the employer foots the bill for the drug test. On the other hand, if the employee has to shell out the money just so he or she can have a job, then we have a problem.

When the government drug tests people applying for government assistance, it presumes a poor person is guilty of drug use, turning due process on its head. Drug teasing welfare/food stamp recipients amounts to a search without probable cause of drug use.

I was drug tested prior to being hired and randomly ever since.

here's to it coming back and boomeranging in his smirky dumbass face one day.

from The Atlantic:


...a federal judge, a nominee of President George W. Bush, struck down for good a dubious Florida law that required state welfare recipients to submit to (and pay for) drug testing as a precondition of receiving benefits. The ruling was not a surprise—the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals presaged it in a February 2013 injunction ruling in this case—but it was nonetheless bracing: a good, old-fashioned screed against a very bad idea.

The 30-page order by U.S. District Judge Mary Stenson Scriven, in Orlando, is an easy read and comes down to an essential point: The government may not condition the receipt of a benefit upon the violation of a constitutional right. What is remarkable is not that every federal judge who has ever looked at this law has found it unconstitutional but that Florida officials—led by the indefatigable Governor Rick Scott—defended it as long as they have.

What was Florida's argument in defense of the statute, passed with overwhelming support by Republicans in May 2011? Both before and after the 11th Circuit ruling last year, the rationale remained the same. The mandatory drug tests were necessary (and legally justified) for all candidates under the "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families" program to: 1) ensure TANF participants’ job readiness; (2) ensure the TANF program meets its child-welfare and family-stability goals; and (3) ensure that public funds are used for their intended purposes and not to undermine public health.

Judge Scrivens rejected these arguments as factually and legally insufficient when she granted a preliminary injunction temporarily halting the law late in 2011. Then the 11th Circuit, one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the nation, did, too. Language from the 11th Circuit ruling last year that upheld Judge Scrivens' injunction gives you the best sense of how far short Florida fell in meeting its obligation to keep its citizens free from "suspicionless drug testing."

The court concluded:

The only pertinent inquiry is whether there is a substantial special need for mandatory, suspicionless drug testing of TANF recipients when there is

- no immediate or direct threat to public safety,

- when those being searched are not directly involved in the frontlines of drug interdiction,

- when there is no public school setting where the government has a responsibility for the care and tutelage of its young students,

- or when there are no dire consequences or grave risk of imminent physical harm as a result of waiting to obtain a warrant if a TANF recipient, or anyone else for that matter, is suspected of violating the law.

We conclude that, on this record, the answer to that question of whether there is a substantial special need for mandatory suspicionless drug testing is “no.”


read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/01/poverty-in-a-cup-why-a-federal-judge-rejected-a-florida-drug-test-requirement/282825/