Pubdate: Fri, 03 Jan 2014
Source: St. Augustine Record (FL)
Copyright: 2014 The St. Augustine Record
Contact:  http://www.staugustine.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/771

DRUG TESTING RULING WRONG

Apparently what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander

In a 30-page order, a U.S. District Judge in Orlando ruled Tuesday
that drug testing welfare recipients in the State of Florida is illegal.

The decision, specifically, made permanent an earlier, temporary ban
by another judge. The initial lawsuit was brought primarily by the
American Civil Liberties Union. It contended that drug testing welfare
recipients is an unconstitutional search and seizure. The judge said,
in part, that she found "no set of circumstances under which the
warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be
constitutionally applied."

Florida has been screening applicants when they applied for Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families relief since 2011.

If drug screening is wrong then it's wrong. If it's right, it's right.
We're not arguing that point here. But what is wrong-headed about the
decision is that it's applied to one group of citizen and not others.

The Record, for instance, drug tests all employees and has for many
years. Our drug-screening program certainly is "warrantless and
suspicionless." We don't assume that everyone seeking employment here
is suspicious, and we surely did not serve a warrant to test them. Why
is it different for those seeking financial aid?

Legislative supporters of the drug-testing program argue that welfare
recipients need to be drug-free in order to enter the workforce - in
which they'll most likely be tested anyway. They also say that drug
use in any family potentially threatens the welfare of the children,
for whom most of the aid is targeted.

Both these arguments make sense.

Opponents of the testing say, as did ACLU Executive Director Howard
Simon, that, "The court is sending a message to politicians that
they're not going to be allowed to treat poor people as if they have
no constitutional rights." Some say that requiring recipients to pay
for the drug tests is an unwarranted expense. But, at least in
Florida, recipients pay for the test - Usually between $25 and $50 -
only if they fail it; those who pass, get a pass. Some say the
practice scapegoats the unemployed.

We say it scapegoats those who fail, just as it does in the private
sector. Locally the county requires drug testing for job applicants.
The Constitutional officers do as well. At the Sheriff's Office even
the civilian employees must pass a drug test and a polygraph.

Shoot, people are required to pass eyesight tests in order to
drive.

Some folks do make an interesting point, however, in the argument of
required drug tests. In a Huffington Post poll, 64 percent of
respondents favored requiring drug testing for welfare recipients; 18
percent opposed it. A larger majority of the group favored random drug
testing for members of Congress - 78 percent for and just 7 percent
against. In the same survey respondents said that lawmakers convicted
of possessing a small amount of cocaine should be forced out of
office. Just 14 percent said that they should be allowed to finish out
a term of office.

Over 70 percent of those in the poll also said they support
drug-testing for the military, airline pilots and professional athletes.

If drugs are illegal, testing for them should not be if you want
welfare assistance. Those who fail have already proven they're using
illegal substances. Why in the world should the taxpayers bankroll it?
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt