While it is a good idea, other states have tried to enforce it only to be stuck down as unconstitutional~~

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article4261889.html


TALLAHASSEE
A federal appeals court on Wednesday dealt another blow to Gov. Rick Scott’s crusade to conduct drug tests on welfare applicants when it upheld a lower court ruling that the practice was unconstitutional.

The unanimous ruling from a bipartisan panel of judges concluded that the state failed to show any evidence as to why it was necessary to force applicants seeking Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to surrender their constitutional rights as a condition of receiving the aid.<snip>



“We have no reason to think impoverished individuals are necessarily and inherently prone to drug use, or, for that matter, are more prone to drug use than the general population,” the court said in its 54-page ruling.

Proponents hailed the decision, which came just two weeks after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case, and predicted it would have broader impact in protecting the rights of people receiving a wider range of government benefits — from Bright Futures scholarships to driver’s licenses.

“This should be the end of the road for the governor’s crusade,” said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, which sued the state. “The opinion says that people cannot be forced to surrender constitutional rights as a condition of any government benefit — driver licenses, library cards, student loans and farm subsidies.”


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article4261889.html#storylink=cpy


http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2014/04/22/good-news-supreme-court-rules-against-sweeping-drug-tests/

You don’t win them all, but once in awhile you win one. And in this case, it really matters.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to hear an appeal by Florida Governor, Republican and presidential-candidate wannabe Rick Scott. Scott, since 2011, has been trying to mandate random drug tests for some 85,000 state workers because, yeah, drugs are bad or something. Scott’s executive order did not apply only to employees, such as drivers or pilots, whose duties might in fact be severely affected by drug use. Everybody, from receptionists to scuba divers, would be subject. By refusing to reopen the case, the Supreme Court agreed that Scott’s order was so broad as to violate Constitutional protections against unwarranted search and seizure.

Scott issued a statement saying state employees “should have the right to work in a safe and drug free environment, just like in any other business.” The governor noted that portions of the case are still being debated in Miami federal court and that he would “continue to fight” for expanded employee drug testing despite the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case.

How Did the Supreme Court Get Involved Anyway?

The interesting thing is that this issue was put on the Supreme Court’s doorstep at all. A lower court already conclusively said no, sweeping random drug tests are not Constitutional. Done, next issue please. The state of Florida didn’t want to let the tests go, and sought to appeal to the Supreme Court, hoping they might say yes when all the lower courts had already said no. The thing is that lots of people want their cases heard by the Supremes, and so there is a weeding out process. Basically, you have to first ask the Court to take your case. Such asking is done quite formally, via a petition, called a writ of certiorari, or simply a cert. Through the cert process, the court sets its own agenda. Some 10,000 certs are submitted in a typical year.

Typically, fewer than 100 of those 10,000 petitions are chosen to move forward for a possibly precedent-setting decision. However, only a tiny number of all the certs filed are initiated by the government; on average, just 15 in a Supreme Court term. Tough odds. The bottom line is if the Supreme Court chooses not to hear from case, the lower court decision stands. That’s what happened with Florida, and Scott lost. Again.

This ruling effectuates what will ultimately happen when other states move forward with it and are challenged.........

Drug testing isn't nearly enough. I like what the young Texas lady wrote a few years back to a local newspaper which saw fit to publish her letter:

PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

Fine add the drug testing to include workmens comp,ssi,disability as well! Hell don't stop there drug test parents who use head start too!The point is where do you draw the line? The problem is who ends up suffering? The kids? The middle class? Im not even mentioning the poor it seems the only time government even thinks about them is when their is talk of down sizing their safety net!Anybody besides me in here ever worked with 5 thru 10 year olds and you couldn't eat your lunch in front of them because they were starving and always begging for your food! Bottom line i could care less about drug test or politicians trying to satisfy their base!

Agreed. This has the flavor of the War on Drugs, a poorly thought out policy that drove people on the margins to the bottom of the poverty cycle. If the concept seems so attractive why not extend it to the coddled corporations that get subsidies and massive tax breaks. Welfare is welfare whether it is food stamps or a government bailout because your company practised corporate greed instead of sound conservative fiscal policies. Line up all the CEO's and CFO's of these companies and force them to take drug tests as a condition to receiving tax payer corporate welfare. I see no distinction......

I don't advocate drug use but, i have to take the libertarian side on this one. Is this still America where a person innocent until proven guilty or do we now live in a country where you must prove your innocence before being accused of a crime. The "war on drugs" is a total scam meant to put more people in poverty and it has worked. The main problem with present day drug tests for marijuana is that it does not indicate that you are high at the moment. THC is not water soluble and stays in your system for up to 60 days, while the "high" only lasts 6 to 12 hours, this means a person could've " burned one" in the privacy of his own home a month and a half ago and test positive on his prerequisite drug test for employment or in this case welfare. Until Science Develops a test that would indicate if you are intoxicated on marijuana at the moment of testing, i can not advocate "random drug testing", and probably wouldn't even then. Remember innocent until proven guilty with probable cause. IMO, better to let pot heads that want to work ,work, then if there is an accident or problem with their performance ( probable cause) test them with an accurate drug test. If said test is positive, terminate and prosecute with the full extent of the law. I could ramble on but I will leave it at that.