Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Post #303 Welfare In Florida : A Crime To Be Poor?

I got another "Fwd" e-mail -- "Hooray for Florida!!!!" -- and was asked to "Fwd" it if I agreed 100%. No, I do not agree 100% with that e-mail, and I refuse to engage in narrow-minded stereotyping to as a reason to violate the Constitution.

The e-mail said: "In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, 'If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free.' Applicants who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment. Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving funds for three years! Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional ?"

This policy is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. The Constitution says that the government may conduct searches based on the reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed, and it is unreasonable to suspect a welfare recipient of a crime just because they receive welfare.

That is not just my opinion; it is an opinion held by the courts, including the Supreme Court -- Scalia and Thomas, you may have heard of 'em. :p

Yes, I am aware that 'peeing in a cup' is NOT a big deal, but that, too, has been ruled a 'search' by those same courts. You know, a search of your home computer is NOT a big deal, either -- how about we target those lazy Social Security recipients who scam the system?

The problem, I think, is that many people are mistakenly thinking the Bill Of Rights applies to private employers. Of course, the truth is a private employer can violate an employee's rights willy-nilly and order searches -- non-evasive searches will not raise a peep. Nor should they -- when conducted by a private employer.

The first rounds of testing in Florida showed that 96% of welfare recipients were clean -- a better average than the general public -- while 2%.were dirty and 2% refused to take the test. Maybe they should test college students... or politicians. :p

But people say -- as the e-mail stated: "It's completely legal that every other working [person has] to pass drug tests in order to get a J-O-B" -- FALSE: I've never taken a drug test to get a J-O-B and do not know anybody who has. Indeed, being a policeman is the only J-O-B around here that requires a drug test.

The e-mail began: "I-95 will be jammed for the next month or so........Druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida .."

A joke or an exaggeration is NOT funny when it leads to discriminatory policy -- such as, most child molesters are bald men, let's take all bald men downtown and give 'em a psychological test to prove they are OK. That's NOT funny if you're bald! :p

You want to help? Call the police 'tip line' and report a welfare recipient you know to be using drugs. Or tell the lawmakers to spend money on more police or rehab instead of targeting 'them' with drug tests. Or de-criminalize drugs.

Making sure 'they' are drug-free may or may not be a worthy goal, but try a different -- constitutional -- approach.

2 comments:

Spidey said...

Uh, you do know someone who had to take a drug test to get a job; I had to for two of the last three jobs I got. No big deal, as landed both of them.

TheDaF said...

:p Well, of course, I meant "around here." I just wanted to let that e-mail writer know that there are still places in this country where a man is free. None of that socialism where the government decides what you can or cannot put into your body.