|
tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/15/2012 10:50:49 PM)
|
Yes, after they were caught. Not through drug testing. Florida tried it, and it was a dismal failure which ended up costing the tax payers money.
Thus far, the Florida drug testing requirement has yielded only a 2 percent positive test result. That means two things for Florida residents:
* Most welfare applicants are, in fact, not illicit drug users, as is so often believed by the general public.
* Florida is now on the hook to reimburse those who did pass their drug tests. Again: How was this move a money-saving measure?
If an applicant does show up positive on a drug test, they'll either be denied benefits for six months or be expected to undergo a drug treatment program.
Was this worth the cost?
2% at, I believe, 40 a pop.
So he treats everyone like criminals, and yet expects a pass until he is "caught"? To me, it would be the same as a crack user getting caught with the pipe in his mouth. Not this... this is a waste of money and something even our politicians wont go for.
As to your question about politicians being drug tested.
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supreme-court/testing-politicians-for-drugs.html
Now, keep in mind, this was in Georgia, the same state as the Rep who was arrested.
Libertarians had their first win in the Supreme Court when they successfully sued to strike down a Georgia law that required all politicians be tested for drugs before being allowed on the ballot. The Supreme Court ruled this law unconstitutional on April 15, 1997.
Walker Chandler, who ran for lieutenant governor in Georgia in 1994, took and passed the required drug test, but filed suit questioning the validity of the law. The legal battle took three years to get to the Supreme Court. Chandler lost twice before making it to the Supreme Court, once in the district court and once in the 11th Circuit Court.
The Supreme Court finally agreed to hear his appeal on January 14, 1996. His argument was based on the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against “unreasonable” searches. Chandler believed there should be some limit to “suspicionless drug testing.” The Supreme Court agreed with him voting 8 to 1 to declare Georgia's law unconstitutional.
“By requiring candidates for public office to submit to drug testing, Georgia displays its commitment to the struggle against drug abuse. The suspicionless tests, according to respondents, signify that candidates, if elected, will be fit to serve their constituents free from the influence of illegal drugs. But Georgia asserts no evidence of a drug problem among the State's elected officials, those officials typically do not perform high risk, safety sensitive tasks, and the required certification immediately aids no interdiction effort. The need revealed, in short, is symbolic, not 'special,' as that term draws meaning from our case law … where the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as 'reasonable'—for example, searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and other official buildings … But where, as in this case, public safety is not genuinely in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes the suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently arranged.”
So, why are welfare recipients treated differently?
|
|
|
|
