Yet another ridiculous article that was posted today:
Kudos to Florida for stepping it up. Since the invention of welfare there should have been mandatory drug testing. While we’re at it, why not require they apply for at least one job a week, so long as you’re of sound mind and body. I’ve been drug tested to GO TO WORK for my income, why should they receive income for free without one? This unconstitutional argument is worthless. If it really is an “illegal search”, then why is it legal for employers to do so? This is a slippery slope, because if it is ruled unconstitutional then ALL drug tests must be seen the same way. If I’m an employer, and I don’t want a crackhead operating machinery, it should be my right to ensure that doesn’t happen. And whoever did the research on drug use has a very tough sell, at least in my world. They stated:
70% of illegal drug users between the age of 18 and 49 are employed full time.
Only 2 out of 40 (5%) welfare applicants tested in Florida came up positive.
Using this logic, we SHOULD be funding illegal drugs. It looks like those not on drugs are sitting on their asses while those shooting up heroin or smoking crack are upstanding tax-paying members of society.
The argument that it costs more to do the drug testing is also terrible. This is based on a sample of 40 people. We have no idea if this was a nice area, and that 38 of those people were recently laid off from a respectable job. For something of this magnitude, I suggest the sample size should be no less than 1,000 to get a real figure. Also, I have no problem paying a little more in taxes knowing that those receiving my dollars deserve it. As of right now, every taxpayer in America is funding the importation and production of extremely dangerous illegal drugs. Drugs follow the same rules of economics as anything else. If people keep using them, the producers will make more to meet the demand. So there is a direct connection between our tax dollars and crack dealer incomes (untaxed, I might add).
There’s also the intangible called the cost to society. It’s a known fact that drug users commit more crimes than those who don’t use drugs. Did they factor in the cost of the broken door and broken window that the pharmacies have to replace? Or the broken bones that an innocent person has to have snapped back into place after being robbed and assaulted? How about the cost to put them in prison and pay for their food and cable TV while they continue to receive their checks?
Here is an excerpt from the article, referring to “Chandler v Miller”, which indicates drug testing is unconstitutional as it is considered a search:
“Drug testing welfare applicants does not seem to meet the Chandler test since there is no particular safety reason to be concerned about drug use by welfare recipients. In 2003, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Michigan’s drug testing of welfare applicants as a Fourth Amendment violation.”
With the risk of repeating myself, did I not just indicate the dangers of drug use? I’m not even going to bother researching this topic, because it’s as well-known as the fact that humans need oxygen to breathe. If you want proof, go look it up yourself. Maybe the supreme court should consider doing the same.