Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Sunday, January 12, 2014

A Federal Judge Has Rejected The Mandatory Drug Testing Of Welfare Recipients

U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven ruled against Florida's drug testing program, writing, “[T]here is nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a 'concrete danger' that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use.” In other words, there's no proof that someone is more likely to use drugs simply because they're poor. These programs have cost taxpayers much more than they promised to save, and they have been used as a way to discriminate against the poor. Thankfully, Judge Scriven issued the second ruling against Florida's drug testing program, and reinforced a lower court decision that found the program unconstitutional. Florida may attempt to repeal this ruling, but for now, Judge Scriven has blocked that state from enforcing their discriminatory drug testing law.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree, do we test rich people simply because they are rich?

Anonymous said...

Hope she also declared it illegal for employers to test new hires for drug use.

Anonymous said...

Wrong, very very wrong. They should all be drug tested and all employers should drug test prospective employees.

Anonymous said...

coward

Just another worker bee said...

I agree, why do I have to pee in a cup for a job and they simply get handed free money?

Anonymous said...

I get tested because I am willing to work for my pay. Then why don't welfare folks have to be tested before they get paid for doing NOTHING?

Anonymous said...

Leave up to the tax payers.

Anonymous said...

This is a drug infested and abusive country. The court does not want to know the truth. Everyone on this program should be tested for illegal drug use.

jal said...

another judge in some ones pocket

Anonymous said...

237 has it. As long as there is no testing, there are no results, therefore there is no "evidence" that the "judge" talks about!