Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Privacy is not an absolute right. You can engage in a voluntary exchange which requires you to give up some of that privacy (for a JOB for example). And since social welfare is not a right, it is voluntary.
Well that is true except for one thing, you can waive your privacy rights when it comes to a private agent, but the government isn't a private employer and without a compelling state interest (one of those little terms that the Courts use to determine constitutionality) this ain't one of them.
Well that is true except for one thing, you can waive your privacy rights when it comes to a private agent, but the government isn't a private employer and without a compelling state interest (one of those little terms that the Courts use to determine constitutionality) this ain't one of them.
But you have government jobs and the military all giving drug tests as part of employment and then continued employment.
A lawsuit filed in federal court by Navy veteran and single dad Luis Lebron who refused to take the Florida's mandatory drug test to qualify for social assistance was upheld in Federal Court as being unconstitutional and and a violation of Lebron's privacy rights.
Florida Welfare Drug-Testing Law Blocked by Judge - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204777904576651441808024396.html - broken link)
I wasn't aware Florida had passed this mandatory drug test.
Well that is true except for one thing, you can waive your privacy rights when it comes to a private agent, but the government isn't a private employer and without a compelling state interest (one of those little terms that the Courts use to determine constitutionality) this ain't one of them.
The private vs government argument isn't valid. The government does tests as well. The only debate here is what is a "compelling state interest" and I would argue that this is just as compelling an interest as means testing or time limits. Your absolutist position on privacy rights is invalid here; you as much as acknowledged this in your last post.
As usual you have this ass backwards. Social welfare is not a right, but privacy surely is.
There's nothing backwards to my approach. Right to privacy is indeed covered by the force of law. What you do in your house is your business. But did you know that when you use a government-owned computer, there is no implied, or enforceable right to privacy? And that's just to use a computer. Why? Because it's a public entity, funded by taxpayers, just like taxpayer dollars fund social welfare. Accordingly, the right to privacy should be thrown out the window under the same premise. It's not yours, you don't get any special "privacy" rights.
Not that i'd expect you to understand something so logical.
But you have government jobs and the military all giving drug tests as part of employment and then continued employment.
Very true, and in those cases the government has established a compelling state interest (I really hate having to repeat myself over and over again).
In her ruling, Scriven said it is "well established" that a drug test is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment, though the state contends the drug testing of welfare recipients is not a search.
Scriven said the collection of an applicant's urine "entails intrusion into a highly personal and private bodily function," and that intrusion also "extends well beyond the initial passing of urine."
The judge said positive drug tests are not kept confidential in the same manner as medical records and are shared with DCF, state abuse hotline counselors and medical reviewers.
"More troubling, positive test results are memorialized, perhaps indefinitely, in a database that the State admits can be accessed by law enforcement," Scriven wrote. "This potential interception of positive drug tests by law enforcement implicates a 'far more substantial' invasion of privacy than in ordinary civil drug testing cases."
Scriven also found that the state hasn't demonstrated a substantial, special need to justify the "wholesale, suspicionless drug testifying of all applicants" for welfare benefits.
there is a reason why federal employees and welfare recipients have fought long and hard against drug testing. dont bogart that joint my friend, sing it.
Good. Until people on Medicare and Social Security accept mandatory drug testing, it should be considered unconstitutional for everybody.
Right-wingers just want to punish people who are down on their luck. That's the way they always operate. Don't have a job? It's your own fault! Don't have health insurance? Then you deserve to die on the street!
Right-wingers just want to punish people who are down on their luck. That's the way they always operate. Don't have a job? It's your own fault! Don't have health insurance? Then you deserve to die on the street!
This is the problem with liberals. They resort to strawman arguments because they're incapable of making anything more than a simplistic "you guys are just big meanies" analysis.
This isn't the first time I've asked but I'll go for it again. Since you're such an authority on the psychological forces that drive right wingers' policies, I want you to explain to me what pleasure I get from making people pee in cups. I'll be waiting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
