No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests
Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.
Many states are considering following Floridas example, and the new data from the state shows they shouldnt, said Derek Newton, communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state last year to stop the testing and recently obtained the documents. Not only is it unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, but it doesnt save money, as was proposed.
This week, Georgia instituted a nearly identical law, with supporters saying it would foster greater personal responsibility and save money. As in Florida, the law is expected to draw a legal challenge. The Southern Center for Human Rights, based in Atlanta, said it expected to file a lawsuit once the law takes effect in the next several months. A number of other states are considering similar bills.
The Florida civil liberties group sued the state last year, arguing that the law constituted an unreasonable search by the government, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In issuing a temporary injunction in October, Judge Mary S. Scriven of Federal District Court scolded lawmakers and said the law appears likely to be deemed a constitutional infringement.
full: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html
msongs
(67,395 posts)nykym
(3,063 posts)has found a new wrinkle for Pay to Play and method of rewarding contributors.
iscooterliberally
(2,860 posts)I think these laws are just a back door attack on welfare recipients. Typical Y.O.Y.O shit.
catbyte
(34,375 posts)Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Leo, Sophie, Taz & Nigel, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"We ride inside--HISS!
wandy
(3,539 posts)1) Provide an additional source of profit for you're 'campaign' contributers.
2) Provide 'red meat' to you're base.
3) Reinforce the need of you're base to feel superior to at least someone.
What other end can it serve.
sinkingfeeling
(51,448 posts)Jimmie T. Smith, a Republican who sponsored the bill last year.
Wonder how many state reps and senators across the land use. When can we drug-test them?
WingDinger
(3,690 posts)They want ideological wins, screw rationality. They dont care how much it costs. If it creates more victims, from starvation, or robbery, good, as they will be able to demonize drug use, as violent.