How does one go about shooting down the "drug tests for welfare recipients" lie?

[devilgrrl]

Here's what a friend on facebook posted. This person barely has a pot to piss either:

"Florida is the first state that is now going to require drug testing for welfare! Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional but it's completely legal that every other working person had to pass a drug test in order to support those on welfare? Re-post if you agree!!!"

I of course responded that I couldn't disagree more - in so many words.

What would you say? Is it worth the bother?

[sharesunited]

1. You didn't say why you disagree. At least your facebook friend gave a reason.

Maybe you said why you disagree in earlier posts? Link me!

[Beaverhausen]

2. we have a choice whether or not to apply for a job that tests for drugs

these welfare recipients weren't given a choice.

[Cid_B]

10. Welfare is mandatory...

Which state is that? Do they hold you down and make you cash the check?

[bluestateguy]

3. Texas did the same thing

They found a negligible numbers of addicts, but some private company got a juicy government contract to conduct the drug testing.

On edit: I think what Texas actually did was fingerprinting of welfare recipients.

[ejpoeta]

4. i've heard this... see, since companies can do drug test on employees i guess that means that it's

ok to require drug test to apply for assistance. but i don't understand this because i don't agree with the requirement to require drug tests to apply for a job either. unless i was convicted of possessing drugs, why should i be required to submit to a drug test for any reason? but i am. and somehow it is ok.

[nashville_brook]

5. struck down in Michigan in 2003 b/c it violates Fourth Amendment: Marchwinski v. Howard

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

Random drug testing of welfare recipients is likely unconstitutional under both the U.S. Constitution and some state constitutions:

Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.<16>

At the time Michigan’s drug testing scheme was struck down, the 49 other states had rejected such a program for a variety of fiscal and practical reasons: at least 21 states concluded that such a program “may be unlawful”; 17 states cited cost concerns; 11 states had not considered drug testing at all; and 11 gave a variety of practical/operational reasons.<17>

In halting the implementation of Michigan’s drug testing law, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients “could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.”<18> Indeed, any of the justifications put forth to subject welfare recipients to random drug testing would also by logical extension apply to the entirety of our population that receives some public benefit and/or that is a parent. It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well.

Some states’ constitutions actually offer greater privacy protection to individuals than does the U.S. Constitution. It is very possible that random drug testing schemes for welfare recipients will run afoul of these state-specific protections as well.

[Arctic Dave]

6. They will pay much more for testing and admin then they will to pay recipients.

Plus, do the children get tested too? If the parents fail, why should the children suffer.

[nashville_brook]

7. ACLU - what you can do about drug testing in the workplace:

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_womens-rights/workplace-drug-testing


1) Learn more about the issue. Order a copy of our video Through the Keyhole: Privacy in the Workplace - An Endangered Right and share it with family, friends, and co-workers ($7 plus shipping, call 800-775-ACLU to order.) Feel free to duplicate the tape at will.

2) Get a copy of our 1996 report, Surveillance Incorporated., which documents the increase in various forms of employer surveillance and breaks down privacy laws state by state. This free report is available through our website or our 800-number.

3) Write your elected officials urging them to support workplace privacy legislation. For tips on writing your elected officials as well as sample letters, visit the "In Congress" section of our website under "tips" or send a request entitled "tips request" to [email protected] or fax [phone].

4) Want to do more? Contact the ACLU's Campaign for Fairness in the Workplace to find out how you can personally help to get legislation passed. Write ACLU Campaign for Fairness in the Workplace, 166 Wall Street, Princeton, NJ 08540, fax [phone] or e-mail [email protected].

[Vanje]

8. Drug test the bankers that got TARP

Drug test the House of Reps.
Drug test the Senate.
Drug test the insurance executives.
Drug test Dick (Shot-a-guy-in-the-face) Cheney
And PLEAse plEASe! Drug test GW Bush.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Two words: False Positives

http://www.ipassedmydrugtest.com/false_positives.asp

[Capitalocracy]

11. Why should I have to pay for someone else to get a drug test?

FFS.

[REP]

12. Pre-job testing is asinine, too

[madrchsod]

13. i`m in illinois so this must be a right wing talking point

one of my facebook friends said the same thing.


don`t bother with people who can`t think for themselves

[JHB]

14. Even without questions about rights, there's some practical matters they usually forget...

...who does the testing? How are they chosen? What quality standards are they held to? What are the penaties for poor quality (i.e., inaccurate results due to poor quality control in testing)? How often are they inspected and audited to ensure they are meeting these standards?

What happens when there's a positive? Is there a follow-up test to corroborate the results of the first test? Or is it simply assumed a government contractor never makes a mistake and so the applicant is denied due to (assumed but not verified) drug use? Exactly what percentage of false positives will be deemed "acceptable"?

Who pays for the testing, retesting, and quality-control inspections? Where do those funds come from? Will adequate funds be provided? What are the consequences if money is short?

What happens to people who are denied due to a positive result? There's plenty of people who can't just "get a job" in this economy, so what happens to them? What's the liklihood they'll wind up doing something that sends them to jail, where it will cost much more money to house them plus guard them?

At what threshold might you consider this testing mandate to be more expensive than it's worth? How much are you willing to raise your taxes to pay for it?

[The Midway Rebel]

15. Because being poor is fucking hard enough.

Why kick people when they are down?

They only catch pot smokers.

No benefits to society. The only people who benefit are the drug testing companies.

And, it is a violation of your Constitutional rights against self incrimination.

It is "we must ALL think alike, behave alike" fascism.

[surrealAmerican]

16. Since when do you have to pass a drug test ...

... to pay taxes?

Not every working person needs to pass a drug test, and it is wrong to require one for occupations where public safety is not at risk. That is something that should be addressed by legislation, but hasn't been yet.


The writer of this poorly-written missive ought to be standing up for his or her own dignity, rather than trying to make sure more people are similarly robbed of theirs.