A federal appeals court has upheld a temporary ban on a law requiring drug testing of Florida welfare recipients.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on Tuesday ruled that a lower court was right to temporarily halt enforcement of the drug-testing program. The opinion said the state of Florida hadn't shown a "substantial special need" for such mandatory drug testing.
Florida officials have argued that testing is necessary because it would deter drug use by those receiving welfare. Opponents say drug testing as a condition of getting welfare benefits is an unconstitutional search and seizure.
Gov. Rick Scott, who argued for the ban a couple years ago, called the court’s ruling disturbing.
"Welfare is 100 percent about helping children. Welfare is taxpayer money to help people looking for jobs who have children," Scott said in a news release.
"Drug use by anyone with children looking for a job is totally destructive. This is fundamentally about protecting the well-being of Florida families. We will protect children and families in our state, and this decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court.”
Tuesday's opinion was authored by Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett. She was the first woman to sit on the Florida Supreme Court and was the state's first female Chief Justice.
---
Are you viewing this story on our iPad or iPhone app? Click here to read this story on our full site to vote in our online poll.
Missing Persons in Collier
Color Collier Healthy Run 2013
First Baptist Academy Commencement
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 37
staghorn writes:
Just ANOTHER classic rick scott failure.
rick scott is the dictionary's new replacement meaning of the word failure.
xmanxray writes:
We have to take a drug test to work in Florida but it is unconststutional for welfare recipients to be tested. What is wrong with this country?
Becksperado writes:
I agree. We have to be drug-tested to obtain money by working, but it's totally cool to just sit around high and collect welfare...does not compute.
beerbong writes:
And why should we support anybody with welfare or food stamps if they are using drugs? In fact I would say food stamps can only be used for certain foods and beverages only, Meat, Veggies and fruit,milk and water. And anybody caught selling their food stamps, their whole family from top to bottom would lose all their benefits. The whole program needs rules and they need to be enforced.
Al_makes_me_feel_like_marching writes:
THe dillution of america it is called get them all on drugs and food stamps so they can out vote those who have to pass drug test to work.
skipperdz writes:
Florida has one of the highest RX abuse rates in the country. What exactly constitutes a "substantial special need"? Go visit any Florida ER, there is always a "seeker" there trying to get pain meds for regionalized or generalized pain. Thats why physicians can pay for internet based RX usage for controlled drugs. You can see who was prescribed what and where it was picked up and HOW much should be left according to directions.
Exposer writes:
Ever wonder why more welfare drug user participants don't buy guns for their own protection? Geez, they are really dumb, right?
anotherPOV writes:
Seriously! I picture of a cup of piiss? Stay classy NDN.
swfljim writes:
Drug testing welfare receipients is one of those laws that sound good, but make little practical sense.
While I'm all for stopping welfare abuse and fraud, during the time that Florida did conduct drug screens, around 2% tested positive, which is less then the average for everyone in America that must submit to a drug test.
In fact, the cost of administering the drug test program probably exceeds the amount of welfare savings for those found using drugs.
Then there is the question of what to do with those who test positive-state paid rehab?
What about that person's family? Does the state take over care of the receipients children?-at what cost?
This law is full of unintended consequences and costs.
That said, I had a job for over 20 years that required random mandatory drug and alcohol testing and I never had an issue with it.
A better idea than testing welfare recipients would be to test all elected office holders in Florida from dog catcher, up the ladder through the state legislature to the Governor's mansion. These people not only depend on tax payers for their compensation but many have the authority to spend tax payer funds.
THE_Aquaman writes:
Yes you are. We are all in agreement.
leneggs writes:
I am for drug testing ANYONE who gets my tax dollars so that would include welfare recipients as well as every single politician.
Sanity writes:
Unbelievable that the judge would find this unconstitutional but then again Obama care was upheld so I have no faith in our justice system.
The fact is nobody is forcing these people to get welfare. Many of them truly need help and many of them are multi-generational moochers that continue to stay in these conditions because we enable it. Hunger is a great motivator.
I would also go even further with restrictions on welfare.
1. Drug testing mandatory. No drug test, no cash.
2. If you are female you must get birth control while on welfare period. If you can't afford to feed yourself then don't bring another mouth to the world since you can't keep your legs closed. This also applies to the men.
justright (Inactive) writes:
All of these judges need to be voted out.
If you can't pass a drug test then you can't get a job. Why should working Americans have to support people who CHOOSE to make themselves unemployable?
All of these judges need to be voted out.
amuser writes:
I agree with drug testing welfare recipients. I also think that once on welfare, your payments cannot increase because you have more children.
justright (Inactive) writes:
Hard working Americans can thank these judges for allowing us to support freeloading pot smokers and crack heads by writing:
Hon. Rosemary Barkett (born in Mexico),
Hon. Adalbero Jordan (born in Cuba)
and Hon. James Randal Hall (Georgia native)
at:
United States Court of Appeals
56 Forsyth Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Case # 11-15258
laker25 writes:
As a card carrying Progressive I support this policy. I don't however feel that they should be immediately cut off for two reasons. 1.Innocent children could be hurt. and 2.It may provoke these drug using welfare recipients to start stealing, prostituting, etc. to make up the difference. Mandatory counseling and ongoing testing may be a better way to go. And leave marijuana out of this discussion. Just my two cents.
7654321 writes:
I love how you people scream and yell when anyone goes after your Second Amendment rights, but are willing to let the Gov violate people's Fourth Amendment rights because they receive Gov assistance. The 4th is just as "God Given" of a right as the 2nd. If you support the Constitution you must support all of it.
triplegator writes:
Amen. Maybe people should have to pass a drug test before being allowed to post on a blog. I'd like to think that would get rid of the inane comments but they are mostly due to simple lack of brain cells, not drug use (other than alcohol).
Seriously, though, another appeal? All of you out there who are complaining should consider that they have probably already spent more of your money on appeals than they would ever save off of testing. And now they are going to use your money to appeal yet again. Gov Scott has vast access to tons of other people's money to continue buying conservative votes with his losing cause, so he isn't concerned.
You should pay for this out of your own pocket, Mr. Governor. If you win we will reimburse you.
Exposer writes:
Is DamYankee still "alive"? Are there other sons and maybe daughters? Son of a gun if that's the case.
Redshoulderedhawk writes:
I've got no problem with drug-testing welfare recipients. But it's too bad there wasn't an ethics test for Dick Scott.
badgerfan writes:
Dont forget Scott was the CEO of a large medical firm that got the largest fine in medical history from the government for misappropriation of medicare funds. And this guy worries about drug testing for welfare when he should be ineligible for a federal job...oust Scott in 2014........
wt4pc writes:
Well said. I would like to add that statistics show that [1] most drug addicts in america are prescription drug abusers living in nice homes with families [2] taking away an addict's money will only lead them to find criminal ways to obtain their drugs. [3] lab research shows that animal addicts will starve to death when given the choice of food or drug. Punishing their children will not stop or cure them. Removal of the children from the home and mandatory treatment for the addict is really the only workable solution for all concerned.
mypov2 writes:
I agree that thse who receive our tax dollars shouldn't be using drugs. The problem is the cost $$$$ of this program. The state picks up the tab if the people test negative. A high numbr, something around 98&, are testing negative. So in the long run Scott's plan is costing more than it's saving. I guess the plan is to save money by denying benefits, but it's not working that way.
attaboy writes:
The 4th amendment was established long before 'government assistance'. Only a shuck and jive shell game liberal would equate the 2. The problem here is the federal government not supporting what tax PAYERS want. Look where the federal court of appeals is that upheld the ban.....Atlanta...there's your road block to dealing with any drug problem...I know, I must be a racist......
Carrot_Stick writes:
Nice post, but have we not learned that Naple's finest tea party republican scum care nothing about facts! They certainly only care about an interpretation of the law that benefits their narrow minded ways. Look at these posts on here, you almost feel sorry for the heartless stupidity in Naples.
DinNaples writes:
Here's an idea. We can code every item sold as to wether or not each item can be subject to a sales tax. Why can't we code items eligible for food stamps?
nosebreather writes:
Hey, if Scott wants to spend our tax dollars paying out of state lawyers to defend his stupid policies, that's his right. He bought the election fair and square.
volochine writes:
Excellent post.
As I remember, Gov. Scott refused to take a drug test in public, when confronted. I think it is on YouTube. Permanently.
If he receives government money for salary or expenses, I think he should have to pee in a cup for him to have a job.
I hear he likes poppy seed bagels.
Write_Thinker writes:
In my opinion, your body is private to yourself, and no one should require any drug test for anything. That would seem basic to our freedom, to me. If employed, and you appear to be intoxicated, on the job, then you should be asked to undergo a drug test. At least then, there is good reason. Testing one's body just to test should be unlawful.
Robertofnaples writes:
I think drug testing should be part of getting a Concealed Carry Permit; and one should have to pay for an annual drug test to keep that concealed carry permit. Public safety should trump all; can you imagine people high on drugs being allowed to carry concealable hand gun? In fact; it should be law that, those of us that already have one need to be drug tested too.
SeaJD writes:
Precisely. It is an invasive test that has a high rate of inaccurate results. Random testing has been upheld in companies building defense systems, but has safeguards for employees re results and consequences.
These bloggers scream for mandatory testing for drug use for welfare, but under their logic... If you receive a farm subsidy,VA education or hospital benefits, federally guaranteed student loans, social security, any tax benefit or tax credit, a homestead exemption, a business write off, a public school education, use public roads, use the internet, etc you should have to take a mandatory drug test. All of these are taking public taxpayer dollars to provide a benefit to individuals. All non profit organizations are getting free rides off of taxpayers. Should we drug test those too?
Get a grip all you hateful blog writers in Naples.
PMC_Rider writes:
We should also drug test every single public school child over 13 and persons 16 or older who drive on our public streets, because those infrastructures are paid for with tax dollars as well.
Oh, that's indecent?
So it's about humiliating and dehumanizing the impoverished then?
Got it.
xmanxray writes:
Well, if it stops one person from being a drug addict or saves only one life it's worth it. Right?
Liblover writes:
The 2nd amendment was established long before "AK-15" Only a shuck and jive Redneck would equate the two.
And yes you must be a racist!
Aoxomoxoa writes:
Riigghhtt.
Sure, guns and thier uses are exactly as they were 240 years ago.
That was a great example!!!!
AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:
That would put his picture right next to Obama's, wouldn't it?
Liblover writes:
If the Court refuses to hear the appeal, Mrs.male reproductive organ scott should be forced to repay the state every illegal nickle she collected.
Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.