I've followed with great interest the debate raging in Florida over the new law signed by Governor Rick Scott that mandates drug testing for welfare recipients. The ACLU is, of course, challenging this law because according to the ACLU welfare babies should get anything and everything they want without strings attached! They also make several strawman arguments in opposition to the law:
* “Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.” This isn't the point. If even ONE person is receiving public aid and using that aid to purchase drugs, it's one person too many. Taxpayer money should not go to financing destructive and irresponsible choices. The argument isn't that welfare recipients use more or less drugs, just that the state wants to ensure NO ONE does!
* “Science and medical experts overwhelmingly oppose the drug testing of welfare recipients.” So what! Science and medical experts aren't forking over the cash to pay for lazy ass freeloaders that want a free ride. This is public money and the public deserves to know that there money isn't being wasted.
* “Drug testing is expensive.” Not nearly as expensive as welfare! Florida spends over $11 billion per year on welfare alone! Nearly 2 million people receive welfare in the state, averaging $5500 per person. I think the state can afford to protect that investment with a minor $42 test (assuming that number is accurate, which I doubt). Removing just ONE druggy from the welfare roles pays for nearly 131 tests alone! So, in the end, testing will pay for itself if the ACLU is right. Using the ACLU's numbers, approximately 170,000 would pop positive for illicit drugs (citing ACLU's 10% figure). Removing those individuals from the welfare roles would save the state $935,000,000. The cost of testing EVERY recipient on welfare is $71.4 million, a total savings of over $863 million! Obviously, the ACLU flunked elementary math.
* “Mandatory drug testing is an ineffective means to uncover drug abuse.” They go on to state that a “questionnaire” is more likely to find druggies! Seriously! I'm not making that up. Just ask them, they'll be honest with you! This is so ignorant, I don't even think it really deserves an educated response.
* “Many states have rejected the random drug testing of welfare recipients as impractical and fiscally unjustifiable.” I've already gone over this, so the states can use my real numbers to see that this argument is mathematically flawed, to say the least.
* “Random drug testing of welfare recipients is likely unconstitutional under both the U.S. Constitution and some state constitutions.” I can't speak for most state constitutions, but I KNOW my U.S. Constitution and nothing in mandatory drug testing violates it. This is the one I want to spend the most time on.
The ACLU doesn't mention WHERE in the U.S. Constitution mandatory drug testing is forbidden. I'm assuming that the 4th amendment would be the one most likely cited. It reads:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
This would be a constitutional issue if the state wanted to just randomly test any American. But, we're not talking about the state just testing anyone. We're talking about people who APPLY for welfare benefits or seek government jobs. By doing so, citizens voluntarily accept certain conditions that will apply if approved.
As a Soldier, I'm required to get drug tested whenever the military wants to test me. I can't claim 4th Amendment violations because I VOLUNTEERED for this job. No one forced me into the military, just like no one forces someone to work at Blockbuster where there is also mandatory drug testing. If I don't want to be drug tested, I can refuse and just be removed from the military. It's that simple.
Welfare recipients have the same choice. If they WANT welfare checks and privileges, the state of Florida has mandated that certain conditions be met, among those a drug-free lifestyle. The ACLU claims that requiring state employees to get drug tested is an overreach of executive power.
The ACLU is errantly claiming that the governor “is willing to use the power of government to intrude upon your rights in Florida.” There is no right to work, even though Florida is a “right to work” state. The “right to work” law deals with unions, not jobs. If there was an unfettered “right to work” no business would even be allowed to require applications. They'd just hire people because they have a right to be employed.
No one's rights are being trampled when people voluntarily seek public assistance. As long as they are told that in order to qualify for that assistance they have to pass an initial drug test and random drug tests as long as they receive that assistance, individuals make a conscious decision to accept that condition. They voluntarily surrender their rights in exchange for assistance, much the same way people do to get a job (like in the military).
A perfect example to sum up the difference for when mandatory drug testing is okay is the education system. I am adamantly opposed to mandatory drug testing in the school system. Why? Because my kids are basically forced to use it. If I choose not to send my kids to school, I get fined or charged. Since I'm forced to send my kids to public schools (unless I CHOOSE to pay for private school, which I can't afford), it would be a violation of my kids' civil rights to force them to be tested. The schools, however, have found a loophole. If a child wants to play extra-curricular sports or activities, they must submit to drug testing. So, naturally, my kids don't play sports at school. But, I would accept the condition of drug testing and waive those rights if I wanted my kids to play sports. It's no different with public assistance.
* “Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.” This isn’t the point. If even ONE person is receiving public aid and using that * “Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.” This isn’t the point. If even ONE person is receiving public aid and using that aid to purchase drugs, it’s one person too many. Taxpayer money should not go to financing destructive and irresponsible choices. The argument isn’t that welfare recipients use more or less drugs, just that the state wants to ensure NO ONE does!
If the point is to make sure NO ONE is using then why are we not drug testing everyone? If they don’t like it, they can leave their country and void their citizenship. It makes me sick to think that the majority of people here believe people on welfare are generally amoral and therefore, should have to forefit their rights because they need to ask for help from their government — help that’s supposed to be temporary and there when you NEED it. As a taxpaying citizen currently bridging the gap with government assistence, I would feel much more comfortable with MY money being spent on programs (which are supposed to exist) to help these people become financially self sufficent.
@monica: Monica you may be a good person…but if you can make statements like this you are living in LaLa Land! “Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.” You are right in saying that help should only be temporary! However get out and look around at who is receiving welfare! The overwhelming majority of people who are on welfare are drug/alcohol abusers and are nonconforming to the basic requirements of society! Test people like the ones I associate with 365 a year and you will come up blank! And the overwhelming majority never used drugs and never abuse alcohol, we go work most everyday. Until about six months ago I was a employer out of 28+ employees everyone who was a welfare recipient was as well a abuser of alcohol and missed time from work….If they would live a stable and responsible life they most likely would not need the welfare!!! Just for the record….I fired more than 12 people my last year due to drug use…10 of those were welfare recipients! There is a big connection between the two!
@J V Hoffman:
Now altough I respect your personal situation…
the quote I used was directly from this article and I am not rebukking this statement, I am rebukking the fact that the author claims this program (drug testing) is supposedly to ensure that no one is using, which, if is the case, then ALL citizens should be subjected to random drug testing, as should people who use other types of government help (I.e. student loans).
Regardless, this bill should be overturned soon ehough because it (this program) is highly illegal and, in fact, it does trample all over our fourth amendment rights.
When this same bill was passed in Michigan in 99, it was overturned within 4 weeks. 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.”
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.
It is illegal and as such, there is precedence to show it is.
I am not disagreeing that people use the systm but i am disagreeing that throwing away their constitutional rights (which, will only lead to the removal of ALL citizens constitutional rights) is the APPROPRIATE manner in which to deal with the situation.
I think you all are absolutely right. I am pro drug testing. I don’t want to pay for your drugs I don’t want to work next to you if you are on drugs and I don’t want you living next door to me if you are on drugs. Maybe the way to irradiate the wide spread use is though testing. We all are paying the price provided you are paying taxes. What about my health care premiums? They are through the roof because people choose to make bad decisions bringing the costs up. All in all drugs are costing everyone!
It is so illegal it is scary. Scary to think that citizens would be willing to forefiet the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of other citizens without realizing that when you allow peoples rights to be revoked, you’re setting YOURSELF up to have that same exact right revoked on you, too.
@monica: You say: 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.
What section and what ruling of the Constitution states this? …. Common sense…okay I can swallow that one! However Constitution is a no-go!
So the ability to drug test your employees is unconstitutional also I would presume! Federal employees? Military? Police? Public safety workers? Hospital doctors? EMT’s? Heavy Machinery Operators? Sooooo! all of these are constitutional but welfare recipients NO? What is next on the list ex-convicts?
You make a good argument but it lacks reality! I do not trust the government because I used to work for them……. However we need to come to the place of requiring people to live responsible lives again! You are siting their rights while totally ignoring the rights of those who pay those taxes!
Let me give you a good example…several years ago we had a worker leave from work and caused an accident just outside of the facilities property, our company was sued because the police recollected properly that the worker had indeed taken the drugs while still on the property of the factory and within his shift. Being the contractor that we are we have to maintain a status of being a “drug free company” or we can lose the contracts! We spent thousands of dollars in defending and finally closing this matter and the woman he hit was permanently injured. The culprit only served a year and was sent to a rehabilitation facility! Who’s rights were violated?
As far as I am concerned they should randomly do drug testing for drivers license renewals, health insurance and car insurance. I gather you do not have much contact with the people in the street, go to a hospital and observe what is happening! See how many people are entering the emergency room that do not have insurance, unemployed and using drugs! (welfare recipients) Talk to some police officers and see how many the overwhelming number is of people who cause accidents while under the influence of drugs are unemployed!
And in case you didn’t know this Administration and the former Administration have all but totally deleted the Fourth Amendment! You evidently do not comprehend the strain this is putting on the structure and economy of our country! You put up a good argument but you have a case of tunnel vision concerning this matter and its impact on society, what is right has to protect both the providers and the recipients! The Status as it is only protects the abusers of it! look at the list of the type of workers I presented to you….That is not a few people!
@monica: Google a little Monica…. Which three groups have and distribute the HIV virus and what is the highest method of transfer? Maybe then you will begin to understand the situation. You talk about giving up rights?
1. Anybody acquiring any license from the BATF automatically gives up his constitutional rights!
2. Law enforcement officials also
3. Military personnel
And the list goes on!!! numbers two and three are servants to the public…. but welfare recipients have more rights in your way of looking at it! Interesting!
@J V Hoffman: I must clarify again… I did not say,
.
U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts did when the District Judge of Michigan overturned the same bill in her state in 1999.
As such there is legal precedents to overturn this terrifying joke of a solution .
And no, I don’t think that allowing convicted felons/parolees off of their parole mandated UAs because they have already been convicted of a crime and therefore, have lost that right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
As far as people being drug tested for employment, there are plenty of places that don’t drug test and frankly, pre-employee drug screens can be cheated all the time. Most places who do drug test, they state their intent to do so while a potential employee is filling out the application or viewing the job posting online.
I do agree that we need to come to a place of requiring people to live responsible lives again! But I disagree on this methodology of doing so. How is kicking users off of welfare going to cause them to live responsible. True addicts have a serious problem and not being able to spend taxpayer money on drugs isn’t going to solve that problem.
Also, I resent the fact that I am being told that I am ignoring the taxpayer. I AM A TAXPAYER and I feel that I am being ignored when I am told that I must forfeit my rights in order to ask my government for help that should be there when I need it. I would also feel ignored if my state spent MY MONEY on drug testing people without alternative thought or idea to the case but thankfully, I don’t foresee that being an issue since my state can already lawfully drug test recipients of cash assistance with probable cause.
Actually there are several SCOTUS cases applicable, Monica… and with mixed opinions. While I don’t have time to read them all, here’s an overall analysis of pertinent precedents to read thru by the law review in Akron, OH that you might find of interest.
@monica: Hear, hear. Well said Monica, it’s about retaining freedoms, not imposing more regulations, creating more government jobs for more bureaucrats and granting the government yet even more say-so over how individuals can or can not live their lives. That said, welfare should be eliminated entirely.
@monica: As the author, let me tell you what I’m saying and directly counter your arguments that are NOT based in logic nor law.
That is a strawman argument because not all citizens are on government assistance. However, I have no problem with making drug screening a part of ANY public assistance request that gives blank checks to citizens. If you get a student loan to attend school, you should be tested to ensure that the money you’re supposed to be spending on books, room and board, and tuition isn’t going into a crack pipe or bong as long as that money is given directly to the citizen. Now if that money is given directly to the school, then this would not be a valid requirement because then the citizen would not have the opportunity to fraudulently collect that money.
You are quite simply wrong here, though YOUR idea to drug EVERY citizen absolutely WOULD be a direct violation of 4th Amendment Rights. In order for drug testing welfare (or any government assistance) recipients, there would have to be a constitutional or inherent right to that assistance. There is no right to government assistance. It is a privilege. It could go away tomorrow and no one’s rights would be violated. Additionally, no one is forced onto welfare nor is it just given out without it being asked for. There has to be a conscious decision to request welfare and government assistance, which is where your logic makes no sense legally or realistically. Receiving government assistance is a choice and choices can be managed with strings attached.
This wasn’t the same bill. It was a different state with different laws and language. Unless you can show (which you can’t, because I looked up the law you’re trying to cite) that the two laws are identical in language, it’s not the same bill. Your argument that a district judge overruled it so it must be illegal is also legally and logically incorrect. The fact is that the spineless state legislature in Michigan caved instead of doing what should be done every time a state loses a case on constitutional grounds to a district judge – take it to the Supreme Court for a constitutional ruling. Just because lawmakers and the liberal attorney general didn’t take the fight to the next level doesn’t necessarily settle the argument for the rest of the country…just Michigan.
Teddy where are you? Theodore Roosevelt we need you and your Conservation Corps back! We need a President with backbone and put America back to work! Work, get paid, eat, prosper and continue working! natural order of non-parasitical life! My father said “Anyone who does not labor and eats is not worthy of the food he eats and in every sense is a thief!” In fact it is more than obvious that this system like we have actually allows people to be idle and get involved in activities they would not get into if they were being a productive part of society!
@CJ: OK CJ if my argument is illogical because you think that welfare for citizens of the United States is somehow a privilege and not a right then why, in the United States Constitution does it clearly state that, because I pay taxes welfare is MY right… “
If the U.S. government can collect my taxes, as they do, then they had sure as hell better help me out when my family and I need it — that is MY RIGHT, also.
On another note, as far as things like student loans… my 4.0 GPA should be good enough for the government to continue in their help of the funding of my education so that I may find a career, which will allow me to live welfare free.
As far as the military is concerned: they not only operate heavy and expensive equipment but they also are armed and therefore, logically, should be drug tested — a test that doesn’t account for some unknown and ungodly number of alcoholics in the military.
It is clear to me that no one here is arguing and unbiased argument, nor even truly reading the replies that others present to them. Here, I am going to have to agree to disagree because I am not going to change anyone’s mind (it is not my place), I am simply here to show off the other side of the coin in this one-sided, closed-minded “debate”.
Also, CJ, you said in your article that you believe drug testing of public school children is wrong. If this bill in Fl were to pass, well such a statement from our courts and lawmakers (note I didn’t judge and assume that because someone disagrees with me, I automatically know their party affiliation) would set the legal precedence to allow such a thing.
Dang, Monica… hope you stick around, girl. I like the way you think.
There is a disconnect when using the 4th Amendment rights, and how they are viewed in our judicial system precedents, with many that they are seeming to overlook. The two key points are a voluntary waiver of your rights (i.e. the heated discussion of TSA searches, at risk of inflaming a few with short tempers and personal vendettas on the legalities vs emotions of the issues) vs mandatory submission. To simplify, perhaps unnecessarily, for debate points, here’s a summary.
For many, “volunteering” to fly commercial = mandatory searches is unConstititional
Yet for an uncomfortable crossover counterpoint, “volunteering” for welfare = mandatory drugs tests is hunky dory and very “constitutional” in their opinion.
When you examine the court precedents – which I agree via Chandler has taken an opposite turn, tho real and relevant in our system – the main difference between the two lies between the benefit of the public at large.
For TSA searches, the “public benefit” is perceived as “safety” for national security (whether you like/agree with it or not), and thereby passes court muster (as long as not out of line, which is why any potential violations of that accepted search parameters are examined case by case)
For welfare recipients, saving the nation’s money is not a tangible “public benefit” worthy of challenging 4th Amendment rights.
Considering our fiscal status, the day that saving money becomes a “public benefit” or “public good” or “general welfare” argument that wins in the courts (read healthcare/commerce clause) is the day we are up that proverbial creek without a paddle, and headed towards a watery slippery slope.
@Poppa_T: Poppa T, I agree with want you are saying but that will never happen in the near future. If it was up to me I would revert back to what was the system at the turn of the century! (1900) In fact in just about every function of Government we would be better off to reverted back! Tell me what benefit are the flood victims getting, they pay taxes and most of them have worked all of their lives! It seems peculiar that in the Southern States an the Mid Western States have always been with a lower percentage of people who receive unemployment benefits! Hell the way I see it the time and effort you spend getting the benefits you could probably get a job if you really want to work! How about you Poppa T you probably have worked damn near everyday of you life (workdays)?
@J V Hoffman: Don’t forget to drug test all the flood and natural disaster victims. Who cares if they’ve paid into the system their entire lives? I am sure it’s their fault for living in such an unsound part of the country! Hah!
@Monica: Monica you got it wrong “general welfare” is not social aid! As I said earlier in Comments #27 and #28 …. general welfare is like hospitals, roadways, parks, hospitals..ect Things we can all enjoy and use! Do you realize how long this system that exist now has been in operation? So what are you implying? That only for the last for the last 60-70 years without abiding to the constitution?
It is obvious you probably have never gone without anything in your life, other than toilet paper for a few hours! What they are suffering is a gross effect of non-performance of a very evil government! They did not choose to have a life style that caused this like your dope head welfare recipients…your lack of compassion is a big strike against you, and shows you never have had to suffer, otherwise you would not take such cheap shots at victims of an inadequate Administration!
you are missing the point yet again. The 100 bucks a month my family recieves in FS benefits is OURS to begin with, therefore it is our right to receive it when we need it. What’s so difficult to understand about this? If the government takes our money (and they do) then they have to have programs in place to help us out when were having a hard time. There is nothing illegal about asking for MY money so why should I be subjected to having my rights revoked to get my money? What a joke!
@Monica: So Monica the truth comes out! You are just another prejudice liberal!!! Look at what you said “I am sure it’s their fault for living in such an unsound part of the country! Hah!”
So what does that mean the next time they have an earthquake in California, they should suck it up? And if there is another terrorist attack in New York they just have to grin and bear it! Because to your way of thinking they are at fault for living in such a defunct place! Is not California known for earthquakes, and New York for finding bombs in the Airport! Or do you also believe that the victims of 9/11 where responsible because highjacking of aircraft has been going on since 1973. LIBERAL LOGIC= INSANITY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TAX PAYER!
@J V Hoffman: Also, I don’t much care for your personal judgments of me or my life. You don’t know me and how is it even relevant to the topic at hand?
Maybe if the government could get their heads out of their asses for two seconds and collect their monies from people who OWE them (i.e. dead beat parents who owe states thousands upon thousands in AFDC payments, and in investigating REPORTED welfare fraud — for which if found guilty one loses all benefits, faces jail time (another lovely tax paid benefit of this country) and must pay back all monies with which they committed their fraud — investigations which do no take place because the states are broke) then perhaps they can find the funding to help those victims of natural disasters. But since those victims would be receiving government aid, it only makes sense to drug test them, as well.
Like MataHarley says, it’s a slippery slope.
Monica, just to let you know while I agree about the FL law being likely to be struck down, we may be doing so for different reasons. I read your analogy INRE “government aid” recipients, and I understood it perfectly. Thus my “like the way you think” comment.
I will say that you start muddying up an already convoluted debate when you start equating any federal benefits as “rights” vs “privileges”… thus you are wandering far into territories that are not applicable. Welfare is not a “right” because you pay for it. “Constitutional rights” are not able to be laid out in specifics, or enumerated, as “this is okay, this isn’t”. They are rights that cannot be absolved by government because they are granted by higher powers.
@J V Hoffman:
Oh please, don’t presume you know me or my political affiliation because you’re wrong and you don’t. Get real. All I was saying is that under this logic: “all welfare recipients must drug test because they’re receiving “government aid”” then all recipients of “government aid” should also be forced to drop random UAs and soon, the entire country — including you. Next time you decide to read what I write, do me the favor of READING what I WRITE — not what you want to see.
@Monica: Remember this statement I made…according to some of you here they do not have rights… your logic does not fit reality! So the ability to drug test your employees is unconstitutional also I would presume! Federal employees? Military? Police? Public safety workers? Hospital doctors? EMT’s? Heavy Machinery Operators? It is obvious many of you are still living in the realm of thought and perception! Ideas are great but they always have to have a setting in reality to be utilized!
Do you realize you cannot even be covered for your company for many insurance companies without drug screening for you employees? Worse than that you cannot hold Defense and Government contracts without it anymore! So it is okay to require drug testing for the productive portion of society, but you should not test a bunch of non-productive people who do have a higher percentage of crime and drug use?
Besides I just got off the phone with displaced family in Louisiana…They would not object to drug testing!!! they said verbatim “we have nothing to hide no body here uses drug…we need help! we want to just get back to our house as soon as we can and begin to rebuild!
JV… I’m going to stick to legalities here… something that really PO’s a few. But you said:
Forget private enterprise. That still falls under voluntary waiver of your rights… something each of us do daily, even if we don’t know it, when we agree to a perk.
Are you aware that you are arguing for the commerce clause as a legal reason for health care when you say they have the right to mandate actions that are normal constitutional rights, sans waivers, because someone is “productive” or “non-productive”? Do Obama’s attorneys for healthcare have you on payroll? There is no more basic argument for commerce clause power than what you suggest.
Word to the wise… don’t help Obama’care, if you please.
Speaking of slippery slopes and the Fourth Amendment, here in conservative Indiana the State Supreme Court recently decided that it’s unlawful for a citizen to resist an illegal police search of their home. It’s now unlawful for a citizen of the state to refuse to open his or her door if the police demand entry, even without a warrant and even in the absence of probable cause.
Greg, forgive me if I don’t want to assume your interpretations are close to accurate or complete. You may consider yourself a master political tarot card reader, but sorry guy… that doesn’t fly in my book.
Why don’t you link the law, the specifics, something other than your summary. I somehow doubt there is a “law” that someone doesn’t answer their door is in violation. After all, how would they know if it is a solicitor or a law enforcement officer there if they don’t hear it, or respond?
Nope… you’ll have to do better than that.
Sorry, I should have included a link. Here’s an article from Fox News about the ruling, and another article on Michelle Malkin’s blog regarding the same topic.
The behavior of the homeowner that started the whole mess was out of line, but the precedent the State Supreme Court’s ruling sets is even worse.
Thank you, Greg. In the middle of multitasking, but will have a look over…
@MataHarley: sweetheart you are wrong here! So everyone who employs under Government contracts should just shut down? It is not a matter of choice I wish it was! either you do it or you lose the contracts! So every body goes home and nobody works! read a little close what I am saying! Mataharley you need to brush up on the existing laws concerning not only Government contracts but corporation contracts as well. You either do it or you shut down….just so you will know this didn’t start with Obama it came in during the Bush Administration and has been increased during the Obama Administration. This is not just private enterprise it is the Government sector as well. I am really beginning to believe you people do not really understand where we are today!
Unless you are living some bubble God s knows where to receive anything you have to comply with the regulations whither you like them or not! I could give you a list of the majority of corporations that require you to have evidence documented of recent drug screening for all employees. When it becomes this level you do not have a choice! That is unless you become so cynical that you do not get a drivers license because you do not agree with the speed limits….That is fatalistic Idealism! I do not want anything to do with the Obama health care plan, and never will if I can help it i never will! Laws and regulations are not a matter of choice!
First they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
I am neither left nor right. I am for the constitutional rights of my fellow citizens. If we allow the government to revoke those rights for even just one sector of the PUBLIC, then we forefit those rights for ourselves and our children as well.
That family in LA — shouldnt have to take a drug test in order to recieve help (was my point), regardless of how they feel about it — it shouldnt be an issue.
I have absolutely no problems with my taxes going to help my fellow citizens, even the ones who made bad choices… choices can be changed, people can change and if the government wanted to spend my money on helping to get those people clean and stable, then so be it.
I also dont understand how i am being insensitive. YOU ARE JUDGING PEOPLE as amornal and less than because theyre asking for help. Where in the world is that proper and sensitive? How am i prejuiduce?
I am saying that the government needs to COME TOGEHTER, as divided we fall… to think of and implement a better solution to our problem than one that DOES trample on our rights. Rights we should not allow to be revoked. Our “god” given rights. Again, asking for help is not criminal and does not provoke probable cause.
If we allow this to continue, it will only be a matter of time before the cops can break down our front doors and search our properties and persons… because they want to, not because they have a warrent.
And thats not some paranoid idealist theory… it is legal presedence.
I am standing up for this right for EVERYONE. Not just “free loading” “low lifes” who are “using” the system (what a terrible generalization). Even if i was wealthy, i would stand up for this right because its the RIGHT thing to do. I
I suppose these sections escaped your notice. Or did you simply ignore them since they don’t support your ‘theory’.
“The average cost of a drug test is about $42 per person tested,[8] not including the costs of hiring personnel to administer the tests, to ensure confidentiality of results and to run confirmatory tests to guard against false positives resulting from passive drug exposure, cross-identification with legal, prescription drugs such as codeine and legal substances such as poppy seeds. [[Pat’s note: did you know that several diseases or illnesses and over SIXTY prescription and OTC meds can cause false positive? More money has to be spent verifying all positives to be sure they’re not FALSE positives]]
Another way to measure the cost is by counting what it costs to “catch” each drug user. Drug testing is not used by many private employers because of the exorbitant cost of catching each person who tests positive. One electronics manufacturer, for example, estimated that the cost of finding each person who tested positive was $20,000, since after testing 10,000 employees, only 49 tested positive. A congressional committee also estimated that the cost of each positive drug test of government employees was $77,000, because the positive rate was only 0.5%.[9]”
Then there’s this: “Most types of drug tests fail to detect alcohol abuse – the most commonly abused substance among Americans [[but questionnaire’s DO catch it fairly often, believe it or not]] – and are most likely to detect marijuana use since the active ingredient in marijuana stays in the body’s system longer than any other illicit substance. Therefore, drug tests often fail to identify people who are using more powerful, more addictive and more dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or cocaine, which exit the body’s system in a matter of hours or days”
So you SERIOUSLY advocate spending thousands of dollars a year on testing that is UNLIKELY to catch anyone except pot users? REALLY?
@Pat: amen !
@monica: Monica please understand one thing! I am not trying to run against you! I see from where you are coming, I actually admire your way of debating issues. You are organized in your thoughts and you have a good method of presenting them! I even agree with your concept, however if you had come with those ideas 20 years ago I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you on many of the things you are presenting! Let me ask you several questions!
Do you really understand how far we are down the river?
Have you ever lived and worked in a socialist or communist country?
Do you really realize what is already required to do business in this country?
Do you understand how many jobs and employers require the drug testing now?
Well I do and I have done these things, and even though you and several of the other people here have great ideas and opinions they are already too late we are much beyond that already…. How do you think that Obama and his thugs have been so successful until now? I really wish things were as simple as many people here think it is! But it is not, and we have to have a way of bringing people back to the workforce and becoming productive….the system in place now is a farce at best, and i can assure you that if we do not get rid of the monsters in this administration out we do not stand a chance….the cards have already been stacked against us!
Monica if I hurt your feelings in any way I apologize my only objective was to try to get people be a little less idealistic and more realistic! Because that is from where we need to start working!
@monica: Amen to you too, Monica!
@Pat: This may be true of Government employees of which I was one at a time. But it not true of the private sector! I am also sure you are a little behind on the advancements in drug testing concerning cost and technology. There are several companies that do a whole range of drug testing here in the Gulf States and the cost is only $20 per employee (of course they have a minimum number to contract you as well. I just was required by the Government to do so in January! the drug test technology you are referring to and the results would have been reflective of drug test from over a year ago or better. Out of 36 people 5 failed! A little different from what you are presenting both cost wise and percentage wise! America indeed has a drinking problem that is for sure, however they also have a very big drug problem… unto the point many clinics and Doctors offices even post written signs that they refuse to offer certain drugs to their patients…like Lora-tabs and other pain killers. I travel all over the United States and it is not isolated to any one area it is nationwide!
It is a shame when you see intelligent people disconnected from obvious realizations!
JV, thank you and I appreciate your aplology. To answer your questions, yes. Yes I do know how far down the creek we’ve gone as a country but do you realize that this bill will only set the precendence for us to go even further down the creek? In our Decloration of Independence, against the Brittish, it states that
now, my days of being a punk rocker are over but it sounds to me like we have, at this point, every right to abolish our henious system and start anew.
The only problems i forsee with this is that, like with politicans — were all far too busy hating one another, pointing fingers and placing blame (or as is the issue with my generation and the ones after it… being apathetic as to whats happening) to join in revolt against something that we all believe is wrong in one way or another.
I love my country and i wish it still stood for what i was told it stood for growing up but i know it doesnt and this bill, it creates a slippery slope that actually puts fear into me that one day… this country may be worse off than it is because people cant get their heads out of their butts long enough to do what is RIGHT for it and its citizens.
@monica: Amen Amen Amen! Your words “it sounds to me like we have, at this point, every right to abolish our henious system and start anew. ” perfectly correct!
This drug testing idea for welfare is an AMAZING idea. Liberals say “well, you can’t just single out a group of people (i.e. people who do drugs) and decide whether or not it’s right or wrong for them to receive welfare. Some people might say you should limit welfare to other groups of people because their lifestyles are wrong in their opinion. Either you give welfare to everyone, or you don’t give it to anyone at all.”
It all come back to the simple point that people who work to supply the welfare money have to be drug tested before they can pay their taxes to go towards welfare, so people who receive that money (from the taxpayer who was also drug tested) should also have to take a drug test in order to receive it fairly. The people supplying the money for the welfare program (the workers/tax payers) are undergoing the SAME EXACT drug testing to be able supply the money in the first place. It is a completely fair exchange for both sides!
The tax payer: “I am forced to get drug tested to be able to give you my money, now you have to get drug tested to recieve my money.”
You can’t deny how this is completely logical and fair…
@J V Hoffman, darling… LOL. Think about your base argument in the comments above. You suggest that whether a citizen is classified as “productive” or “non productive” is a guideline to mandates that may infringe on 4th Amendment rights.
I repeat… are you working for Obama’s healthcare/commerce team?
Government contracts as an argument isn’t much of an improvement either. Government has taxpayer money for a project, and puts out the bid. The bid requires that contractors meet certain demands in order to qualify for the bids.
Not much different than a private contractor and his minimal criteria for consideration. Or an employer demanding minimal education/skill sets for an employee to hire.
Unless those demands infringe on the recognized civil rights classes, the government is no more out of line than Hooters demanding your have a particular cup size in ratio to the rest of your body in order to work there. You see, cup size isn’t a protected class either…. Okay, far out type analogy, but you get the gist. Why should a private contract be able to create minimal bid criteria, and not the government as steward for taxpayer expenses, as long as they don’t infringe on protected classes?
If the contractors have no desire to meet those government demands, they can just not bid, and put in bids for jobs that are not government contracts No sane business would structure itself to exist only on government contracts without subsidiary clientele for their lifespan. If they do… they deserve to swirl round the toilet bowl and ready themselves for a bankruptcy trustee when the government doesn’t award them a new contract.
If a business chooses to be solely subsistent on government contracts, is it the fault of the government that they have no other business clientele, but still refuse to meet the governments criteria? Of course not.
Apples and oranges tho from your base argument that perhaps Constitutional rights should be based on financial repercussions to the nation at large – i.e. the commerce clause used by the Dems for healthcare and sundry other causes. Using the cost of abuse of welfare funds to the nation, which is not the same as national defense as an argument for TSA searches, is no different than Obama’s admin arguing for the mandate for insurance based on a risk to the public fiscally, and thereby quite constitutional for that reason.
Then you said :
Here you need to be asked…. just what does Constitutional rights have to do with whether a citizen is productive or non productive ? Must a citizen be productive in order to enjoy Constitutional protections?
Heaven help us when the government is in charge of deciding who is “productive” and “non productive.” Thus the slippery slope.
@Cory: Thank you Cory…. I guess some people here think that all of us who work for the government of any other company that requires Drug testing are drop outs! How ever if you put them all together it is basically close to 30% of the population. Northrop Grumman alone employs more than 40,000 people, not to mention Martin Marietta another 20,000 and another 200,000 in contractors and vendors…… On other words we should all just stop working and refuse to take drug test so that all of the welfare recipients can sit at home and watch cable all day!
How many are in the military today? plus Police forces, Government security agencies and more! So we have to make to pay the taxes that pay their unemployment but they can break the law and get rewarded for continuing a life of poverty! I really do not see any alternative until we change out the government!
@Greg, I’m utterly shocked that everyone gives summaries of a ruling, and not one of the articles you linked, or that I found in a fast search, bothers to cite the name of the lawsuit so we can read the full opinion.
Haven’t got time tonight, but will see what I can find tomorrow when I get a chance. The summary doesn’t pass the smell test and, were it as simple as they state, is likely to lose in an appeal. But I really don’t know the specifics of the lawsuit, and I’ve long since learned not to trust pundits’ synopses.
How can democracy be met by parasites! When the forefathers founded the United States you had to be a land owner and have a writ of taxation in order to vote! Do you think that was for no reason? That is a government of the people and for the people and by the people! those who do not contribute to the formation of government, how can it be just that they a voice in government? This is really one sided rights and not equal rights when those who provide are subjected to drug test while those who are recipients of our labor are not committed to anything other than to receive? This does not fit any theory of democracy I have ever studied and is foreign to the Constitution!
You talk about legislation and rulings….Hello!!!!! that is exactly what got us in this mess to begin with! People need to share equal responsibility in a society! and General welfare does not mean the same as Social welfare that has only been around less than 80 years! You call yourselves conservatives? you are only aiding the Obama type socialist to continue! It would be better to revert to what was before and everyone go back to work! Get your history right and then look at the future!
Bottom line productive citizens create a productive country! Not 32% percent of the country working to provide for the biggest government in the history of the world while more than 28% sit on their ass and do little to nothing! That is pure socialism!
@Monica: Hi there Monica, I agree that welfare recipients should not have to be drug tested in order to receive benefits but your use of the General Welfare clause to justify your position is the wrong approach. First off the meaning of the word “welfare” has changed over time, if you look at Mr. Websters dictionary’s and compare the definition of “welfare” in his 1828 edition to the current definition you can see this.
I hope I linked those definitions right, this is the first time I’ve tried to link stuff here..
Anyway, whenever the Constitution is used to back up your rhetoric “original context and meaning” must be taken into account. The framers in no way ever intended “general welfare” to apply to an entitlement program. JV is absolutely correct when he said “…general welfare is like hospitals, roadways, parks, hospitals…”
Realism vs Idealism!
I see and witness here many people who may have good ideas and concepts..and they may even have a good base and line of thought….but it is obvious to me they have never really worked in the actual function side of Government, thus in principal and ideals much of what they are saying may sound good but however lack the reality of finding a place and ability to actually take place!
Basing the things that have been discussed here on legislative and judiciary decisions is what got us into this illustrious mess to begin with! It is like a Homeopathic Political Treatment you just give them more of the poison until they get over the effects! The thought that you can make such dramatic changes in policy as it would require and to even present the aspects many think are possible here is next to impossible and highly unlikely at best!
What really contaminates the debates here is a self implied interpretation of what they think can exist against their ignorance of what already exist! Drug testing has already been applied to the responsible part of our society for many years, and in many cases is not an option! You can not shut the whole economy down to fix something! That is lunacy!
The money that is being pumped into the welfare and social aid system alone is enough to repair the economy and if the those people who are abusing it were to have to return to the work force it would automatically create a more function-able tax base instead of our taxes (the working people) having to continue to shoulder this unnecessary burden! In short get real!!!! and find a way to implement your ideals otherwise they remain nothing but dis-attached ideas!!!
Two things have to happen:
1. To make the recipients of welfare and social aid conform to a pattern of normality and limit the time that they can receive it just like unemployment! The fact that we have people who virtually exist most of their life off of social aid and welfare is a complete failure of the system and our society (pure socialism).
2. No fantasies! We need to change this whole government out! And then we can begin to make the changes that are necessary! The changes that would have to be made will never happen through legal decisions and legislature where we trust lawyer and judges to correct it! That makes about as much sense as wrestling with a Moray eel the more you wrestle the bigger the bite he gets on you! There has to be a change out! The parties that exist have slept together for not a short time, and they will not change anytime soon! UNLESS WE VOTE IN SOMEONE WHO IS NOT ON THEIR PAYROLL AND AGENDA!!!!
Responsible government enforces responsibility to it citizens, not to decrease the welfare of society but rather to increase it through prosperity (which requires responsible citizens and not an over whelming army of welfare recipients!)
@J V Hoffman: JV, I agree with you on many things especially turning the clock back about 100 years but this entire argument, to me, is yet another example of the powers that be using the left/right paradigm to keep the populace divided over inconsequential issues. Should welfare recipients be drug tested? A better question would be why try to justify the constitutionality of drug testing people who are participating in a program that is unconstitutional to begin with. You’re just trying to put lipstick on a pig.
You know I quit the Republican party years ago because I recognized the D’s and the R’s both pursued the same end game…..control. Yes “Drug testing has already been applied to the responsible part of our society for many years” but why? Did the industry start this process on it’s own? No, it didn’t, it was government once again that got the ball rolling. Ronny Reagan’s E.O. 12564 in 1986 and passage of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 is what really ushered in the era of drug testing. Prior to the ill conceived “War on Drugs” we didn’t have to supplicate ourselves prior to securing employment in most cases.
What has it brought us in the long run? It has made us the #1 nation! We lead the world in prisons, % of population in prison, total number of prisoners, it has made our southern border a de facto war zone. No sir this must stop. I refuse to willingly grant the government any more control over any aspect of anyone’s life.
@MataHarley, #91:
Here’s the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling in PDF format, if you’re interested.
The following statement appears at the top of page 6:
That which is a reasonable exercise of a constitutional right is no longer acceptable under state law? I found myself staring at that statement for a moment.
They’ve lead up to it with the preceding bit of rationale, which appears at the bottom of page 4:
The court seems to be saying that we don’t need to worry about exercising our Fourth Amendment rights at the door to our castle, because these days we have a means of redressing any violation of our Fourth amendment rights in that same court system; that these days, the Fourth Amendment just ain’t what it used to be.
Thanks for the link, Greg. Saved me some time I didn’t have this morning.
Reading opinions is always fascinating. Whether you agree with the presiding justice or not, it’s always interesting to see how and why they come to conclusions, and learn more of precedents we may not have known. But all cases are decisions that, while may be used as a precedent in the future, pertain to the evidentiary facts of the particular case before them. When you read the events of the case, and considering that the officer was responding to a 911 call for help in a domestic dispute… something almost every officer I know detests since it’s a real legal fencewalk for them… I have no problems whatsoever of the law officers on the spot “exigent circumstances” to enter the home. Or, as the opinion says:
I might even wonder why the court did not consider the conflict between Mary.. who called for police aid and the continued resident… asked for the police to be allowed in, and the hothead Barnes who refused. This does put somewhat a question as to why his refusal, and her approval, didn’t become an issue. Or that they considered his refusal had more weight than her’s, the one calling for aid and the permanent and future resident of the home.
But here’s two ugly realities. Law officers can do many things “unlawful”, and it can be as simple as an illegal search of your car, or even an illegal stop and detention on the side of the road (technically an arrest). The court recognizes that this does happen and doesn’t sanction illegal entry or unlawful officer actions in itself. But they note we have recourse in the courts for illegal police actions. If one wants to compound the problem, they can resist (whether legally or illegally) and that much won’t help their case before a judge. You’re just piling on the charges and escalating what is already a bad situation.
But I think what I really found most interesting in the entire situation was on page 4:
I don’t know about you, but what I take away from this is that Indiana is just another state that has followed the same path as others before it. No one has raised a cry before, that I know of. So I guess we were all totally unaware that this is already in existence in “a majority of states”.
All in all, I agree with the dissenting opinion of Ruckerk and Dickson. Mostly that the majority opinion swept by the most important argument of all… was the entry legal or not?… and instead just decided to abrogate the right of resistance. (note, they still do not sanction illegal entry.. just the ability to judge the legality and resist) But I still found the dissenting opinion’s last paragraph the spot on view:
I don’t know how many states before Indiana have done this. And apparently no one has taken it up in the court food chain to challenge the removal of the right to resist what may (or may not) be an illegal entry. But I will say, in this case, I think the officers were not only correct – and within their legal authority to enter under the circumstances – but that this guy deserves to lose his shirt in attorney fees.
@Poppa_T: Poppa T I am glad you wrote this message! Why? You express a sense of realistic line of thought that reflects experience in life! I just want to outline some things that I am sure you realize but so many of the people who commentate here are oblivious to. We are far beyond what most people here comprehend. However we have to begin to correct it from where we are at, and not where we think we should be! I do not agree with drug testing! However it is here, and it has been here for some time, and it is required of the more responsible side of society! It would be nice if we all could set back and become hermitized and select just not to have a job that requires it, but that is not realistic by any stretch of the imagination! Legislation and Judiciary process put us where we are today, and offers no solution. If anything it is the field dominated by the liberals and press more than anyone!
1. The Constitution can only be understood properly by a proper comprehension of what life was for our forefathers and why they separated from England to begin with! Even here on FA you can see the lack of comprehension in these matter in the Paul Revere/Palin comment situation. Public education (which is socialistic) has painted for people a rosey picture of what the Constitution allows them or grants them mixed with the sly and cunning mixture of the socialistic path of education and politics of the last century! I will quote Thomas Jefferson (Taken from a plaque at VMI remembering Nathan Jefferson, one of the VMI cadets killed in the Civil war, grandson of Thomas Jefferson) “The power of liberty can only be realized by a people who comprehend and participate in its function, the freedom that it affords us has to met with an equal measure of responsibility.”
I ask you…Does this sound like a welfare give away program? If anything the whole of the welfare system is unconstitutional! What do you think Obamination has done with the FOOD STAMPS? he has bought the poor and unproductive vote of America! In two years a rise of more than 300% in food stamp recipients! out of control…completely out of control!
2. People here quote the 4th Amendment as a stature! Ring! Ring! Ring! The Patriot Act and many other actions taken by our government have taken any real power that the 4th amendment ever had! I wish I could call up George Washington to set matters straight! However he is deceased, and we cannot bring him back! we can how ever bring back the 4th Amendment …. But it will take a change of the guard to do so because the powers that be are all sleeping together on it!
3. I continually hear that this” bill” or this “decision” or this “ruling” ….Open your eyes and look around you! the same lawyers that supported all of this hog wash are the ones serving in office now! Lawyers and Politicians and Judges are not going to correct what they have built to form the empire they have!
Yeah our Politicians are so concerned they vote themselves a raise and increases at every opportunity,while the budget and the country slide off into hell!
WE HAVE TO CHANGE DIRECTION OR THIS COUNTRY WILL DIE!!!!!
@J V Hoffman: Partner I’m afraid we have a slight disagreement, you said that “we have to begin to correct it from where we are at, and not where we think we should be” and unfortunately I don’t think we can correct it. The educational level of our citizenry is abysmal. 99 out of 100 of our fellow citizens think the U.S. is a Democracy as opposed to a Republic. Even worse, out of the 1% of the population that does understand that our government was designed to be a Republic perhaps only 1% of them can clearly and concisely explain the differences between the two systems of government.
In fact in post #92 you used the dreaded “D” word yourself….twice! I quote ” How can democracy be met by parasites!” and “This does not fit any theory of democracy I have ever studied and is foreign to the Constitution!” my friend Democracies inherently breed parasites and democratic theory itself is foreign to the Constitution. The said fact is that although we were designed to be a Republic we are a de facto democracy. This lie has been taught in our government schools since the 40’s. Our fellow citizens have been taught that they have a “Right” to an education, to housing, food, healthcare, even a dang cell phone!
The Welfare system we have is beyond repair, allowing the government to gain more control over the populace by drug testing those applying for benefits will do nothing to fix the system because unfortunately all it takes in a democracy is for 50%+1 to vote to change the rules.
For Greg, my friend you seem distressed by the ruling of the Indiana supreme court. I am too. I am also distressed by the New Mexico ruling. The unfortunate fact is that the 4th amendment has been dead since the 1984 ruling in U.S v. Leon in fact the entire Bill of Rights with the exception of the 3rd and 7th Amendments has been dead for a quite a while.
In my opinion we can’t fix the system, all we can do is fight the further encroachment of the police state by opposing any attempt by the government to gain more power until enough of us decide to pull a Popeye and say “I’ve stood I can stands and I can’t stands NO MORE!”
Ron Paul 2012
@Poppa_T: Yes you are correct in your honestly I stand corrected you are totally correct as concerning Republic vs Democracy! I unthinkingly used the term as to identify the problem of American! Good Commentary!
@MataHarley, #98:
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Your thoughts on the topic are appreciated.
I do agree about Barnes. Given the particulars of the situation, I think the responding cops made an entirely responsible and reasonable on-the-spot decision. Unlike Barnes.
It’s not clear to me why the court made no effort to clarify the difference between reasonable and unreasonable resistance, however. Instead, it now seems that simply declining to open my door when the police want to enter has become unlawful–even in the absence of a warrant or an immediate concern about someone’s safety.
The principles underlying state law sometimes seem unclear and inconsistent in Indiana. The “Castle Doctrine” is also law here, for example:
You are all frigan ignorant. Mind your own business!! If someone is overweight take them off foodstamps?? WTF EVER, that is NONE OF YOUR FRIGAN BUSINESS! I hope very one of you ignorant pricks lose your jobs and have to ask for help. I really do. Oh and the story about the lady who had the better car?! You ASSUME she isn’t working?! How the FK do YOU know that? You can still be eligible for food stamps as you work, NOT TO MENTION how do YOU know she wasn’t shopping for a disabled family member? GET OFF YOUR DAMN HIGH HORSES
@yeah right: Are you always this eloquent and thoughtful?
Yeah right, of course there is abuse to be made, but it work on both sides of the society,
if the employees of the agency to implement drug testing, well is in it fair enough that
the recipient of welfare be ask to take the test, because that would be a first move to separate the abuser of the PEOPLE’S MONEY, earned at the sweath of their body,
while the one on welfare who doesn’t contribute no effort to help the society,
and furthermore is more likely to be taking drugs so easy available to pass the time which he has too much of it enough to get bored, and find other things to do again not contributing to the wellbeing
of his or her COUNTRY,
EVERY ONE HAS TO DO THEIR BITS TO EARN THEIR COUNTRY’S FREEDOM AND LARGESSES,
AND THE MILITARYS ARE THE FIRST ONE TO DO IT, WE OWE IT TO THEM TO WORK TO KEEP AMERICA IN GOOD HEALTH AND FREE FROM THE NASTY DRUGS THAT CIRCULATE EVERY WHERE
FOR THE CHILDREN TO BE AWARE OF IT AND BE ABLE TO KNOW ALL THE NAMES OF THOSE DRUGS,
WHILE THEIR PARENTS ARE NOT EVEN AWARE OF IT,
THAT IS MOSTLY TELLING, THAT THEY MUST DO THE TESTING,
FOR EVEN MORE REASON THAN SAVING MONEY,
cj thank’s
Yeah right, you make me wanna be a better loser. Can you teach me how? Your use of the English language is impeccable and your communication skills above reproach for someone like me with a strong desire to lower my stature in life. Please tell me you’re hosting a seminar somewhere. I’ve never been less inspired by such brilliance in irony.
I don’t understand how you think it’s appropriate to “waive your rights” because someone needs public assistance. Why would I, as a law-abiding American citizen, be forced to waive my rights guaranteed in this country because I need support from the government I pay my taxes to?
The difference between testing government employees and testing welfare recipients is vastly different and both sides of the argument are clearly missing it. Government employees aren’t subject just because they “volunteered” for the job. They are subject because the financial and/or security risk involved with government employees being addicted and/or abusing illegal drugs. I’m a correctional officer in a maximum custody prison; drug abuse could lead me to either perform poorly and decrease security or be willing to do favors or sneak in drugs to sell to inmates. You, being a soldier, can’t use drugs for similar reasons of job performance. (In my state of Arizona where medical marijuana is now legal, by the way, state employees in certain positions are still not allowed to use it, not because of the legality, but because of the effects.)
Welfare recipients are a different story. Even if abusing drugs, they pose none of the risks that you or I would. Treating them all like untrustworthy druggies is awful. Yes, some of them might be, and you can treat THEM like untrustworthy druggies. But the blanket treatment is rude, and yes, a violation of the fourth amendment, the key words being “probable cause.” And being poor isn’t probable cause.