Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday December 04 2014, @05:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the unreasonable-searches-and-seizures dept.

Via Common Dreams, the American Civil Liberties Union reports

[December 3], a three-judge panel at the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that a 2011 Florida law mandating that all applicants for the state's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program submit to suspicion-less drug tests violates the Constitution's protection against unreasonable government searches.

[...]The 11th Circuit panel's order rejects arguments made by attorneys for the State of Florida that government has the authority to require people to submit to invasive searches of their bodily fluids without suspicion of wrongdoing, stating "the warrantless, suspicionless urinalysis drug testing of every Florida TANF applicant as a mandatory requirement for receiving Temporary Cash Assistance offends the Fourth Amendment."

[...]A 2012 review of the TANF mandatory urinalysis program found that the state of Florida spent more money reimbursing individuals for drug tests than the state saved on screening out the extremely small percentage.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday December 04 2014, @05:39PM

    by ikanreed (3164) on Thursday December 04 2014, @05:39PM (#122625) Journal

    But every backdoor attempt to punish people for needing it is so transparently hateful that I can never understand what drives someone to be so hateful.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Thursday December 04 2014, @05:45PM

      by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 04 2014, @05:45PM (#122629)

      In this case that law was created because of the belief that people were just buying drugs with their support money. Really shows what the law makers thought of people who required financial assistance.

      --
      SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by keplr on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:55PM

        by keplr (2104) on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:55PM (#122664) Journal

        It probably was true, in at least one case. It's important to get a sense of the scope of the problem. People who are against welfare are usually operating under two misconceptions.

        Misconception the first: they VASTLY over-estimate the amount of money budgeted for welfare. SS and Medicare don't seem to often count in their minds because you "earn" them through your working years. Just ask one of these people what percentage of the budget goes to these "welfare" programs they're against. You'll notice two things: the number will almost certainly be wrong, and almost certainly be too high--often absurdly too high. Actually you get this problem with a lot of things. People think we waste a huge amount of money on NASA when it's actually just 1% of the budget. They just don't understand what they're talking about.

        Misconception the second: they VASTLY overestimate the amount of waste, fraud, and abuse. When you confront them with the facts, things like that the Food Stamps program (SNAP) is one of the least corrupt, most heavily scrutinized, and most effective government programs, they refuse to believe it. When you point out facts like the GAO report [gao.gov] to them, which found that incorrect payments (overpayments, or payments to people who were not eligible) are down 56% from 1999 to 2009, to a record low of 4.4%, they simply refuse to believe reality. Other reports show similar numbers for other programs. I was told this Thanksgiving by a conservative relative that if the GAO report conflicts with his conception of massive fraud and abuse, then the GAO report must be wrong. I was then regaled with a litany of personal anecdotes; the usual tired, vaguely racist, apocrypha. "I saw one of these Welfare Queens with her five children in tow, not a father in sight, hauling cases of Mountain Dew and cartons of Twinkies up to the counter to pay with her EBT card. She was of course chattering away on her Obamaphone in her incomprehensible urban slang to one of her supernumerary baby-daddies. Motivated purely by curiosity, and not fuming racial hatred, I discretely followed her into the parking lot where I saw her load her basketball team sized family into a late model Cadillac SUV. This is, I am sure of it, a representative sample of the welfare experience in America." And on and on like this. I'm being hyperbolic, but I'm not having to embellish too much from what he sincerely related to me as true experience and analysis. These people are helplessly biased, prejudiced--and they just don't know what they're talking about.

        If your tolerance for welfare fraud is zero, AND you care enough about the issue to actually work toward that goal in earnest, then the only way forward is to eliminate welfare entirely. For as long as these programs exist and are administered by and for humans, there will be fraud. We'll never get it down to zero. And people who rail against these marginal cases (which are getting rarer all the time as we get better at tracking and correcting abuse) completely ignore the good that's done by these programs. Many of the beneficiaries are children in poverty. Whatever your degree of devotion to the flawed boot-strap-pulling solution to poverty, you can't defensibly apply this to school age children. Hungry children certainly aren't being given equality of opportunity.

        There's a disheartening hatred of the poor through all strata of American society. Bizarrely, it's even found among the poor themselves. Christopher Hitchens once said, when asked why Americans don't have Universal Healthcare, that he didn't think Americans want healthcare. We don't think we deserve it.

        Hatred isn't good for you, especially self-hatred.

        --
        I don't respond to ACs.
        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday December 04 2014, @07:37PM

          by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 04 2014, @07:37PM (#122680)

          It's not just hatred of the poor, and to limit this phenomenon to that statement is to lie by omission.

          What poor rural people have been told for at least 50 years now is that the reason they're poor is that the federal government came and took their money and gave it to poor urban people so that the poor urban people could spend it on hookers and blow. Not coincidentally, the people who, when hearing this story, are most likely to believe it wholeheartedly are those that 60 years ago were using the threat of mob violence to ensure that the people that are now poor urban people couldn't live in their towns. And also not coincidentally, the poor rural people in question are almost universally white, and the poor urban people in question are almost universally black or Hispanic. Hence the opposition to taxation and welfare programs is that they see it as the federal government stealing their money and giving it to n*****s and w******s - they dress this sentiment up a whole lot of ways, but that's what it is in a nutshell.

          And there is no government report, no speech, no professor, no statistical data, and no research paper that can convince them that this isn't the reality of the situation. They've already made up their minds, and if you present any opposing facts you are part of the grand conspiracy to take their money. The idea that their money was actually taken mostly by Wall Street (who, incidentally, are statistically the most likely to be indulging in hookers and blow) just never crosses their mind.

          Those that are paid to stoke this opinion who are historically minded also like to wrap it up in the Lost Cause post-Confederate ideology that says that the reason for the Civil War was that Abe Lincoln started the war to steal white southerner's property (in fact, South Carolina started the war to protect slavery, and said so proudly), and that the Kennedys and Lyndon Johnson allowed the Civil Rights Movement to happen so they could dominate politics by buying black votes with money taxed away from white people. And that logically leads to the idea that by 2065 they believe white people in the US will be enslaved by a black-and-Hispanic-controlled government unless something is done to stop that from happening. And as before it is acceptable to use violence to prevent that outcome.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Thursday December 04 2014, @11:30PM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Thursday December 04 2014, @11:30PM (#122772) Journal

          Your second one ignored the most important part, racism and the "bucket of crabs" syndrome. The reason why you see such hatred is frankly racism which is still very much alive and well, you'll hear codewords like welfare queens which we ALL know is just their way of saying niggers, and the bucket of crabs is why you'll see tarpaper shacks with republican signs on the lawn, they'l happily fuck themselves out of aid or even medicine if it means they keep a nigger from getting it.

          its sad that in 2015 this is so but going through most of the red states and talking to folks...yep, sad to say its racism and bucket of crabs.

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday December 04 2014, @11:56PM

          by edIII (791) on Thursday December 04 2014, @11:56PM (#122783)

          You missed one of the largest misconceptions. That when looked at across the board, irrespective of petty concerns over deservedness, do we find a net positive result? The misconception is both one of scale (the near willful ignorance of the larger picture for others) and measure (failing to realize we are still better off with her like that).

          When we ignore the poor so brutally, we create nothing but animals needing to be handled like animals. That's never a good idea with the most dangerous predator the planet Earth has ever seen. Just in pure actual numbers measuring our environmental carnage.

          Perhaps it's better to swallow our pride and realize that one way or the other we will be dealing with these welfare queens and their generational breeding of entitlement. That's solved through education and community outreach, and god forbid, concepts like restorative justice.

          This is anathema to some of those people in politics as they wish to turn the United States of America into one large corporate controlled sterile zone. If you couldn't make there, well then, you didn't deserve to be human, and you're being deported for vagrancy. Somewhat hyperbole, somewhat serious. I honestly don't know if these people give any consideration on where these "people" go after they are cut off from resources (even if the recipient is a human waste of skin). Do they think it's a playground where the offending child is just magically removed from recess?

          Whatever you do, the end result is a human being living in harsh and scary conditions. That's just stupid and begging for crime. Either that, or we get to sleep at night knowing people are actually dying a little bit faster each day. Those would be amazing human beings too. To die quietly in the street with dignity all while strictly keeping compliance with all local laws and ordinances.

          That's the greatest misconception; Our social programs have no value beyond the immediate relief provided, and that they can simply disappear overnight or at all.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday December 04 2014, @10:03PM

        by Dunbal (3515) on Thursday December 04 2014, @10:03PM (#122720)

        That's the thing people never get. Once money leaves your hands and enter mine, it's not your money anymore. You get no say in what happens to it from there.

    • (Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Thursday December 04 2014, @05:49PM

      by arashi no garou (2796) on Thursday December 04 2014, @05:49PM (#122631)

      I consider any politician, no matter how "nice" or "for the people", to be full of hate, greed, and an insatiable thirst for lying, cheating, and stealing. If a politician does a good thing, I look for the selfish angle behind it. I hate that it's like that, but there is no such thing as an honest politician and if you believe there is, sooner than later you'll be proven wrong.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04 2014, @05:59PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04 2014, @05:59PM (#122634)

        No one is honest all the time. The politicians pushing this stuff are representing the will of some of their constituents. Sure those constituents hold some really cruel attitudes but that's life. We are all a mix of good and bad and much of what distinguishes between good and bad is just a question of perspective.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by arashi no garou on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:40PM

          by arashi no garou (2796) on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:40PM (#122652)

          I used to feel the same way. I once had hope that there were good people involved in politics and would ignore bad behavior from what I thought of as "good" people. Then I worked for the government for 14 years and I realized the truth: There is no such thing as a "good" person in politics. No matter what good intentions someone has when running for an elected position, they will inevitably feel the slimy hands of greed and power around them and will succumb to that embrace.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:15PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:15PM (#122644)

        The problem, when you're trying to get elected by morons, is that it's a lot easier to show off how you got tough on drug addicts to save tax money (bonus if your opponent didn't), rather than actually fighting for meaningful and nuanced laws which actually improve people's lives.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by arashi no garou on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:43PM

          by arashi no garou (2796) on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:43PM (#122655)

          You'd be surprised at how many of these politicians aren't just pushing a platform to get elected; some of them live and breathe depravity towards other humans.

          These days when people ask me what political party I'm voting for (and I do still vote, it's better than doing nothing) I reply that I don't vote for the party, I vote for the candidate that is the worst liar. That way it's easier to see the bullshit coming from a distance.

          • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday December 09 2014, @03:49AM

            by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Tuesday December 09 2014, @03:49AM (#124053) Journal

            Bimbo Newton Crosby, try talking to these hardcore Ayn Randiates and you'll quickly find they are really hardcore sadists, they really do find pleasure in the idea of stomping on poor folks.

            --
            ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 05 2014, @12:31AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 05 2014, @12:31AM (#122795)

        there is no such thing as an honest politician

        Actually, there is. An honest politician is one who *stays* bribed.

      • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday December 05 2014, @06:39PM

        by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Friday December 05 2014, @06:39PM (#122989)

        From my personal experience, I know that not all politicians are dishonest. There are very good and valuable people in politics.

        But politics is an activity that attracts lots of dishonest people. They want to control resources and can bullshit their way into positions of power. But that's not different from any human activity involving money and power. Management positions in private companies are full of dishonest people. And they make a huge lot more money than politicians. And they're a lot less accountable than politicians.

        The thing that scares the crooks the most is that their work is scrutinised by the people that elected them. So, to avoid dishonesty in politics, common people must be involved and active. That's the reason that the "politics is dishonest" meme is so widespread. It appeals to the laziness of the common guy. Instead of demanding more from his elected officials, he will just drop his arms and use the meme as an excuse for inaction. That's exactly what every crook wants. To drive honest people away from politics, so he can rule free.

        Stop being a lazy naysayer and get involved. I warn you, it's hard work, and you will be subject to a lot of temptations. If you are honest, you'll give a lot more than you take. But you can sleep at night, because you know the world is a tiny, tiny bit better, because of you.


        The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

        Edmund Burke

      • (Score: 2) by everdred on Friday December 05 2014, @07:14PM

        by everdred (110) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 05 2014, @07:14PM (#122997) Homepage Journal

        It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

        -Douglas Adams

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04 2014, @05:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04 2014, @05:55PM (#122633)

      Moral sanctimony lets the winners in life feel like they have no responsibility to the unfortunate because the unfortunate earned their lot in life. Prosperity gospel [wikipedia.org] and the hindu caste system are similar phenomena.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:47PM (#122659)

        Indeed, the last time I visited a church that preached "Prosperity" I stood up and walked out in the middle of the sermon. That particular day I had decided to wear jeans and a T-shirt instead of more formal clothes since I wanted to see if they would judge my appearance, and unsurprisingly I had gotten dirty looks and no handshakes or greetings when I first walked in. Apparently I wasn't prosperous enough for that church in the first place.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:51PM

      by Sir Garlon (1264) on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:51PM (#122661)

      I actually don't think "hate" is the right word. Oddly enough, and I want to emphasize that I don't share this view, I can see how someone might regard a law like this as a compromise position. "I don't like welfare because I think everyone with a decent work ethic can make a decent living, but I will put up with your bleeding-heart social program as long as we make sure my hard-line requirement is met: that people aren't allowed to spend this taxpayer money to buy drugs."

      There are two delusions embedded in this position: first, that good character is a guarantee of prosperity, and second, that drug abuse is concentrated among the poor.

      There is a certain hard-heartedness required to preserve those delusions in the face of direct human contact with poor people, but it is quite easy to insulate oneself from the poor when most of one's friends and family are relatively rich. I've been on both sides of that fence.

      Why does anyone believe such delusions? I submit that it's deeply uncomfortable to admit that the values one treasures, and all the hard work one has done, may not have been nearly so important to one's station in life as the accident of birth.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday December 04 2014, @07:06PM

        by Arik (4543) on Thursday December 04 2014, @07:06PM (#122672) Journal
        I'm not sure the second is completely delusional.

        Obviously the rich are more able to indulge their tastes (and often do) but in my experience real abject drug dependence is more common among the poor. It's part of the poverty trap that keeps most of them where they are. A poor man with a $50/week habit is in a much worse position than a rich celebrity with a $500/wk habit.

        That said, the remedy proposed is still defective.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by melikamp on Thursday December 04 2014, @09:27PM

          by melikamp (1886) on Thursday December 04 2014, @09:27PM (#122706) Journal

          What is this "your experience" and why does it matter? US middle class is high as kite on prescription painkillers, with higher incomes showing just as much, if not more use:

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaris/2012/07/24/1-in-3-american-adults-take-prescription-drugs/2/

          It's part of the poverty trap that keeps most of them where they are.

          Really? Recreational drugs is what keeps poor people poor? Why use statistics or even common sense when we can simply repeat the myths? How come painkiller and alcohol abuse doesn't make rich people poor? Could racism, awful schools, awful healthcare, brainwashing propaganda, weak safety net, and disenfranchisement of the poor be more likely causes?

          • (Score: 2) by strattitarius on Thursday December 04 2014, @09:49PM

            by strattitarius (3191) on Thursday December 04 2014, @09:49PM (#122712) Journal
            Alcohol abuse has ruined more "rich" people than you can shake a stick at. I know a few meth addicts and they will never get a good job if they stay on their current path.

            The only thing I think you have an issue with is probably that pot is thrown in with the more addictive and damaging drugs.
            --
            Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Friday December 05 2014, @12:19AM

            by Arik (4543) on Friday December 05 2014, @12:19AM (#122793) Journal
            My experience is living in low income areas, both urban and rural, in the USA, for years. I've seen what I said over and over again.

            Yeah, lots of rich people use drugs. And some of them get really messed up to a degree that having a lot of money cant help with.

            But most of them dont reach that point. They can afford the habit. And if they need to see a doctor or a counselor about it, they can afford that too.

            A poor man with the same habit is much more at risk. Simply paying for the habit itself may be a huge burden. It may be impossible on paper, and drive him to crime, which leads to ruinous court costs and fees even if he avoids jail time. Doctors and counselors that might help him kick it are much harder for him to access.

            The "drug' doesnt need to be psychoactive - this is something that commonly happens with cigarettes. The wealthier you are, the less likely you are to smoke - the less of a burden the cost is if you do - and the easier you have it if you want to quit. For a rich man cigarettes are unlikely to be a big problem.

            But for the very poor? I have seen so many people in those straits, unemployed or underemployed, drawing food stamps, and spending many of their waking hours pursuing their #1 perceived need. Not food, not shelter, not employment - no, cigarettes.

            I've seen it all my life and the more I see it the less I believe the common dismissal of it as a personal problem and the more I see it as part of the overall poverty trap. And it is a trap. The less money you have the more money you need, in so many ways. A rich man with good credit can have the power turned on to a warehouse with little more than a word. A poor man that's had trouble paying a bill here and there in the past? He has to come up with a big deposit to get the power on in a cottage. Think about it.

            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: -1) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04 2014, @07:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04 2014, @07:11PM (#122673)

        I agree with this sort of law.

        If you have money to buy illegal drugs then you have money to buy food. I mean exactly that.

        Money is what is called fungible.

        If you have 100 dollars to buy food. Then you buy food.

        But if you have 100 dollars in coupons AND 100 dollars. Now you can buy both. Basically I am supporting your drug habit.

        I know *many* drug addicts. Many of them are also on snap. I knew a drug dealer who cleared 3k a month selling who was on snap and he was a small fry coke dealer. These people are a minority of who uses these programs but they f-ng piss me the hell off. I could care less about their work ethic or anything like that. It chaps my ass they are basically stealing from these programs. These programs are meant to help people. Not to give you a life of leisure. These people think nothing of having 6 kids. Not because of their love of children. But because they see them as dollar signs. I see it over and over. They even think I am 'the crazy one' because I do not take advantage of the system like they do.

        What most people do not realize is how wildly expensive illegal drugs are. 3k a month? Thats nothing to a pill head or someone who wants heroin.

        They see it as a scam. If you think otherwise you have never dealt with people in these programs. There are basically 3 kinds. Those who actually need it (these people usually want out as quickly as they went in). Those who are using it as a supplement to their lifestyle. Those who are gaming it to 'make some cheddar'. The first two I am ok with. The third though...

        To give you an idea of the scope of how taken advantage these systems are let me tell you the story of my friend. He was out on his luck finding a job (about 8 months). He had no nest egg because the ex had wasted it all on stupid purchases. So he gets married and 4 months in he is out of a job. He ends up on snap. He finds a job and wants to pay back the remainder. They had never heard of such a thing. They had no way to do it.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday December 05 2014, @03:10PM

          by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Friday December 05 2014, @03:10PM (#122935)

          This is your boss. I will start demanding drug tests for you, because I don't want you spending your salary in drugs, booze or smoke. Also, I don't want you to marry a woman that will spend your money on silly things. So you will have to send any prospecting wife to me so I can approve her. I also don't want you to spend your money going to football games or rock shows, because I personally disapprove of those two kinds of entertainments. You are only allowed to spend your salary in baseball games and electropop shows.

          Welcome to the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. Where the braves who have money enjoy their freedom to dictate what the others can do with their lives.

      • (Score: 2) by melikamp on Thursday December 04 2014, @09:43PM

        by melikamp (1886) on Thursday December 04 2014, @09:43PM (#122710) Journal
        Let's mention the biggest delusion: that recreational drugs are bad in the same sense that theft and violence are bad. When drug use is a crime, it is invariably a political crime. Every law criminalizing drug use is unjust, and the way these laws have been used in US is an excellent example of this injustice. Indeed, it looks as if these laws were passed with a single purpose of sending black and brown youths out of schools and straight into slave-labor prisons. We have to start treating the drug problem as a medical problem, which is what it really is. Individual use needs to be completely decriminalized and categories should be adjusted with respect to the effects. For example, a sensible drug policy would put alcohol in the same basket as cocaine and heroin, and would AT LEAST mandate plain packaging. And if alcohol is above reproach, then people should be free to maim and kill themselves with whatever drug they damn wish.
        • (Score: 1) by tftp on Friday December 05 2014, @04:41AM

          by tftp (806) on Friday December 05 2014, @04:41AM (#122846) Homepage

          Individual use needs to be completely decriminalized

          I will wholeheartedly agree with that - but I have one small requirement. I want a technical guarantee (not just a promise that is worthless) that I will never be a victim of people who misbehave under influence of drugs. This means that drug users - while they are affected - should drive and walk on their own, dedicated roads, and live in houses and areas that are safely isolated from houses and areas of nonusers.

          There is no discrimination here, as anyone can become clean and sober and rejoin the society. It's only a quarantine. We don't let a person infected with Ebola to run around the city - he may kill others. Why should we allow a person who is poisoned by a drug to run around the city, as he may kill others as well? Examples of bath salt abuse are quite horrible. If drug users want to go hog wild, they are welcome to do so - as long as they are not going to endanger innocents. Drug users have their rights, but nonusers have rights as well. Make sure that those rights do not intersect.

          For example, one could propose dedicating an area, if not an entire small city, to drug use. Surround it with a high wall. Anyone can walk or drive in. Inside drugs are sold at cost, which is not that much. One can leave only after a medical examination that proves beyond a doubt that the effects wore off and the person is clean. This method allows anyone to exercise his personal freedom without putting others in danger, just as we ask people who want to shoot their guns in the city to go to a dedicated range where that can be done safely. We also ask owners of cars to go to private tracks whenever they want to find out who among them drives faster.

          • (Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday December 05 2014, @06:12AM

            by melikamp (1886) on Friday December 05 2014, @06:12AM (#122852) Journal
            Oh, absolutely. Endangering yourself is one thing, and endangering others is a whole different matter. So operating a 2-ton motor vehicle while impaired should still be illegal, regardless of the drug, and even with no drug at all (say, when low on sleep). And with drugs like alcohol, which are proven to impair the users, operating under the influence should also be illegal, pretty much as it is now. For people who cannot make mistakes at their job without affecting our safety (drivers, pilots, heavy equipment operators, police, to name a few) drug tests can be replaced by competence tests, and those who fail them should be sent home, and fired after they fail them repeatedly. This is THE right way to do this, since competence tests will weed out tired or otherwise impaired people as well as those who are dysfunctional because of a drug. At the same time, they will be fair to those who used drugs in the past, but are perfectly sober at the moment. Shit will still happen, but I think we are on the same page here. And of course, there may be "free zones" where anything goes, but that would be a pure bonus.
          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday December 05 2014, @05:51PM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Friday December 05 2014, @05:51PM (#122978) Journal

            I've always liked the idea of dedicated safe spaces for drug use. Set up a bouncy castle warehouse with some counselors and medical staff on site, then let people pump themselves full of drugs and run around inside. Sounds like a fun time ;) Charge admission of course, or just sell the drugs on-site at a mark-up -- although really you could pay for them with tax dollars and it'd still be cheaper than prohibition. I bet a LOT of people would use those voluntarily, just because people who are on drugs generally prefer the company of others who are on drugs.

            But it's not really *required* for a couple of reasons. First is that nobody *really* wants to take most of the truly horrible drugs. Nobody wants to take bath salts. People take bath salts because they're a cheap and legal fix, not because it's their drug of choice. You'd have to be nuts to take that stuff if the safer, superior alternatives were legal. Bath salts are popular because meth is illegal, and meth is popular because it may be illegal, but it's still easier and cheaper to make than illegal amphetamines. But as I understand it amphetamines, while quite harmful, aren't nearly as bad as the alternatives. Hell, both sides gave them out like candy during WWII. Imagine giving a few million goons with guns a daily ration of those bath salts....

            The second issue is that legalizing the drugs does not mean legalizing dangerous behavior. People beat their wives and drive recklessly under the influence of alcohol. Or hell, even while sober. And when they do, we arrest them. People commit crimes because they're desperate, because they're in love, sometimes just because they're crazy. Should we segregate all of them? New Orleans is for drug addicts, NYC is for sociopaths, Providence for people in love...? What if someone is both a sociopath AND a drug addict?

            And don't forget that past experience shows that legalizing drugs generally causes a massive drop in violent crime. Just look at our history with alcohol. If you think keeping them banned keeps you safe enough, then certainly having them legalized will be even better, even without separating the users from society. At least not forcefully. I suppose plenty of alcoholics already voluntarily segregate themselves into bars and pubs...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04 2014, @11:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04 2014, @11:22PM (#122767)

        > I actually don't think "hate" is the right word.

        Hate is an oversimplification. The vast majority of what falls under the modern rubric of hate is really just myopic lack of empathy versus an active desire to cause harm.

        In a sense using the word "hate" is self-defeating. Nobody likes to be called a hater so they get all defensive about the label rather than examining the implications of their own beliefs and actions. "I don't hate <group I do not belong to here>, I just like <group which I belong to> best of all."

    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday December 04 2014, @07:00PM

      by Arik (4543) on Thursday December 04 2014, @07:00PM (#122668) Journal

      Not that I would be in favor of this particular approach, which has problems that are obvious at a glance to me at least, but I *can* understand why people come up with these ideas, and I even disagree that it necessarily reflects a desire to punish.

      One big problem with welfare/entitlement systems is the risk of moral hazard [wikipedia.org] . No matter how well intentioned, an entitlement awarded for doing poorly is always going to create a perverse incentive for some to do more poorly than they would have otherwise, to game the system in some way.

      Rather than assume that the authors of this bill were trying to stick it to poor folks, it makes more sense to think that this was simply a poorly crafted but well-intentioned attempt to somehow mitigate the moral hazard of a program which is currently politically impossible to eliminate properly.

      At any rate, it looks like the court did their job in this instance, so good for them.

      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday December 04 2014, @07:29PM

        by Kromagv0 (1825) on Thursday December 04 2014, @07:29PM (#122676) Homepage

        Hey no bringing in rational reasoned thought into this debate.

        --
        T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday December 04 2014, @08:42PM

          by ikanreed (3164) on Thursday December 04 2014, @08:42PM (#122697) Journal

          Moral Hazard is mostly pseudoscience when applied at the individual level.

          And FYI: neoliberal economic theories aren't "rational reasonable thought"

          • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Friday December 05 2014, @02:08PM

            by Kromagv0 (1825) on Friday December 05 2014, @02:08PM (#122915) Homepage

            I wasn't referring to that exactly but the fact that one could understand where that belief came from and that people might hold it and not just be racist assholes as they are often portrayed.

            --
            T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
      • (Score: 2) by MrGuy on Thursday December 04 2014, @08:41PM

        by MrGuy (1007) on Thursday December 04 2014, @08:41PM (#122696)

        I think you're misapplying moral hazard here.

        With respect to welfare and other assistance programs, the moral hazard is the perverse incentive to work less/not at all. For example, imagine if I get $500/mo in public assistance if my income is less than $500 a month, but I get no public assistance otherwise. My incentive is to keep my income at $499 a month, so I get the assistance, even if I'm capable of earning $800 a month, because $999 > $800. I created an incentive to behave poorly (deliberately earn less).

        You're right that policy makers try to address such hazards. This is why such programs are temporary, and why you might have a "job search" requirement. There is indeed moral hazard risk in public assistance in general.

        However, a drug testing regimen doesn't really speak to such a hazard. There's no "perverse incentive" going on to artificially take more drugs. It would be hard to argue TANF perversely incentivizes drug use, which is what you'd usually be talking about with a "moral hazard" risk.

        At best, I guess you could argue that access to TANF reduces the risk of a hardcore drug user starving to death, so it removes the "incentive" from getting into drug treatment so you don't starve. As a policy lever, I don't think "let's bring back the risk of starvation!" is the one you pull to help drug abusers (especially since those are the people LEAST likely to respond rationally to such a risk).

        I think it's far more likely this specific policy is borne of a prejudice that "If you give poor people money, they'll just spend it on drugs!" combined with the paternalism of "those are MY tax dollars and so I have the right to demand you only spend them in a way I approve of!"

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by keplr on Thursday December 04 2014, @09:06PM

          by keplr (2104) on Thursday December 04 2014, @09:06PM (#122702) Journal

          If we really cared about good policy and not moralizing, we'd simply have centers where drug users could go and get free drugs administered safely, in a clinical environment, supervised by medical professionals who gently encourage treatment for addiction. You're going to pay for these people one way or another. Our current way of "paying" for them is to have a massive, militarized, police force and clogged legal system treat them like criminals. There's also the cost of cleaning up after the crimes they commit stealing to get money to buy drugs, ruining property by turning it into undesirable and dangerous drug dens. Think about the extra insurance and security that has to be paid for against these problems. This might make a certain kind of person feel good--those dirty junkies are getting what they deserve--but it's much more expensive, not just in pure dollars but in wasted human potential. Think of all the man-years that are lost employing people as extra police that are only needed because we've chosen a non-optimized social policy.

          If they actually care about saving money, as fiscal conservatives claim they do, why don't they support the first option? Of course, summarily executing drug users on the spot, Judge Dredd style, would be even cheaper yet. I'm sure there are fiscal-conservatives advocating for this option. At least they're logically consistent with their stated intentions.

          --
          I don't respond to ACs.
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday December 05 2014, @03:33PM

            by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Friday December 05 2014, @03:33PM (#122940)

            What you describe exists in Norhern Europe. Here in Portugal a Socialist government tried to create a similar program in the 90s to control the damage that an out-of-control heroin epidemics was causing. All the conservatives became hysterical about it and started brainwashing all the Joes and Janes of the country.

            It was really hard to bring anyone in this bandwagon. Most of the people, even the left-leaning ones, were all about: "Ugh, drugs bad" ,"Ugh no junkies shooting smack on my buck", "Uga uga".

            So, it didn't happen. And the Portuguese Joes and Janes went on happily living their lives, watching the junkies shooting up in front of their children's schools, being mugged by srynge-toting junkies, watching people that can't even read driving brand new BMWs, and watching the government spend millions of their taxes in police, prisons, courts, etc. 90% of people in prison are there because of drug-related offenses. Aind't that a joy? At least, the government is not spending tax money in the so called "shooting houses". That would be too easy. Look, it could actually solve a lot of problems. We know we don't want that.

            Fortunately, the epidemics slowed down and started to recede by itself. The vision of all the living corpses walking around killed any appeal that heroin had had in young people. We still have a lot of drug problems, but nothing compared to the 80s and 90s.

            Conservatives live in a fantasy world. To solve things, they have to see outside of their boxes filled with prejudice, ignorance and irrational fears. They can't. And unfortunately, the conservative mumbo-jumbo is a lot more appealing to the stupid masses than any solution based on rationality.

            In this particular case, it wasn't even about beliefs. The right-wing politicians that attacked the "shooting room" solution were just picking an easy subject to attack the Socialist government of the time. They knew they were being stupid, but they couldn't care less. They would cause any harm to anyone if that could bring them just a little bit of political leverage.

        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday December 04 2014, @10:05PM

          by Arik (4543) on Thursday December 04 2014, @10:05PM (#122721) Journal
          There's an additional moral hazard that you do not bring up, and that has to do with the poverty trap. And for many poor people, drugs are part of that trap.

          You can easily imagine someone getting food stamps to cover the food so she can still spend her meager income on drugs - and indeed most of us have probably met someone like that, at one point or another. In that case, one could argue that the food stamps are causing her (and the child!) harm, not benefit.

          But obviously either that is a much smaller percentage of the population than the legislators must have imagined, or perhaps these expensive tests are not all that effective. And the Constitutional infirmity of the measure should have really been obvious anyway.
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday December 05 2014, @01:36AM

            by sjames (2882) on Friday December 05 2014, @01:36AM (#122810) Journal

            Actually, by the time an addict reaches that point, the food stamps aren't the reason the drug use continues. Without them, addict and child would starve while the drugs continued.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday December 05 2014, @01:17AM

        by sjames (2882) on Friday December 05 2014, @01:17AM (#122805) Journal

        There are 2 issues there. We don't have any laws trying to prevent the moral hazards of a multi million dollar performance bonus that you get even if you do a terrible job. We rarely do much to CEOs who manipulate the company to pump and dump their stock.

        The second is that the 'lifestyle' available on public aid in the U.S. is nothing to be desired. Arguably, if someone is satisfied to live that way long term, they have some sort of legitimate psychological issue and should be eligible for treatment.

        It's also ironic that all the crazy rules to make sure nobody gets even one penny they don't have coming also keep people trapped on welfare. The rules make what are normally prudent financial decisions into traps.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:58PM

    by Sir Garlon (1264) on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:58PM (#122666)

    I gladly welcome a ruling from a high Federal court that says there is still such thing as an unreasonable search.

    Can we please get those judges appointed to the Supreme Court?

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Kromagv0 on Thursday December 04 2014, @07:31PM

      by Kromagv0 (1825) on Thursday December 04 2014, @07:31PM (#122677) Homepage

      No!
       
      They will be painted a weak on crime, enabling drug user to get welfare, being child molesters, and/or supporting terrorists.

      --
      T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone