SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Thursday December 04 2014, @06:51PM
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
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
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/
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
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
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
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
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
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday December 05 2014, @04:41AM
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
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday December 05 2014, @05:51PM
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
> 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."