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: 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...