STATE SHOULDN'T APPEAL WELFARE DRUG TESTING

It didn't take long for Florida's new policy of drug testing welfare
recipients to run afoul of the Constitution.

The state implemented the testing July 1, and on Oct. 24 a federal
judge in Orlando issued a temporary injunction to halt it on the
grounds that it likely violated the Fourth Amendment protections
against illegal searches and seizures. ...

Gov. Rick Scott promoted drug testing of welfare recipients as being
necessary to safeguard public dollars.

But U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven rejected that argument, writing:
"If invoking an interest in preventing public funds from potentially
being used to fund drug use were the only requirement to establish a
special need, the state could impose drug testing as an eligibility
requirement for every beneficiary of every government program. Such
blanket intrusions cannot be countenanced under the Fourth Amendment."

Indeed, why are welfare recipients held to a higher standard of
conduct than other recipients of taxpayer largess?

Being poor doesn't give you fewer rights. Florida spends tens of
millions of dollars each year on "economic incentives" - cash payouts
to businesses to lure jobs to the state.

Why not drug test the CEOs of each company?

For that matter, why not drug test elected officials before each vote
they take in the Legislature? (Actually, that would be pointless -
they've already proved they don't need to be high to waste tax dollars.)

There is no evidence that people on welfare use drugs at a higher
rate than the general population.

Scriven cited a 1999 study of a state pilot project which found that
only 5 percent of Florida's welfare applicants tested positive for
illicit drug use, which is lower than the national rate of 8 percent. .

The prospects of the law surviving further judicial scrutiny are
slim. Instead of wasting more time and taxpayer money, Florida should
refrain from appealing Judge Scriven's ruling and admit what was
obvious from the start: The statute is unconstitutional.