E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Drug testing in Florida

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM

Florida governor Rick Scott signed a law mandating drug tests for welfare recipients this week, with the ACLU fighting it and arguing that it is unconstitutional. Governor Scott signed a similar executive order earlier this year mandating that state employees be drug tested. The Los Angeles Times reported in March that this "would require testing of each employee 'at least quarterly'."

It it fairly common for employers to screen applicants for illegal drugs. I've worked for a couple companies that have required that I submit to a test for drugs as a condition of employment. It is reasonable for employers to want to make sure that potential employees are drug-free, and someone who does not want to submit to such a test can always seek employment elsewhere.

But is it really necessary to test state employees four times a year? Are state employees really that untrustworthy? If there is reason to believe that a state employee may be using drugs, a drug test is reasonable, as are drug tests for people operating heavy machinery or working in other high-risk jobs. But, again, four times every year? Legality aside, that is excessive and not in the spirit of limited government that Republicans are supposed to support.

Drug testing welfare recipients, like drug testing state employees, is reasonable. As a condition of getting something of value from the state, people must trade something else. If they choose not to submit to drug testing, they can forgo the benefits they are seeking. No one is forced to take a drug test. It is actually compassionate to hold people accountable as a condition of receiving benefits, because it helps them avoid self-destructive behavior.

Now, I am a long-time critic of the war on drugs and I have become increasingly alarmed by the use of paramilitary SWAT teams in drug raids. Look up the story of Kathryn Johnston in Atlanta, a 92-year-old woman who was mowed down in her own home by a SWAT team looking for drugs. I am worried that we are giving up far too much liberty in our efforts to fight not only drugs, but crime in general.

That said, I do not see drug testing for state employees or welfare recipients as a terrible thing, provided the tests are not so frequent as to be overly intrusive. A prospective state employee or someone looking for government assistance can choose not to submit to the test by not applying for employment with or benefits from the state. It is a voluntary trade off that is part of an agreement between consenting adults.

0 Comments

Comments:


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.