What the fuck, Florida?

[The Man]

It's high past time time we had a general thrad for all the idiocy my state shits out. So here we go. First of all the Florida court system has ruled that it is acceptable for officials to restrict civilians from giving food to the homeless. Luckily, in a valiant attempt to prove that not all people from this state are arseholes, Food Not Bombs have declared that they will continue to do so anyway.

Next, the Florida legislature have declared that church and state are not separate. Needless to say it's pretty clear that none of them have heard of a trivial little detail called the First Amendment, and it is completely inevitable that this will end up being fought in court, almost certainly at the taxpayers' expense.

The Florida legislature aren't the only ones who want to violate the constitution on the taxpayers' expense, because Rick Scott has declared his intention to drug test literally everyone who works for the state government four times a year, despite the fact that this is a very clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. This comes on the heels of his announcement that everyone in the state who receives welfare will also be drug tested. It would be class warfare to point out that his wife owns and operates a drug testing clinic, so I won't. Scott has announced that challenges to this manoeuvre will be fielded entirely at taxpayer expense.

So there's a little taste of what the three branches of the Florida state government have been up to. There is not a one of them that does not deserve to be completely dismantled.

[Ari]

What the hell is up with your Cops?
Seems like many of the stories in the fuck the cops thread involve Florida cops. The guy who started the "photography is not a crime" blog lives in Florida and did so after being arrested and falsely accused by a cop for taking photos in public.

[LadyShea]

Florida is in a vicious battle with Texas for the title "Most Fucked Up State WRT Like Rights and Stuff"...be sure to help your favorite by providing stories!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by The Man

Scott has announced that challenges to this manoeuvre will be fielded entirely at taxpayer expense.

You know, as ridiculous and, apparently, corrupt as the whole drug testing thing is in the first place, I'd rather it be done at taxpayer expense than force the people subject to it to pay for it. If the state is going to make the claim that it has a compelling interest in drug testing some class of people, then the state should foot the bill for it.

[vremya]

I don't know which is the most fucked up - Arizona, Texas, or Florida.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by The Man

This comes on the heels of his announcement that everyone in the state who receives welfare will also be drug tested. It would be class warfare to point out that his wife owns and operates a drug testing clinic, so I won't. Scott has announced that challenges to this manoeuvre will be fielded entirely at taxpayer expense.

I am very surprised to find that this Tom Paxton song is not available on the Youtube, so I can only quote the appropriate lyric.

Oh we're filling the bottle for Ronnie
Filling it up to the brim
And we'll never rest
Till we all pass the test
'Cause we all think so highly of him.
Oh we're filling the bottle for Ronnie
And we'll never kick up a fuss
'Cause we're only doing to that little bottle
What Ronnie's been doing to us

[wildernesse]

People who use drugs/commit crimes/act weird shouldn't be allowed to feed their kids or get medical treatment or keep a roof over their heads! That's what Jesus said, right here in Methuselah 3:14!

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Adam

You know, as ridiculous and, apparently, corrupt as the whole drug testing thing is in the first place, I'd rather it be done at taxpayer expense than force the people subject to it to pay for it. If the state is going to make the claim that it has a compelling interest in drug testing some class of people, then the state should foot the bill for it.

It's not just the drug tests that are going to be funded at taxpayer expense; it's legal challenges as well. I didn't vote for this shit and I have no interest in paying for legal challenges to it, especially when it's an obvious violation of the Constitution and the whole point of it is pretty clearly so the governor's wife can make shitloads of money. I mean, it's one of the most blatant conflicts of interest in the history of this state. So yeah, it's good that people won't have to pay for their drug tests out of pocket, but they also shouldn't have to pay out of their taxes for legal challenges for something that clearly doesn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny in the first place. Especially since this state has a pretty nasty budget crisis as it is. Apparently a budget crisis is the perfect time to expand the state government into completely unconstitutional bullshit.

It's also worth pointing out that David Cay Johnston article Maturin poasted elsewhere, since the poor are going to paying the largest share of the bill for this anyway. Relevant quote:

When it comes to state and local taxes, the poor bear a heavier burden than the rich in all 50 states, Citizens for Tax Justice calculated from official data.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by The Man

Next, the Florida legislature have declared that church and state are not separate. Needless to say it's pretty clear that none of them have heard of a trivial little detail called the First Amendment, and it is completely inevitable that this will end up being fought in court, almost certainly at the taxpayers' expense.

I am going to have to call a hyperbole foul on this one. According to the article the legislature has done no such thing. The Senate bill has been passed by the Judiciary Committe, on a 5 to 2 vote. The similar House bill was scheduled for a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. I gather, from the article, that neither bill has been debated, much less passed, by either chamber. That is a far cry from your claim that the legisture has "declared that church and state are not separate".

[The Man]

Yes, you are correct; I misread the summary when I posted the thread and forgot to change it within the edit window after I actually read the story. It is now too late to correct my OP.

[Dingfod]

Aha! Someone else fails at reading articles, just like me.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by The Man

Yes, you are correct; I misread the summary when I posted the thread and forgot to change it within the edit window after I actually read the story. It is now too late to correct my OP.

Although I accept your explanation I am very disappointed that you gave it. I was hoping you would try to defend an untenable position so I could call you all sorts of impolite names. You have really let me down.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by The Man

Yes, you are correct; I misread the summary when I posted the thread and forgot to change it within the edit window after I actually read the story. It is now too late to correct my OP.

That only mitigates Rick Scott's cluelessness by a hair's breadth, though. Anyone who thinks this church/state proposal *won't* pass in the Florida legislature has never actually lived in one of these inbred, goat-fucking red states.

"I'm gonna drug test public workers four times a year and drug test welfare recipients as well. Challenges to my unconstitutional decisions and blatant cronyism to funnel business to my wife's company must be paid for by the public dime" - gotcha there, sport.

I was trying to think of the last time something as utterly outlandish as this was proposed by a Democratic governor.....oh, wait: never.

[The Man]

I'm sure there must have been some Dixiecrat governor somewhere in history that did something equally heinous. But there almost certainly haven't been any since Nixon's Southern Strategy caused the realignment of the parties.

[Gyre]

Originally Posted by Sauron

That only mitigates Rick Scott's cluelessness by a hair's breadth, though. Anyone who thinks this church/state proposal *won't* pass in the Florida legislature has never actually lived in one of these inbred, goat-fucking red states.

"I'm gonna drug test public workers four times a year and drug test welfare recipients as well. Challenges to my unconstitutional decisions and blatant cronyism to funnel business to my wife's company must be paid for by the public dime" - gotcha there, sport.

I was trying to think of the last time something as utterly outlandish as this was proposed by a Democratic governor.....oh, wait: never.

why'd you gotta bring da goats into it, they are wonderful creatures and are totally blameless in our rush to fascism

[Crumb]

They are the innocent victims of the goat-fucking red states.

[MonCapitan2002]

Originally Posted by The Man

It's high past time time we had a general thrad for all the idiocy my state shits out. So here we go. First of all the Florida court system has ruled that it is acceptable for officials to restrict civilians from giving food to the homeless. Luckily, in a valiant attempt to prove that not all people from this state are arseholes, Food Not Bombs have declared that they will continue to do so anyway.

Next, the Florida legislature have declared that church and state are not separate. Needless to say it's pretty clear that none of them have heard of a trivial little detail called the First Amendment, and it is completely inevitable that this will end up being fought in court, almost certainly at the taxpayers' expense.

I think my opinion on religion on this forum is pretty well known by now, but I happen to think removing the separation of church and state is a monumentally bad idea for advocates of religious freedom. I sincerely wonder of the advocates of removing that separation thought through to the consequences of such actions.

Allowing the government and church to intermingle means the government has far more control over what religion gets taught to the masses as well as influence over who gets to share what beliefs. There is a reason the writers of the Constitution took great pains to separate Church and State. Combining the two benefits no one but those who seek to manipulate one of or both institutions for their own selfish ends.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am going to have to call a hyperbole foul on this one. According to the article the legislature has done no such thing. The Senate bill has been passed by the Judiciary Committe, on a 5 to 2 vote. The similar House bill was scheduled for a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. I gather, from the article, that neither bill has been debated, much less passed, by either chamber. That is a far cry from your claim that the legisture has "declared that church and state are not separate".

I'm going to add another one.

Apparently this is what is being deleted:

No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution

It seems that any form of aid at all is prohibited. For example, school aid which may be available to secular schools. SCOTUS decisions in Zelman , Tilton v Richardson and Mueller v. Allen indicate that there are cases when providing assistance to religious groups is acceptable. Or apparently what started this off was Council for Secular Humanism v. McNeil currently pending in the Florida Court System. Two religious groups operate halfway houses which assist former prisoners on parole overcome their substance abuse problems under contract from the Dept of Corrections. The first court decision went to the faith-based organisation, the district court of appeal partially reversed, and now the Florida Supreme Court is taking a look at it. From Council for Secular Humanism v. McNeil | Center for Inquiry

CSH's complaint is based on the Florida Constitution, not the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. CSH made a deliberate decision to seek relief under the Florida Constitution, because it has a very broad prohibition on aid to religious institutions.

Removing the line is going to lower the standard to that of the First amendment, not undermine it.

It does not appear to be quite as simple as initially made out.

because Rick Scott has declared his intention to drug test literally everyone who works for the state government four times a year, despite the fact that this is a very clear violation of the Fourth Amendment

Is it?

Federal civilian government employees are subject to routine drug testing, at least in DoT and DHS, this hasn't proven to be much of a Constitutional issue. Indeed, when I hold a drug test in my unit, I specifically have to read out that 'There is no probable cause or reasonable suspicion that anyone is the unit is using drugs' to emphasise that the mandatory testing is purely non-specific. (I have to do one a quarter, it's at my discretion as to when in that quarter). What's the difference between having to take a test to see if you're intoxicated on marijuana just because you happen to be working for the government vs taking a test to see if you're intoxicated on alcohol just because you happen to be exercising your freedom of movement?

NTM

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Is it?

Yes.

Federal civilian government employees are subject to routine drug testing, at least in DoT and DHS, this hasn't proven to be much of a Constitutional issue. Indeed, when I hold a drug test in my unit, I specifically have to read out that 'There is no probable cause or reasonable suspicion that anyone is the unit is using drugs' to emphasise that the mandatory testing is purely non-specific. (I have to do one a quarter, it's at my discretion as to when in that quarter).

Since about the 1980s, there has been a rule that allows/requires drug testing a limited number of civilian federal employees in specific roles, including those involved in security or who carry weapons. That was not uncontroversial, and it did bring up fourth amendment arguments. It really only went through because of an active moral panic over the drug war under Reagan.

It is still considered a violation of the fourth amendment to require employees in other roles, like statisticians or scientists or whatever, to submit to drug testing without reasonable suspicion.

What's the difference between having to take a test to see if you're intoxicated on marijuana just because you happen to be working for the government vs taking a test to see if you're intoxicated on alcohol just because you happen to be exercising your freedom of movement?

Unlike blood alcohol tests or breathalysers, drug tests don't determine whether you are intoxicated. They determine whether you have any of the tested drugs in your system. Marijuana stays in your system for a really long time, long after any intoxicating effects have worn off.

And there's also a pretty big difference between operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway and sitting at a desk typing. Including the obvious difference between how your actions might affect others', and the fact that driving on public roadways is not considered a legal right.

[California Tanker]

It is still considered a violation of the fourth amendment to require employees in other roles, like statisticians or scientists or whatever, to submit to drug testing without reasonable suspicion.

Fair enough, I am corrected on the legal standing.

Not so convinced by the logic below, however.

Unlike blood alcohol tests or breathalysers, drug tests don't determine whether you are intoxicated. They determine whether you have any of the tested drugs in your system. Marijuana stays in your system for a really long time, long after any intoxicating effects have worn off.

Alcohol use is not illegal, only use to a certain extent conducting certain activities. I don't believe there are any condition or level-based criteria on whether other drug use is illegal (outside of medical laws in some states) so the requirement for 'currentness' seems useless.

And there's also a pretty big difference between operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway and sitting at a desk typing. Including the obvious difference between how your actions might affect others', and the fact that driving on public roadways is not considered a legal right.

I don't believe that working for the government is a legal right either, and have you never seen the results of having a government agency make a 'clerical error'? I was once on the receiving end of a several-thousand dollar one, it wasn't pleasant for a few months.

NTM

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Alcohol use is not illegal, only use to a certain extent conducting certain activities. I don't believe there are any condition or level-based criteria on whether other drug use is illegal (outside of medical laws in some states) so the requirement for 'currentness' seems useless.

Lots of things are illegal, but the fourth amendment requires some cause for suspicion to justify a search for evidence of illegal activity.

DUI 'searches' depend largely on arguments that getting a driver's license implies consent--which is where the 'right vs. privilege' argument comes in, and on reasonable suspicion.

I don't believe that working for the government is a legal right either, and have you never seen the results of having a government agency make a 'clerical error'? I was once on the receiving end of a several-thousand dollar one, it wasn't pleasant for a few months.

While I have no doubt that that clerical error was the result of a clerk having smoked marijuana a couple of weeks prior, it's still unconstitutional.

Private employers get away with it because private employers aren't bound by the constitution. The government, even in its role as an employer, is, although there have been any number of attempts, some successful, to chip away at the fourth amendment to allow it.

Wholesale drug testing is expensive, ineffective, and unnecessarily intrusive; and the only real tangible benefit it provides is to those who profit from it.

[Ari]

The past drug use may not even be illegal.

The 5 main tested for drugs,
1 Cannabinoids. Illegal name: Marijuana, Hash. Legal RX name: Marinol.
2 Cocaine. Illegal name: Crack. Legal RX Name: None.
3 Amphetamines. Illegal name: Speed, Meth. Legal RX Name: Desoxyn, ProCentra.
4 Opiates. Illegal name: Heroin. Legal RX name: Morphine. Vicodin.
5 PCP. Ilegal name: Angel Dust. Legal RX name: None

Extended, common additions to the top 5,
6 Barbiturates Illegal name: Barbs. Legal RX name: Luminal
7 Benzodiazepines Illegal name: Benzo. Legal RX name: Xanax, Valium
8 Alcohol. Legal RX name: Captain Morgan. Not scheduled but most abused.
9 MDMA. Illegal name: Ecstasy. Legal RX name: None

While each of these drugs are at different levels of control and some are given out more frequently than others, it's possible to be legally on 6 of the 9 listed here.

One way you could look at this is the government isn't angry people are using drugs, they are angry they aren't using drugs from government sanctioned suppliers.

[livius drusus]

Isn't cocaine still used medically as an anesthetic and vasoconstrictor? As I recall my dad got a cocaine-imbued cotton ball stuffed up his nose when he had to get it cauterized for repeated nosebleeds.

[Angakuk]

Is that what he told you? LOL

[Qingdai]

It's still used for lacrimal duct surgery, it has some untoward effects, but in general it's a good local anesthetic.