Quote:
Originally Posted by coralway
Why are so many liberal groups against recipients of public assistance to be verified drug free? Maybe because it is unconstitutional?
The Fourth Amendment puts strict limits on what kind of searches the state can carry out, and drug tests are considered to be a search. In 1997, in Chandler v. Miller, the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to strike down a Georgia law requiring candidates for state offices to pass a drug test.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said that the drug testing was an unreasonable search. The state can impose drug tests in exceptional cases, when there is a public-safety need for them (as with bus and train operators, for instance). But the Fourth Amendment does not allow the state to diminish “personal privacy for a symbol’s sake,” the court said.
Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2011/08/29/dru...#ixzz1j4yFeY3G |
Kind of a crazy logic.
They also have no "constitutional right" to be supported by their fellow citizens, and we are not "constitutionally required" to support them.
Once you apply for public funds, what's wrong with the requirement that you submit to a drug test? Why is it OK in the workplace but not for recipients of public assistance? Why isn't it a "unreasonable search" to drug test employee applicants and employees once they're hired?
You're giving the impression here that Ultra-Leftist Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg was speaking to this issue. She actually was speaking to the issue of candidates for State Office in 1997. She said they were protected from drug screenings. I guess the Supreme Court has decided that drug addled State Office holders, who are most likely involved with the illegal consumption of narcotics, are no danger to the American public. What logic that is. What a brilliant ruling.
I'm thinking it's time for the Court to revisit this question.