kiryan wrote:ACLU will lose because its voluntary. They aren't guaranteed services as right, they have to apply and meet the criteria to get and continue to receive aid. You stop getting unemployment if you don't file or don't look for work. You stop receiving most if not all public benefits while you are incarcerated including voting... They can make the news, shake down some new donors and go quietly into the night.
So you have to have probable cause to drug test folks on welfare and social services, but you can touch the genitals of a 6 year old who wants to ride an airplane to see mickey mouse and you can force all people to buy health insurance? But I'll agree with you, its a bad precedent. Whats next, drug tests to get your IRS tax refund (the credits portion, obviously your payment portion would be something your entitled to)?
I read that too about the potential conflict of interest with the governor. Its an issue... not sure how big it is or could even be. Its getting to the point that your spouse can't even have a job because your in politics. Everything you do could be a "conflict of interest". At least they got conflict of interest correct in this situation, conflicts of interest are pretty narrowly defined as being financial (unlike with clarence thomas' wife).
I think you are right that the ACLU will probably lose on the case, but they also have shown a surprisingly strong ability to tie things up and be a general pain in the arse (especially during election cycles with an unpopular conservative incumbent).
The conflict of interest scenario I think does have some merit. After all, he was a founder and part owner of the company, when he started drafting the law, he transferred the ownership to his wife. It's either nepotism or conflict of interest.
I really see this law going 1 of 2 ways. #1 - fewer people will apply for assistance because, let's face it, who is going to willingly give a dirty sample to the government? #2 - People will wait to apply until they can pass a drug test, apply for the assistance, then go back to using drugs with no significant reduction of cost.
Under scenario #1, the governor looks pretty good, he decreased the welfare rolls and will be a Tea Party darling.
Under scenario #2, he looks like a fool who stereotypes the less fortunate as drug users who are deserving of their fate and whose goal was to enrich his and or his wife's pockets with tax payer's money (remember, if the applicant passes the drug test, they are reimbursed the $35 with TANF funds).
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'
Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'