One of Brian’s Favorite Quotes
The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable. To curtail free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom, for whoever deprives another of the right to state unpopular views necessarily also deprives others of the right to listen to those views.”
— Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
U.S. v. Schwimmer, 1928
Newt Gingrich’s Latest Assault On The Constitution: Drug Test Americans Before They Get ‘Any Kind Of Federal Aid’
Across a country, Republican governors are that charge drug-testing for all gratification recipients and marginalize low-income Americans in a process. Now, a latest GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich is perplexing that suspicion on a inhabitant stage. When asked by Yahoo News’ Chris Moody for his thoughts on how to reform a U.S.’s failed fight on drugs, Gingrich announced that “we need to cruise holding some-more pithy stairs to make it costly to be a drug user.” His initial and inaugural step? Drug exam Americans “before we get any kind of sovereign aid“:
[MOODY:] Speaking of Ron Paul, during a final debate, he pronounced that a fight on drugs has been an complete failure. We’ve spent billions of dollars given President Nixon and we still have rising levels of drug use. Should we continue down a same trail given a volume of income we’ve spent? How can we reform a approach?
[GINGRICH:] we cruise that we need to cruise holding some-more pithy stairs to make it costly to be a drug user. It could be by contrast before we get any kind of sovereign aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, we name it.
It has always struck me that if you’re critical about perplexing to stop drug use, afterwards we need to find a proceed to have a sincerely easy proceed to it and we need to find a proceed to be flattering assertive about insisting–I don’t cruise indeed locking adult users is a really good thing. we cruise anticipating ways to permit them and to give them medical assistance and to get them to detox is a some-more judicious long-term policy.
Gingrich’s initial step would expected run uncontrolled into a Constitution. As UCLA Professor Adam Winkler noted, pointless drug contrast is a “suspicion-less search” and “the Supreme Court has inspected a ability of supervision to charge pointless drug tests in a few singular circumstances,” many mostly in “high-risk open reserve environments.” In fact, courts have struck down such policies again and again.
The fact that Gingrich’s initial suspicion per drug users points to sovereign assist recipients should not be startling given his low opinion of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. He once insisted that an impoverished automechanic receiving jobless advantages was made lazy by that “welfare.” Nearly one-third of America’s 14 million unemployed have been incompetent to find work for a year or more. And yet, to Gingrich, “it is essentially wrong” to give these people jobless assist “for doing nothing.” Unless, of course, we drug exam them first.