An ACLU challenge to Florida's drug-testing of public-assistance recipients is a legal long shot with huge financial implications, two welfare experts say.

"There is no constitutional right to receive welfare benefits, and most of these programs are not unconditional entitlements," said Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.

"To contest this is to contest the basic principles of welfare reform, and to argue that anyone is entitled to receive benefit from over 70 programs, irrespective of their behavior."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which has already filed suit against Gov. Rick Scott over a requirement that government workers undergo drug testing, says it may sue over the state's newly enacted welfare provision, as well.

ACLU-Florida executive director Howard Simon said, "What [Scott] is doing is giving ugly legitimacy to an unfortunate stereotype that has been in this country for a couple of decades -- that all welfare recipients are a bunch of drug abusers."

But Rector, noting that the national ACLU has even opposed metal detectors at airports, said drug testing is mutually beneficial to the state and the recipient.

"We know from past experiments that job training programs work better if people are drug-tested," he said, pointing to reduced drug use and greater self-sufficiency by program participants.

Recalling the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) reforms that tightened rules during the Clinton administration, the Heritage researcher who specializes in welfare issues said, "We had groups saying the sky would fall and kids would starve. In fact, recipients responded more positively than anyone on the right or left imagined.

"For most part, they went out and looked for work. For those with drug problems, it forced them to deal with the issue."

To opponents' contention that drug testing constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation of unreasonable search and seizure, or some form of profiling of recipients, Rector responded, "I don't think taxpayers should be required to give benefits to people using illegal drugs."

According to Scott, Florida's law, which takes effect July 1, requires the Department of Children and Family Services to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance upon qualifying.

Those who fail the drug test may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children, and do not receive a refund for the test.

Jason Turner, a New York-based consultant on work and welfare issues, applauded the Florida law and attested to its legality.

"It's a good thing for TANF recipients to get ready to move into the labor force since a lot more employers are requiring drug screenings as a condition of employment," he said.

Turner said federal law permits states to mandate treatment for abusers and required drug testing for welfare recipients.

Noting that 70 percent of children in New York's foster care system have drug-addicted parents, Turner observed that mandatory testing "is one way society is saying [drug use] is not acceptable. It's one of the things you need to take care of."

While the ACLU fixates on personal "privacy" issues, taxpayer groups and the public at large are focused on containing the expense associated with operating 70 different welfare programs, the combined cost of which runs around $900 billion a year nationally.

Florida is driving the conversation, with a circulating Facebook post picking up thousands of "likes":