Florida sets the bar...

[MrBug708]

Scott signs bill requiring drug test to receive welfare | TBO.com

If you receive government assistance, you must pass a drug test.

“While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction,” Scott said in a press release issued after the signing.

[Doug5984]

There is a rep in Louisiana who tries to pass this every year- and it always ends up getting hung up somewhere along the way.

[Noop]

I applaud this.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Noop

I applaud this.

+10000

[Galaxy]

I like it, but will the costs of managing the drug tests be worth it?

[Abe Sargent]

Go ACLU, sue the shit out of them. I cannot believe this is legal.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I like it, but will the costs of managing the drug tests be worth it?

I believe the person is responsible for getting the test done and they will be reimbursed if they pass.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

Go ACLU, sue the shit out of them. I cannot believe this is legal.

I perhaps my reading comprehension needs some work but how exactly would this be deemed illegal? The reasoning behind the bill (I haven't read it just gleaming what the article said) is they do not want to fund drug addicts. They would prefer the people on welfare to be clean. Not sure why this is a problem but I am interested in hearing your rationale.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Noop

I perhaps my reading comprehension needs some work but how exactly would this be deemed illegal? The reasoning behind the bill (I haven't read it just gleaming what the article said) is they do not want to fund drug addicts. They would prefer the people on welfare to be clean. Not sure why this is a problem but I am interested in hearing your rationale.

I got Social Security for five years, I don;t want to have to take a drug test because of it. This is easily a slippery slope to other programs. Unemployment? WIC? Public Housing? Social Security? We don't want to fund drug addicts, right?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I got Social Security for five years, I don;t want to have to take a drug test because of it. This is easily a slippery slope to other programs. Unemployment? WIC? Public Housing? Social Security? We don't want to fund drug addicts, right?

Then blame the losers who were the reason a law like this became necessary. Not the lawmakers who are acting in the best interest of the people who elected them.

[Flasch186]

My problem is that the person who needs welfare has to scrounge up the funds to get a drug test... What if they can't find the money?

[larrymcg421]

See, I don't view drug addicts as losers in the same way as others. I've seen the toll it takes on people and the struggle it takes to get clean. I think cutting off assistance to these people will only make things worse and eventually result in increased crime. I'd rather the government look for ways to help people break the cycle of addiction than just blindly cutting them off and hoping the problem goes away.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

See, I don't view drug addicts as losers in the same way as others. I've seen the toll it takes on people and the struggle it takes to get clean. I think cutting off assistance to these people will only make things worse and eventually result in increased crime. I'd rather the government look for ways to help people break the cycle of addiction than just blindly cutting them off and hoping the problem goes away.

That is all fine and good for the ones who want to be helped, but in my experiences a large percentage of these people don't want to be helped. They want to keep getting their handouts.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Noop

I perhaps my reading comprehension needs some work but how exactly would this be deemed illegal? The reasoning behind the bill (I haven't read it just gleaming what the article said) is they do not want to fund drug addicts. They would prefer the people on welfare to be clean. Not sure why this is a problem but I am interested in hearing your rationale.

Illegal searches. You can't require people to submit bodily fluids without cause.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Illegal searches. You can't require people to submit bodily fluids without cause.

Are they required to give people welfare?

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Illegal searches. You can't require people to submit bodily fluids without cause.

They aren't being required to.

[Marc Vaughan]

I think its a ludicrous idea - especially from someone who's claiming to be fiscally sensible ....

The tests will cost the state a large amount of money (claimants only pay if they fail) and a lot of the tests will be on demographics who are wholly unlikely to be addicts .... that 65 year old widow, she looks like a likely crack addict to me

PS - IMHO it'll last a year or so and then get over-ruled somewhere along the line as unconstitutional (as I believe have previous similar attempts in the past) ... making it even more pointless, expensive and ineffectual ...

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

My problem is that the person who needs welfare has to scrounge up the funds to get a drug test... What if they can't find the money?

If Noop is correct, I believe that those who pass would get reimbursed. How often will they be drug test? Will it be random?

Personally, I think welfare needs to broken down and reformed.

[Scoobz0202]

How much would a drug screening cost the person applying? Even if reimbursed? And how long till the reimbursement?

(all honest questions)

[RendeR]

There is nothing illegal about this, The law simply ads another requirement to the many requirements to receive government funded welfare.

You are not required to apply for welfare. You are not automagically granted welfare, you must apply, go through a screening process and be granted an amount based on your need.

If you fail a drug test, you would simply be ineligible. The same way you would be if you made too much money or lied about children/family members in your care.

The savings in how much is being handed out far outweighs the costs of testing. There are many programs for assisting those with real addictions.


In general I applaud the Bill and hope more states follow suit.

All that said, this issue goes away and un fracking believable amounts of money are saved (even GAINED) simply by legalizing most drugs and taxing the shit out of them.

The lives of most users won't change, people destined to fail will still fail, others will not. Drug cartels will end as there won't be a lucrative money market here in the US any longer.

The ignorance of those still clinging to the long ago lost "war on drugs" is truly holding back the nation as a whole. Its a bigger drain on our country than welfare.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by jeff061

They aren't being required to.

In the eyes of the court they are. Michigan already tried this and it was ruled unconstitutional. You can't require searches based solely on poverty.

[panerd]

I am very conservative on most economic matters, with welfare being one of them, but my hatred of the phony war on drugs supersedes this by a million. Want to actually do something to save me some money cut the welfare program out completely. (Though I would cut the military industrial complex way before the social safety nets) Want to just pander for votes like this pr joke? Fuck you.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In the eyes of the court they are. Michigan already tried this and it was ruled unconstitutional. You can't require searches based solely on poverty.

I'm not following, I'm sure I am just stating the obvious.... but they are basing it on giving out welfare. Not poverty. Is welfare now a constitutional right?

[panerd]

Question for all in favor of this... do you also favor drug testing the CEO's of all of the banks and corporations who take plenty of welfare from the taxpayers?

[jeff061]

Now you are just being silly.

[Klinglerware]

So, Rick Scott's wife owns what again? Oh yeah...

Gov. Rick Scott, Solantic and conflict of interest: What's the deal? - St. Petersburg Times

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

So, Rick Scott's wife owns what again? Oh yeah...

Gov. Rick Scott, Solantic and conflict of interest: What's the deal? - St. Petersburg Times

Without reading I'm going to say "the drug testing lab that has already received a no-bid contract to complete the work required by this new law."

Fucking corrupt POS banana-republic they've got down there in Florida. Seriously...WTF!?!?!

I hope Florida voters are fucking embarrassed that they elected this POS at this point.

[DaddyTorgo]

Well I was close.

FWIW that's fucking absurd. The fact that there's no law against this type of BS is ridiculous. Oh yeah...sure you don't benefit from it because it's in your wife's name. And yet wait...you're still married to her, right???

I fail to see how even a blind squirrel wouldn't find a conflict in that.

[larrymcg421]

Everyone receives some kind of government benefit in some way, shape, or form. You can't just single out one group of people who receive one benefit and impose such a requirement on them. That's what the court found in the Michigan case and I suspct they'll find that here as well.

Just because something isn't a right doesn't mean the government can force you to submit bodily fluids to partake in it.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I think its a ludicrous idea - especially from someone who's claiming to be fiscally sensible ....

The tests will cost the state a large amount of money (claimants only pay if they fail) and a lot of the tests will be on demographics who are wholly unlikely to be addicts .... that 65 year old widow, she looks like a likely crack addict to me

PS - IMHO it'll last a year or so and then get over-ruled somewhere along the line as unconstitutional (as I believe have previous similar attempts in the past) ... making it even more pointless, expensive and ineffectual ...

Working for an administrator of Medicaid insurance I actually have to disagree. There are other ways to prevent abuse for sure, but I don't oppose this. Maybe alter the requirements to allow those that don't pass the opportunity to get clean and then submit to future testing or lose their benefits, or even leave it as is. A lot more taxpayor dollars are wasted on those in these programs that run up expensive medical bills due to drug abuse and related health conditions, thenn would ever be spent on screening applicants for assistance.

[-apoc-]

Our governor is a god damn criminal and he is now using the state to funnel even more money into his pocket after committing the largest medicare fraud in history. Anyone who sticks up for this plan should know exactly why he is doing it. Not to save the state any money but to put more in his pocket.

[AENeuman]

Rule one in politics: only cut programs from non-voters

The best would be if they gave a drug test to college students before they get student aid.

[Neon_Chaos]

Over here in the Philippines, you are required to take a drug test on your own dime before you're able to get a driver's license.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I got Social Security for five years, I don;t want to have to take a drug test because of it. This is easily a slippery slope to other programs. Unemployment? WIC? Public Housing? Social Security? We don't want to fund drug addicts, right?

Social Security and Unemployment are not welfare. We have to make a distinction in that.

It's not something I'd push, but I don't have a problem with it. If you can afford to buy drugs, you shouldn't need welfare. My problem is more that we are scoring political points off people like this and not going after the people that are truly damaging the country. It just diverts attention away from real problems and stirs up class warfare.

Do find it ironic when conservatives support things like this. It's sort of funny how these "constitution buffs" only seem to carry about one Amendment.

[ISiddiqui]

I'd put it this way, you don't have to offer a health plan if you are a company, but once you do, there are restrictions in place. Same thing here with the states. You don't have to offer welfare, but once you do, you can't be discriminatory in certain ways with it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RendeR

The ignorance of those still clinging to the long ago lost "war on drugs" is truly holding back the nation as a whole. Its a bigger drain on our country than welfare.

And the ethical & moral bankruptcy of those who find "surrender" as an option is a bigger drain than either.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by RendeR

If you fail a drug test, you would simply be ineligible. The same way you would be if you made too much money or lied about children/family members in your care.

And the same way you are ineligible for most if not any job. I don't see much an issue with this.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'd put it this way, you don't have to offer a health plan if you are a company, but once you do, there are restrictions in place. Same thing here with the states. You don't have to offer welfare, but once you do, you can't be discriminatory in certain ways with it.

This.

[JediKooter]

So is the state of Florida going to provide some kind of program to get the people off drugs, for the people that don't pass the drug tests?

Is there a correlation of people on welfare to people using illegal drugs? Is one the cause of the other? I mean, do you get on welfare and a couple of months later, you're all doped up? Or is it that you've been doped up and now you need welfare?

Is the state of Florida just going to leave these people hanging out to dry and turn their backs on them which will then create a homeless problem? I say homeless problem, because apparently, there's that many people all doped up and on welfare, that required this kind of legislation.

[MrBug708]

Is there any estimates on how many welfare recipients are actually on drugs? 10%? 50%? 90%?

[MrBug708]

Also, it's illegal to give people a drug test, but it's mandatory to get inoculated to attend school? This seems to create a thin line between the two, no?

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So is the state of Florida going to provide some kind of program to get the people off drugs, for the people that don't pass the drug tests?

Is there a correlation of people on welfare to people using illegal drugs? Is one the cause of the other? I mean, do you get on welfare and a couple of months later, you're all doped up? Or is it that you've been doped up and now you need welfare?

Is the state of Florida just going to leave these people hanging out to dry and turn their backs on them which will then create a homeless problem? I say homeless problem, because apparently, there's that many people all doped up and on welfare, that required this kind of legislation.

The correlation they should be looking for is if people are using welfare money / food stamps to buy drugs and is it a large enough a problem to warrant a public policy. Otherwise, it's just PR bullshit claming to address a problem that may not really exist.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

is it a large enough a problem to warrant a public policy.

"Any" is plenty .... and I'm reasonably confident that there wouldn't be a shortage of voters that would agree.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

The correlation they should be looking for is if people are using welfare money / food stamps to buy drugs and is it a large enough a problem to warrant a public policy. Otherwise, it's just PR bullshit claming to address a problem that may not really exist.

Ok, so I went back and read the article and unfortunately, they didn't mention anything about a correlation between drug use and welfare or welfare money being used to buy drugs.

The only thing I could find was from this article: Michigan begins random drug testing of welfare recipients It's a bit dated, so the data may be different now. However, this quote jumped out at me: "Despite evidence from a 1996 federal study showing that the percentage of welfare recipients using, abusing, or dependent on alcohol or drugs [is] relatively small and consistent with the general U.S. population and those not receiving welfare benefits".

So call me skeptical on this being a big enough problem to warrant this legislation.

EDIT: Oh and the Michigan law was struck down as being unconstitutional.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Any" is plenty .... and I'm reasonably confident that there wouldn't be a shortage of voters that would agree.

Without any quantifiable data that shows the scope of the problem, I disagree. Nothing is free. If you told the voters in Florida their property or sales tax will increase due to this law, I think you'd see a shortage.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Without any quantifiable data that shows the scope of the problem, I disagree. Nothing is free. If you told the voters in Florida their property or sales tax will increase due to this law, I think you'd see a shortage.

Didn't I see up the thread where the cost of testing is borne by the applicant? That leaves (what should be) relatively minor additional personnel to process another layer of paperwork & supervise the implementation.

If it's more than that, the problem lies with the bureaucracy, not the idea itself.

Once this is in place, then you can add a couple of things that make it even more valuable.

1) Require all blood testing facilities to require proof of citizenship before testing.
2) Turn the results of the tests over to law enforcement.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Also, it's illegal to give people a drug test, but it's mandatory to get inoculated to attend school? This seems to create a thin line between the two, no?

Just throwing this out there, but vaccines do prevent harmful outbreaks from disease. I also thought school did random drug tests?

[JPhillips]

For better or worse the Supreme Court has pretty clearly decided that juveniles have almost no rights, so comparing this to school requirements isn't valid.

[Galaxy]

I think we also need to reform how welfare programs can be spent. I've seen food stamps (in card form) being spent on junk food and alcohol. I've also known some cases where those on welfare are able to buy new cars and spend on new clothes from the mall stores.

[DaddyTorgo]

I would actually support at least restricting food stamp cards being restricted to non-alcoholic purchases. Not sure how you could restrict junk foods and stuff...and I think getting it down to that level (or the level of what stores you can spend them at) would just lead to a shit-ton of lobbying.

You'd end up with "food stamps can only be spent at walmart" and essentially have the whole welfare program existing just to funnel private citizen's $$ to walmart coffers - and I think that's not also something we want.