Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure
CNN wire staff
June 1

(CNN) -- Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.

"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."
Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.
Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state's congressional delegation issued a joint statement attacking the legislation, one calling it "downright unconstitutional."

"Governor Scott's new drug testing law is not only an affront to families in need and detrimental to our nation's ongoing economic recovery, it is downright unconstitutional," said Rep. Alcee Hastings. "If Governor Scott wants to drug test recipients of TANF benefits, where does he draw the line? Are families receiving Medicaid, state emergency relief, or educational grants and loans next?"
Rep. Corrine Brown said the tests "represent an extreme and illegal invasion of personal privacy."

"Indeed, investigating people when there is probable cause to suspect they are abusing drugs is one thing," Brown said in the joint statement. "But these tests amount to strip searching our state's most vulnerable residents merely because they rely on the government for financial support during these difficult economic times."


Joining in the statement denouncing the measure were Democratic Reps. Kathy Castor, Ted Deutch and Frederica Wilson.
Controversy over the measure was heightened by Scott's past association with a company he co-founded that operates walk-in urgent care clinics in Florida and counts drug screening among the services it provides.

In April, Scott, who had transferred his ownership interest in Solantic Corp. to a trust in his wife's name, said the company would not contract for state business, according to local media reports. He subsequently sold his majority stake in the company, local media reported.

On May 18, the Florida Ethics Commission ruled that two conflict-of-interest complaints against Scott were legally insufficient to warrant investigation, and adopted an opinion that no "prohibited conflict of interest" existed.
Also on Tuesday, Scott also signed a measure outlawing hallucinogenic designer drugs known as "bath salts."

"The chemical substances found in 'bath salts' constitute a significant threat to health and public safety," the governor's office said in a statement. "Poison control centers in Florida have reported 61 calls of 'bath salts' abuse, making Florida the state with the second-highest volume of calls."
The drugs "are readily available at convenience stores, discount tobacco outlets, gas stations, pawnshops, tattoo parlors, and truck stops, among other locations," the governor's office said.

Click to expand...

Link

The bit about the bath salts is fairly unrelated. However, this bill requiring drug testing seems pretty crummy, like the article says, for those citizens really having the hardest times. But after all, "if you have nothing to hide, why worry?"......

Also seems crummy that those applying have to pay for the testing, which will be reimbursed only if they test negative.

(first post in this forum, hope i did it rit mods! )

similar legislation was recently proposed in the Pa. Senate.

haha @ bath salts being hallucinogens

What really sucks about this is the least harmful drug is the one most likely to get tested for. Most people can go 3 days without coke or meth, even heroin, and clean up for a test, but smoke one hit of weed, and need to test clean 3 weeks later? good luck

^Thats a good point. Although I used to smoke daily and I passed every test at the health department while I was on probation

I like the idea of this. I'm surprised it has taken this long for states to start on this path. I'm not against anyone using drugs, but if your life is in such a state that you are relying on your fellow taxpayers to get you on your feet then you at least owe them the courtesy of spending their money on exactly that, getting on your feet.

this should get shot down as unconstitutional. You can't treat people like criminals without due process. As I see it, drug testing by government falls under the fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

i dont want my money to leave me as a tax, reach someone elses hands, placed in the black market, go unaccounted for by the fed, cause inflation because the fed cannot control unaccounted money, raise the price level, then make me have to pay even more.

This is unconstitutional and will most definitely be challenged in court. I would look for the ACLU or another organization to organize and take a case.

I also don't like the idea of my money going to other people who will not use it properly, but if you think the tiny percentage of tax revenue that actually gets spent on drugs is the most wasteful part of our taxation/ welfare state, you need help.

How come it's not unconstitutional for me to have to piss in a cup for a job (to receive money via labor), but this is? It's not like they're forcibly extracting the piss out of your body in the instances of employment or welfare, but if you'd like to reap the benefits of either option there are things you must conform to. I see more of a problem with pre-employment screening than with this. At least if I'm working I'm directly producing my own capital with which I may do what I please so long as I'm not caught.

I don't think that the tiny percentage you refer to is the most wasteful part of our taxation/welfare state, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a waste.

Not sure I agree with applicants footing the bill for the drug test though.

sssssssssss said:

i dont want my money to leave me as a tax, reach someone elses hands, placed in the black market, go unaccounted for by the fed, cause inflation because the fed cannot control unaccounted money, raise the price level, then make me have to pay even more.

Click to expand...

Then you should work hard to make sure that drugs are controlled by legal entities, rather than the black market.

People use drugs. Simple as that. If you imagine that poor people suddenly stop using drugs because they are poor, you are living in a fantasy world.

ResinTeeth said:

I like the idea of this. I'm surprised it has taken this long for states to start on this path. I'm not against anyone using drugs, but if your life is in such a state that you are relying on your fellow taxpayers to get you on your feet then you at least owe them the courtesy of spending their money on exactly that, getting on your feet.

Click to expand...

Sometimes, the path toward getting on your feet necessarily involves the use of drugs.

What if someone used to drinking 4 cups of coffee a day decides to go on welfare? Should s/he begin going to job interviews in the midst of caffeine withdrawal?
(Oh, it doesn't matter, because caffeine is a legal drug. Yet, the reason that caffeine is legal but weed and opium are illegal is political and historical, not medical.)

What if someone goes to 25 job interviews in a week, and is so emotionally and physically tired at the end of the week that they decide to spend $15 on a gram of weed? The gram of weed lasts them 2 months, since they only smoke a tiny bit on Friday nights. Would you say that they "owe" it to the taxpayers not to smoke, even though it allows them to relax and recover, so that they can do a better job at the interviews in the next week?

What if, in the above situation, their friend comes over on Fridays, and provides the weed? The welfare recipient has not spent any money on weed, but will be denied welfare if they fail the drug test.

People who do not allow everyone - even POOR people - to live their lives as they see fit, to the best of their ability, to spend even welfare money on weed or alcohol in order to relax, are playing the superiority card.
I have money, you don't, so I will tell you what you are allowed to do, and this will involve a more limited range of human freedoms than for the rest of us.

I am a taxpayer.
I don't support welfare with such strings attached.

slimvictor said:

Then you should work hard to make sure that drugs are controlled by legal entities, rather than the black market.

People use drugs. Simple as that. If you imagine that poor people suddenly stop using drugs because they are poor, you are living in a fantasy world.

Click to expand...

yeah, im all for that, i dont see how it doesnt make sense to more people.

ResinTeeth said:

How come it's not unconstitutional for me to have to piss in a cup for a job (to receive money via labor), but this is? It's not like they're forcibly extracting the piss out of your body in the instances of employment or welfare, but if you'd like to reap the benefits of either option there are things you must conform to.

Click to expand...

that's a fair argument. But a private employer isn't government and according to the Constitution (see quoted section above), government must have probable cause before searching a person. A urinalysis is an example of such a search.

This will ultimately cost society more money. I've worked with the homeless and mentally ill in Florida. The state sends them to rehab when they pop dirty, and pays up to $20,000 for each round of treatment.

The ones they sever from the government teet will not cease getting high. If they don't get their loot from Uncle Sam, they'll plunder it from homes and cars. This too will multiply society's cost.

Best strategy is to legalize the lot and drive market prices way down--but nobody wants to be a pragmatist. Pragmatism bores voters.

Why stop for testing drugs? Florida might test for other wasteful spending; buying name brand sneakers, tobacco, leaving the lights on all day, dripping faucets, buying too many pairs of pants are all things that are sapping the taxpayers' money!

justsomeguy said:

Why stop for testing drugs? Florida might test for other wasteful spending; buying name brand sneakers, tobacco, leaving the lights on all day, dripping faucets, buying too many pairs of pants are all things that are sapping the taxpayers' money!

Click to expand...

This

Damn it, those poor people with their leaky faucets and their many pairs of pants! How dare they?

Yeah, I'd agree that if you're on welfare you really shouldn't be spending a good amount of your money on drugs, but it's their choice to use. Not to mention that drug laws shouldn't exist to begin with...

All I can say is that this is a very, very, slippery slope. It will be intresting to see how this turns out.

Man, I didnt get to read thru the whole replies yet but I just gotta say this.

This shit aint even ABOUT drugs, really. Id bet everything I got that the REAL purpose of all this shit is to discourage people from applyin for welfare. You put those restrictions on it, BOOM, there goes a chunk of people off the welfare rolls that you aint gotta pay for no more.

Its like the fucking dirty shit the bush campaigners did back in 2000, goin around in all the ghetto neighborhoods and passin out flyers that said if you ever been arrested, if you got any warrants, if you didnt pay your electric bill, if you got any outstanding parking tickets, you cant vote. Bcuz they knew those people would vote democrat and against bush.

They dont really give a fuck about people spendin money on drugs. I suspect most the time that they HAPPY to see poor folks wastin they money away on drugs and liquor and cigs and shit cuz it KEEPS them poor, it KEEPS em in the same spot so they cant get ahead and rise up and actually change shit in this country.

Na, dont even let em fool you for one second yall, this is just a low-down, shady, dirty plot to try and keep people off welfare, to scare em away. They kill 2 birds with one stone--they get to look like the GOOD GUYS, ("Oh, we care about these people! We just want the best for them, we dont want them using drugs, its really becuz we know wats best for them!") while doin shit that would normally make em look like BAD GUYS. When politicians wanna cut welfare and knock a bunch of people on their asses, people say "Yo, thats fucked up, you cant do that to people, they need the help."

But do it under the disguise of "FIGHTING DRUGS" and people all for that shit. Same results, but now the public happy and thinks you did somethin great, and even people here on BL are fallin for that shit.

You may be drug users, but since you aint poor, I guess its cool.

You could honestly say that if you was on welfare you wouldnt spend 5 bucks on a nick once a week so you could puff a L and forget about the shittiness of your situation for a couple hours? and you believe that you would DESERVE to get your money, your lifeline, the only way you can survive, cut off becuz of that?


Shits so easy to say when you aint poor, so many of yall act so open minded when it comes to drugs but then when some shit like this comes up, suddenly you sound just like those upper middle class white republicans that make and enforce the drug laws that you constantly talkin about "fuck them and their draconian drug laws!" but when it comes to welfare, poverty, and shit like that, you right in bed with em.

ResinTeeth said:

I like the idea of this. I'm surprised it has taken this long for states to start on this path. I'm not against anyone using drugs, but if your life is in such a state that you are relying on your fellow taxpayers to get you on your feet then you at least owe them the courtesy of spending their money on exactly that, getting on your feet.

Click to expand...

So, we should have alcohol testing too then? And tobacco testing? You better support that shit too, cuz neither one of them is a necessity that helps people "gget back on their feet." And for sure, doin shit like goin to the movies is far from 'necessary', so we better check people at the door for their welfare ID card and if they got one, turn em away. sorry yo! No welfare money accepted here!

Who do you think is qualified to decide wat a necessity is for people gettin welfare? If we dont want em buyin drugs, then they cant buy cigarettes or alcohol neither, that should go without sayin. And are they gonna send inspectors to their house to check and make sure they aint got cable, and that if they do got a TV it aint new? Search the house for computers and microwaves? Make sure that they aint got the internet?

And how bout food? We gonna make sure they dont buy soda and candy and cookies and shit, and only buy the most basic-ass food, cuz ice-cream aint a necessity and "I dont want my tax dollars going towards satisfying the sweet tooths of people on welfare!" ? 8( Maybe when it comes to food, they can only buy store-brand shit, cuz why should us tax payers be putin out the extra dough for the brand name shit when its all food inside the box? And better only let them buy store-brand toilet paper--that cushiony quilted soft fluffy shit aint a necessity. the goal is to wipe your ass, not pamper it.

How about just have a list of "approved purchases" that you ONLY allowed to spend your welfare money on. And who decides which things are necessities? Who is the Great Decider, the one who KNOWS, for sure, EXACTLY wat each person NEEDS, and wat is only a WANT?

Should people be allowed to have air conditioning? thats kind of a luxury, right? I mean you dont NEED that--shit just use a fan. But , you know, now that I think of it, is a fan even a necessity?Really thats a comfort thing, you dont need it to survive, so no fans allowed neither.

And in the winter, should we have auditors go around checkin peoples thermostat and make sure they dont put the heat too high?

"I pay tax money into welfare, my money is goin towards these folks checks, that means I get a say in how they spend it! Its bad enough already that im FORCED to give to the poor, god knows Id never do it if it wasnt mandatory removed from my paycheck in taxes, but now they get to go out and spend that money on things to make them HAPPY!?!? Fuck that! without me they wouldnt HAVE that money, so I better get to decide how they spend it!"

This attitude is the same one that the fuckin people who aint never been in the situation that they need welfare always say time after time. Its so damn easy to preach that shit when it dont apply to you.

I got a secret for you yo--Welfare DONT "help you get back on your feet." You dont barely get shit for welfare. Its impossible to survive and really get by on it and not have to be scrappin and worryin and not knowin how you gonna get by. You know how much a single person gettin welfare in NJ will get per month (At least last time I applied in 2010 this was the payment you got per month)-- $220 dollars a month. Yea, you really "get by" on that. Then you get about 100 dollars per month in foodstamps. (once again im talkin about a single person)

Quit actin like people on welfare livin it up. The truth is that you dont barely get shit. it aint enough to live on, and I dont give 2 fucks wat the fuck somebody spend that money on cuz truth is, whether they put it to "necessities" (decided by the Grand Duke Of All Knowing Who Decides For People Wat They Need) or to gettin high on the weekend, that money still aint gonna get em ahead in life. They get the money either way. And even if family A gets off welfare and spend it on the "right" according to you things, guess wat? that aint less money that you pay in your taxes, cuz family B is gonna move right into that place

No matter WAT welfare benefits go towards whether its weed or newports or food or WTFever, you are STILL GONNA BE PAYIN THE SAME AMOUNT ....So who gives a fuck? Why does it matter SO MUCH to you how they spend the money? Why do people get so riled up over this shit? Do you really begrudge them that much? Does it really bother you so much that somebody livin a mostly miserable live in poverty might get high once in a while and enjoy themself just like YOU do? Or is that somethin that only you deserve?

This is the same old same old shit that the well-off people always gotta fuckin do when it comes to poor folks. They gotta fuckin attach strings to everything. They gotta treat em like fuckin lower-class, dumb, untrustworthy less-than-people. They cant just let em have their little-ass scrap of money every 2 weeks--they gotta CONTROL WAT IT GETS SPEND ON, too. They cant just say ok, heres your laughable amount of money that you suppose to survive on, get outta my sight. They gotta say heres the money, and I dont trust you to spend it on the things that you think you need. I dont trust you to make decisions for yourself . *I* know wats best for you, you obviously dont, so I gotta tell you wat you can spend it on, too. i dont think you are capable of doin the right thing. you aint worthy to control your own life.

Its the same attitude that the slave owners had towards their slaves when they would say shit like "really, they are so much better off here with us. We clothe them, feed them, and give them work to keep them busy. On their own, lord knows theyd never survive--theyre just not mentally capable of taking care of themselves! honestly, were doing them a FAVOR!"

Its just another way that the people on top use to control and shit on poor folks, aint nothin new.

Oh, and how about unemployment too? Should we ALSO drug test everybody who gets unemployment, to make sure that THEY aint spending their "state-paid" money on drugs neither?

and dont forget, just becuz you ON welfare, just becuz you test positive for drugs dont mean you spend your WELFARE money on those drugs. Maybe you got a birthday card with 10 bucks in it. Maybe your grandma slipped you a couple bucks cuz she knew you strugglin. Maybe wat the fuck ever.

Are you gonna say "well, if you so poor that you need welfare, and you get a extra ten bucks, you shouldnt be using THAT to pay for drugs neither!" So, now you get to tell people how to spend their own personal not-from-the-state-or-taxes money too, just becuz they poor and you know wats best for them?

Maybe your girl came over with a blunt and asked if you wanna take a few hits, and you didnt even PAY for the shit. You still cant get welfare then, cuz you dirty for some free weed that you didnt use no welfare money to pay for? Or is it that as long as you dont spend the WELFARE money on drugs, you still get to collect? and how do the authorities TELL where the money to buy those drugs that you tested dirty for came from?

Obviously, it aint really about the "dont spend welfare money on drugs" issue, becuz anybody dirty for any drugs gets cut, regardless of whose money paid for the drugs or if they were free. How can anybody look at ths shit and not see right thru it and realize that it aint about drugs and its just about controlling the poor, and a way to cut the welfare rolls without havin to feel guilty about it, cuz those peopel who got cut "deserved" it.

This shit aint fair, in the slightest type of way. There is so many holes in this shit you can see right thru it, and its sad that some of yall are fallin for it like its some kind of smart, helpful thing instead of bein just another shady way to fuck over poor folks and smile while they do it.

^ bam!