Florida welfare recipients must pass drug test

yucatanboy2

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
1,913
Location
Crazytown USA
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/02/florida.drug.tests.welfare/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

(CNN) -- A controversial law requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening has gone into effect in Florida.

Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott signed the legislation in June.

"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 went into effect on Friday, 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."

And the ACLU has filed suit against the state for requiring all state workers to take a drug test and is considering suing the state for drug-testing welfare applicants.

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.

Florida is not the first state to pass such legislation. Michigan passed a similar law that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found unconstitutional in 2003 since it violated the U.S. Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable search.

The court said the law would set a dangerous precedent by allowing the government to conduct drug searches for the safety of the public without prior suspicion.
 
I for one think this is probablly one of the smartest moves ever. Too many people spending gov't money to get their fix
 
this isn't smart, it's asinine. and unconstitutional.

i could've sworn that a few weeks after they signed this, it was shelved/delayed for some reason...guess not.

i especially love that the ethics board felt his conflict of interest here didn't warrant any investigation. i mean, sure ppl have to pay outta pocket for these tests, and Solantic deals in these tests, and he just transferred his ownership to his wife's trust / sold his majority stake -- how could someone feel there's a conflict of interest there?!


Original Thread on this
 
this isn't smart, it's asinine. and unconstitutional.

I don't know how you can say this. If even with a Master's degree, I have to piss in a cup for someone to hire me to stand in front of a cash register, it's only right that if I'm claiming I'm "too poor" to afford food and necessities, that I get a piss test to prove I'm not using drugs either.

While I'm against the whole drug testing thing in the first place...I feel like if the US is gonna go drug testing crazy about employment, even shitty minimum wage employment, it's only right that people claiming they are unable to support their families with any employment are subject to the same invasive testing.
 
agree to disagree, i guess. i like the (supposed) intent of not allowing ppl to use society's $ for drugs when it was given out for helping them get by, but in practice this is ridiculous.
((4th amendment + scott's conflicts of interest aside, this idea is still stupid. this doesn't stop someone from buying H all the time w/ welfare $ as long as they can beat this test, while someone who's "otherwise perfect" except for having taken a hit of someone else's joint will likely fail. then you have to address the fact that this is basically saying our 'social safety nets'* apply to everyone but drug users, which is bullshit (are you against someone on welfare having a beer once in a while? ppl can be worthy of this societal-help, but only if they're straightedge?)))
/*=i'm not particularly for the overwhelming majority of 'social safety nets', and i think a ton needs to be done to TFAprogram and similar systems, but this is NOT the way to do so.
 
agree to disagree, i guess. i like the (supposed) intent of not allowing ppl to use society's $ for drugs when it was given out for helping them get by, but in practice this is ridiculous.

Yeah, I'll agree to disagree. And I agree with you on the intent part, since I've seen WAY too many people abuse the welfare system by now, and this seems like a possible way to help prevent that. In practice, who knows if it'll work...see how it goes I guess. If it means more people who deserve government help are able to get it, and those who are just using it and being unproductive members of society are forced to start doing something with themselves, then I'm all for it.

My dad and I hit some hard times when my mom passed away, and still didn't even qualify for food stamps. And we are both uninsured (well, I'm about to be) because the financial cap is too low for us to qualify for medicaid, yet there is no way in hell we can afford to pay for private insurance. NYC seems to follow it's own rules though, so I'm not actually in FL seeing the situation. I know here, there are several families taking advantage of the government, and it really pisses me off that my own father can't go to the doctor when he's sick because he can't pay for it, but yet people can just keep poppin' out babies without a job and the government pays for them to do so.
 
i could've sworn that a few weeks after they signed this, it was shelved/delayed for some reason...guess not.

the governor shelved drug testing for government employees

honestly he's very inconsistent. He said he'd oppose the opioid database and then he let it pass. He said no to Federal HSR but yesterday approved a massive rail project for central Florida. I've stopped paying any attention to what he says.
 
If it means more people who deserve government help are able to get it, and those who are just using it and being unproductive members of society are forced to start doing something with themselves, then I'm all for it.
make no mistakes, this isn't about fairness, or getting those who're refused to give up drugs / 'become productive', it's about pruning the welfare/assistance #'s.
(and this does nothing to help those that 'deserve' it. it goes after ppl who've smoked pot, primarily. this rule is pretty easy to get around for crack/dope heads and alcoholics, and damn-hard if you'd smoked any pot. THEN there's the fact that failing a drug test DOES NOT mean one used a penny of gov$ on drugs, nor does it mean the person isn't insanely hard-working.)

My dad and I hit some hard times when my mom passed away, and still didn't even qualify for food stamps. And we are both uninsured (well, I'm about to be) because the financial cap is too low for us to qualify for medicaid, yet there is no way in hell we can afford to pay for private insurance. NYC seems to follow it's own rules though, so I'm not actually in FL seeing the situation. I know here, there are several families taking advantage of the government, and it really pisses me off that my own father can't go to the doctor when he's sick because he can't pay for it, but yet people can just keep poppin' out babies without a job and the government pays for them to do so.
i'm sorry to hear of the situation, it's stuff like that which is part of the reason i'm largely against/skeptical of such programs- to an outsider they seem completely fucked (my main reasons are principle-based). however, this legislation, while it may seem as such, is not something that'll help fix the flaws in the system.
 
the governor shelved drug testing for government employees

honestly he's very inconsistent. He said he'd oppose the opioid database and then he let it pass. He said no to Federal HSR but yesterday approved a massive rail project for central Florida. I've stopped paying any attention to what he says.

wutwutWUT?! i'm in centralFL and didn't hear about the database or rail flipflops!! WOW. fuck the rail and fuck the database, and fuck him :|
 
SR, I hear what you're saying. The reason why I'm upset about needing to give out my pee is because I'm a stoner, and only smoke pot and take my prescribed benzos regularly. I just feel like, if my marijuana use is going to prevent me from getting hired, it should prevent people from government money too.

However, logically, marijuana should be legal so we can use these tests to go after the people who aren't just smoking pot and being good members of society (some of whom may have just fell on some hard times.) I guess the way to get me to flip sides about this is when we bring the focus on cannabis use, since it seems only the stoners get fucked on drug tests anyway.
 
we also need to keep in mind that some stoners are insanely irresponsible, and some harder-drug users are quite responsible. i guess what i mean is that the presence of drugs in your urine doesn't mean you are/aren't productive or responsible. further, it doesn't even mean that a penny of the person's money was spent on drugs.
this just says that if you use anything besides alcohol/cigarettes - which i'm betting are fine - you cannot get welfare/assistance. i can't say that i'm okay w/ how much of the social-assistance gets doled out, but i gotta say i can't see why failing a drug test would make one more/less deserving of such assistance :/
 
we also need to keep in mind that some stoners are insanely irresponsible, and some harder-drug users are quite responsible. i guess what i mean is that the presence of drugs in your urine doesn't mean you are/aren't productive or responsible. further, it doesn't even mean that a penny of the person's money was spent on drugs.
this just says that if you use anything besides alcohol/cigarettes - which i'm betting are fine - you cannot get welfare/assistance. i can't say that i'm okay w/ how much of the social-assistance gets doled out, but i gotta say i can't see why failing a drug test would make one more/less deserving of such assistance :/

I agree with you, that the presence of drugs doesn't really show whether you're productive or responsible, but that's the problem with employment drug tests too. The only reason I'm okay with it is because if I gotta pee for a government job, I should have to pee for government help also. I'd be all about tossing a nicotine and alcohol test into it as well...I know some employers look for that stuff. I was told I would have to submit to a drug/alcohol screening for one job, they never called me back, but at least they were going to test for alcohol as well.
 
honestly, i'm not even so sure how i feel about any gov.-mandated drug testing even when it comes to gov.jobs. Private sector is a completely different thing in this regard IMO.
 
honestly, i'm not even so sure how i feel about any gov.-mandated drug testing even when it comes to gov.jobs. Private sector is a completely different thing in this regard IMO.

I agree with you here also...I don't care for government mandated drug tests in general, but I feel if they are going to have them for government jobs whether we like it or not, it's only logical they have them for government assistance (for those who cannot find jobs) as well.
 
Has anyone protested this yet. Does anyone know the percentage of blacks & hispanics vs whites on welfare? I for one understand why they passed this & agree with it. Back in the day, people use to get food stamps & sell them at a discounted price & what not to get money for whatever.

On the other hand, this is how it starts where our freedoms are being taken away step by step.
 
I'm with SR on this one.
It is morally reprehensible to test people for drugs in this type of situation, I feel.
I argued for this in the original thread, but some drugs, such as weed, are very cheap.
People might need a break from their emotionally draining job searching, and smoking weed might help them recover so that they can go back the next day and search again.
I have no problem with people smoking weed and receiving welfare.

That said, welfare recipients should be required to contribute 40 hours a week, minus the time they can prove that they were on job interviews, to the common good.
 
agreed (though i could care less if the weed/drugs are used to recover/refresh, or just have fun after work - SO LONG AS they fit it into an 'acceptable' life while they're receiving aid)

And FULLY agree w/ the 40hrs/week. i'm tiptoeing around my feelings on the subject to avoid looking like a dick, but since you mentioned it i'll add that full-time productivity should be a MUST for aid-recipients. there's gotta be envelopes the state is paying someone to lick, when it could be done by ppl who're unemployed and receiving aid. i'd prefer them to lick empty envelopes to mail to the dump, over being able to lounge all day doing jack-shit. i'm very much for *extreme* overhauls in most of the ways we dole out 'social aid', but this testing idea is just not even close to the way to do so.
 
do you think it should be okay for welfare recipients to use drugs just as much as anyone else, so long as it doesn't substantially hinder their "return to productivity"? if so, i think we're 100% ;P ((if not, then why not?))
 
Top