Oooh SHEET! Want welfare? Get drug test (Florida)

[CUG]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/01/florida.welfare.drug.testing/

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.
--------------------------

Most broke asses I know don't blaze. It's the ones who gag back a quarter every two days who have $$$

[Zephyr]

Employers in many states drug test their employees. So if an employed person has to be drug tested to earn a living, an unemployed person should have no problem doing so too.

[masoncgy]

I am 100% on side with this and want to see it implemented in this country... and more specifically, in this province of British Columbia, where welfare bums abound in seriously high numbers.

[revelations]

100% all in. Hope this can be done at a provincial level since thats how welfare and healthcare authority is distributed.

If King Ralph was still in power, I can see him opening this for first debate tomorrow morning (those bums and creeps).

[KrisYYC]

Originally posted by revelations
100% all in. Hope this can be done at a provincial level since thats how welfare and healthcare authority is distributed.

If King Ralph was still in power, I can see him opening this for first debate tomorrow morning (those bums and creeps).

No doubt. God I miss Klein.

[syritis]

100% positive reinforcement, :thumbsup:

[Modelexis]

I could have some fun playing devils advocate on this one, even though I think it would be good to drug test.

What if these unemployed people are musicians and drugs contribute to their income, in the same way that almost all popular musicians can ascribe some of their creative musical findings from the use of drugs etc.

Some musicians sing solely about drugs.

Just look at a lot of the popular videos making money on youtube, all stoners with wild creative ideas that people subscribe to and make them money.

They are inviting people to be lazy and then telling them they cannot do things lazy people do!
haha

The state should get rid of welfare and make drugs legal.

*No flames please, this is a lighthearted post and not to be taken as a position of debate.

[kevie88]

I like this, and I have to agree with Zeph! Gotta test to work, gotta test to get welfare.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by masoncgy
I am 100% on side with this and want to see it implemented in this country... and more specifically, in this province of British Columbia, where welfare bums abound in seriously high numbers.

:rofl: BC's numbers are nothing compared to Quebec and the Maritimes (per capita)

[Kloubek]

To play devil's advocate in a completely serious manner:

The attempt is to keep druggies from abusing the system to feed their habit. The problem with this is that the addicted people need to find their fix from somewhere. They are not simply going to say "Oh... we're not getting a handout? I guess I better stop taking drugs then..." This would only work for occasional users - which isn't really the purpose for the adjustment. I would guess that it would also be exceptionally rare for those who are addicted to kick the addiction so that they can get the support they truly need. Drugs don't work like that; they consume your life, and everything else becomes secondary.

So if people need their fix, you can expect the crime rate in that area to increase. This will range anywhere from prostitution to violent crimes. Perhaps even murder in extreme cases.

Look - I'm 100% behind *not* giving drug addicts free money to feed their habit. However, a move like this should be coupled with an alternative program to address the new issue it will most certainly cause. It is so easy to claim success when making an adjustment like this, since the results are immediately tangible. But that's only if one doesn't look at the "big picture", and the fallout effect it causes.

[Feruk]

They're linking two issues which don't really relate directly right now. Most of the people on welfare prolly don't use drugs anyway (as of right now due to the American recession), so you're just wasting money with tox screens. On top of that, not giving people money doesn't help them get off drugs. In the end, the government will spend more and anyone addicted will stay that way. Stupid plan is stupid.

[sabad66]

Agree with Kloubek. Things like this aren't always so black and white. Look at the whole war on drugs in general. Something that was intended to decrease use has actually had the opposite effect, and also added a couple of extra problems (violence, untaxed money going to organized crime). Drug addictions should be treated for what it is (a sickness/mental health problem).

Does this also include food stamps? Worried about situations where kids are ultimately punished for their parents' drug use and will no longer be able to eat. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Modelexis]

I also agree with Klou, you cannot offer these blanket regulations in an attempt to solve a major and infinitely complicated social problem.
Similar to that quote speaking about quantum physics, if you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics. If you think you know how to solve complicated social problems, you don't know how to solve complicated social problems.

[Type_S1]

Originally posted by Kloubek
To play devil's advocate in a completely serious manner:

The attempt is to keep druggies from abusing the system to feed their habit. The problem with this is that the addicted people need to find their fix from somewhere. They are not simply going to say "Oh... we're not getting a handout? I guess I better stop taking drugs then..." This would only work for occasional users - which isn't really the purpose for the adjustment. I would guess that it would also be exceptionally rare for those who are addicted to kick the addiction so that they can get the support they truly need. Drugs don't work like that; they consume your life, and everything else becomes secondary.

So if people need their fix, you can expect the crime rate in that area to increase. This will range anywhere from prostitution to violent crimes. Perhaps even murder in extreme cases.

Look - I'm 100% behind *not* giving drug addicts free money to feed their habit. However, a move like this should be coupled with an alternative program to address the new issue it will most certainly cause. It is so easy to claim success when making an adjustment like this, since the results are immediately tangible. But that's only if one doesn't look at the "big picture", and the fallout effect it causes.

IMO your argument has valid points but is extremely flawed.

1. A lot of tax payers hate the fact a welfare system is in place in the US and hate money going towards it in the first place. People don't like other people mooching off the system and getting free hand-outs.

2. The majority of society can agree they are opposed to drug users because they are supporting criminal activity and adding no positive value into society by using drugs.

Add these together and you have A LOT of pissed off individuals.

I think this is one of THE GREATEST idea's the government has ever had. I could give a shit less whether the bottom 10-15% of society THAT SUPPORTS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY need to resort to other ways to get drugs then get handouts from taxpayers.

If this was in Canada I would be the biggest advocate for it and could debate for hours with any retard that says different.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Type_S1
I think this is one of THE GREATEST idea's the government has ever had.

The average cost of a drug test is about $42 per person tested,[8] not including the costs of hiring personnel to administer the tests, to ensure confidentiality of results and to run confirmatory tests to guard against false positives resulting from passive drug exposure, cross-identification with legal, prescription drugs such as codeine and legal substances such as poppy seeds.

Drug testing is not used by many private employers because of the exorbitant cost of catching each person who tests positive. One electronics manufacturer, for example, estimated that the cost of finding each person who tested positive was $20,000, since after testing 10,000 employees, only 49 tested positive. A congressional committee also estimated that the cost of each positive drug test of government employees was $77,000, because the positive rate was only 0.5%.

Most types of drug tests fail to detect alcohol abuse – the most commonly abused substance among Americans – and are most likely to detect marijuana use since the active ingredient in marijuana stays in the body’s system longer than any other illicit substance. Therefore, drug tests often fail to identify people who are using more powerful, more addictive and more dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or cocaine, which exit the body’s system in a matter of hours or days.

source: http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

[Zephyr]

If they want free handouts from the government, fuck why not just become a banker? :dunno:

[mazdavirgin]

:facepalm: Kloubek is the only person making sense in this thread. How about we start testing these people for alcohol too? I mean why not? I don't want to support drunks with my tax payer money? How about we deny health care to people who are not in shape and who can't prove they do 30 mins of cardio a day? Why don't we deny health care to people who drink since it causes health problems? We should also deny health care to people who eat fast food etc...

Sure sounds like an awesome avenue to take! Oh yeah alcohol use is far worse per capita when compared with illegal drugs. So um why don't we just close all liquor stores? I mean that would solve all our problems with alcohol! Oh wait history repeating itself?

PS: Klein was a moron.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Type_S1


IMO your argument has valid points but is extremely flawed.

If this was in Canada I would be the biggest advocate for it and could debate for hours with any retard that says different.

You say my thoughts are flawed, but it seems that your opinion is *actually* that the whole system is flawed. I am not going to disagree with that, but that isn't exactly the debate here is it? The issue at hand is whether or not denying handouts to druggies is a good or bad idea - not whether or not handing out to *anyone* is a good or bad idea.

However, in that particular regard I think the system should be revised to support only those in the most dire of circumstances, and the vast majority to be instead placed into job placement and social programs.

[Crymson]

I've seen this pop up a few times on my friend's facebooks lately. I REALLY have a problem with this.

Firstly, the problem I have foremost is that YES! It's a great idea, for about the first 30 seconds of thinking about. Most people have a intial reaction of "yeah! fuck that, if i'm paying taxes for welfare bums, they'd better not be doing effing drugs!.

This is very superficially a great argument. And that fact that so many people would support it, shows alot of the flaws we face in modern politics: People don't think about shit anymore. This against both the constituion of the united states, as it motivated by greed and power rather than any form of public good.

This view is VERY MUCH based on inherent racism, and bullying politics. Scott's picking on the people with smallest voice and powerbase in Florida in order to gain further support from the strongers. Scott, a repubican governor, is obviously playing to base of right wing whites. He knows full well that most people on welfare in Florida are black, and he knows full well that most red neck whites assume blacks on welfare are necessarily drug addicts. While, on the surface it's a logical "other folks shouldn't have fun on my dime" the racist undertones of "fuck niggers" are being played out in a very polically correct way. Now this does little to actually refute the reasoning, I just brought it up as the first point because there is politics in everything, and this, while disgusting, is beautiful politics.

Rick Scott stands to make ALOT of money off this personally. 2 seconds worth of googling will make the conflict of interesting disgustingly clear to you. Of Rick Scott's 200 million dollar fortune, 32 million of dollars are invested into a network of drug testing clinics in the state of florida. Combine the initiative we're talking about with the fact that he institutued mandatory drug testing for all state employees and you can see how this, while politcally motivated, also carries alot of PERSONAL motiviation. Everything does come down to greed.

RECAP - first two points show how the program is wrong as it's motivated by Scott's greed. To increase his personal wealth and politically to further entrench his replubican base.

As far as the legality of this, it's awful. I mean, how could this be construed as anything but an unlawful and unreasonable search? To DEMAND bodily fluids in order to obtain goverment assistance is a precident one would be extremely fearful to adapt. Granted it's a slippery slope argument, but if this is successful and uncontested, what is to stop the program "growing" go cover more services? This is unlikely, as Scott's doing this for political motivation and wouldn't want to piss of his base. However, consider this program expanding to goverment "services" rather than "assistence".

Student loan? Drug test. Tax Return? Drug Test. Driver's License? Drug Test. Consider the implications.

There is alot of talk, usually hyperbole and rhetoric in the US about the impending "police state". One of the pillars of a police state is to make criminals of everyone. With enough laws, and enough time, everyone is guilty of somthing, giving the state incredible leverage against any individual they want to. There are alot of laws, and this would make, about 50% of the US population guilty of drug crimes at some point in their lives.

Of course, this is fundamentally boils down to a question of drug laws. Which is of course, the elephant in the room.

Bear in mind, that this also prays on people's inherent fears and misunderstanding about "drugs". There is NO DISCTINCTION being made between a drug addict and a drug user. How many people on beyond right now are drug users, but not addicts? I drink alot. I'm not an addict. That's the equivalent of saying anyone who drinks is an alcoholic and should be in AA. What sense does that even make? It's just playing to the fears that 40 years of aggressive misinformation the "WAR ON DRUGS" has created.

Also, as it was brilliantly pointed out. Drug Addicts are not going to say "fuck it, i can't get free drugs anymore, better quit". But since black neighbourhoods case black on black crime, it's not really a problem for the White Repbluican Floridian voter.

So to further recap.

1) People need to look at what welfare actually is, not what they anecdotally or racistly asume it is. Becaus that's what Scott is preying on. Do some research. Realise the US is at 20% real un/underemplyment and that long term EI is forcing people into welfare. That welfare is not "crackhead bums" but mostly single mothers who are far from "proud" to milk the system. Yet every person has some personal anedote about people "pumping out kids to stay on welfare" or some screenshot of a FB status of some bitch braggin about buying chips on food stamps, or some subsidized housing complex that is new and nicer than their place. Try to look at some stats, do some reading, watch some documentaries. Question everything.

2) People need to understand that drugs aren't the problem, but their aggressive prohibition (lets not mention how corporations are building prisons and drafting legislation in order to create more criminals to fill them, and that the US has the most incarcerated population in History, due to non violent drug offenders". For a drug addict on welfare, the welfare system may be their only connection to any form of state assistance that could lead to rehabilitiation. To deny even THAT slim avenue of help, is to virtualy garauntee that you'll have a new criminal in a months time.

Anyway

/rant

[HiTempguy1]

So let me get this straight: it's racist to demand drug tests? That's an interesting way to pull the race card. Last time I checked, if you aren't doing drugs, there will be no problem. If black people statistically do more drugs, that is THEIR problem.

Beyond that, drug prohibition is not a failure and serves a very specific purpose, which is that WE will have to pay for other people being fuckups who do drugs (without prohibition). This is why I like this policy so much. You point out how much it will cost as an excuse to not do it (which is weird from a big government money spending liberal viewpoint, but I digress). If anything, I'd say that the governor is more qualified to suggest something like this as he clearly has experience in the matter.

But its ok, you'll barf some hippy liberal bullshit about the man and how our government is trying to imprison us etc and nobody will care.

[CMW403]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
:facepalm: Kloubek is the only person making sense in this thread. How about we start testing these people for alcohol too? I mean why not? I don't want to support drunks with my tax payer money? How about we deny health care to people who are not in shape and who can't prove they do 30 mins of cardio a day? Why don't we deny health care to people who drink since it causes health problems? We should also deny health care to people who eat fast food etc...

Sure sounds like an awesome avenue to take! Oh yeah alcohol use is far worse per capita when compared with illegal drugs. So um why don't we just close all liquor stores? I mean that would solve all our problems with alcohol! Oh wait history repeating itself?

PS: Klein was a moron.

Alcohol isn't illegal.

The purchase of drugs supports criminals, who wants to give their tax money to criminals?

And yes, if there was a way to deny healthcare to people that treat their bodies like shit I would support it.

[googe]

Originally posted by Crymson
<snip>

A well thought out analysis. The sad part is that even by looking at the replies in this thread, it's clear that gut reaction and slimeball politics will win out.

Testing positive for drugs doesn't mean you are spending government money on them either.

Has anyone thought to ask if this will actually save any money?

If you think the question is simply "do you want to pay extra so that some junkie can get his drugs", you are being short-sighted.

And as a general rule, never trust a man who stands to profit from a law he wants passed. The war on drugs is full of perverse incentives.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by googe


Has anyone thought to ask if this will actually save any money?


I'd rather pay more money than support a junkie strictly on principle. :dunno:

[Z_Fan]

I wonder what is more expensive.

Give the welfare bums with drug habits drug money.

Or

Put the welfare bums who commit crimes to support their drug habit in to jail and provide them shelter, food, education, etc.

Hmmmm...

Looks like the average tax payer is fucked.

[masoncgy]

Originally posted by Z_Fan
Looks like the average tax payer is fucked.

At the end of the day, this is the truth.

[Masked Bandit]

This has absolutely nothing to do with trying to get people off drugs. This has everything to do with gettting more votes. Stop 100 random people and say "do you support your tax dollars going to people who just spend it on illegal drugs?". You're going to get 99.5 "NO EPHEN WAYYYYY". So the government says "no more money for anyone that can't pass a drug test" and the good voting people cheer. Somewhere in the background I can hear Mayor Quimby grumbling about fickle mush-heads.

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by Z_Fan
I wonder what is more expensive.

Give the welfare bums with drug habits drug money.

Or

Put the welfare bums who commit crimes to support their drug habit in to jail and provide them shelter, food, education, etc.

Hmmmm...

Looks like the average tax payer is fucked.

Well then you have to hire a cop, jail staff and a judge. Lots of economic spin-off there right?

[calgary403]

Originally posted by Kloubek
To play devil's advocate in a completely serious manner:



Look - I'm 100% behind *not* giving drug addicts free money to feed their habit. However, a move like this should be coupled with an alternative program to address the new issue it will most certainly cause. It is so easy to claim success when making an adjustment like this, since the results are immediately tangible. But that's only if one doesn't look at the &quot;big picture&quot;, and the fallout effect it causes.

:werd:

I will guarantee 100% the crime rate will increase. Maybe if they took all that saved welfare money and spent it on drug rehabs and programs for the addicts this would be 100% win.

[Grogador]

We should move to an expense-type system where spending is tracked, perhaps via a government-issued "welfare pre-payed credit card", or replaced altogether with food stamps and expanded subsidies for housing, healthcare, education, etc. I don't know how the government decides who gets welfare and who doesn't, but they can probably do more to make sure it is spent responsibly, for basic necessities, health, education and the betterment of "society" (our tax base).

[CUG]

Originally posted by Modelexis
I could have some fun playing devils advocate on this one, even though I think it would be good to drug test.

What if these unemployed people are musicians and drugs contribute to their income, in the same way that almost all popular musicians can ascribe some of their creative musical findings from the use of drugs etc.

Some musicians sing solely about drugs.

Just look at a lot of the popular videos making money on youtube, all stoners with wild creative ideas that people subscribe to and make them money.

They are inviting people to be lazy and then telling them they cannot do things lazy people do!
haha

The state should get rid of welfare and make drugs legal.

*No flames please, this is a lighthearted post and not to be taken as a position of debate. This would require a clinical study to prove that those drugs did that, and then new laws and... ungha

[CUG]

Originally posted by Crymson


This is very superficially a great argument. And that fact that so many people would support it, shows alot of the flaws we face in modern politics: People don't think about shit anymore. This against both the constituion of the united states, as it motivated by greed and power rather than any form of public good.
Nah, it's picking on people who use drugs instead of finding work. It's eliminating the user as the middle man between taxpayers money, and the dealers selling the drugs. It's drug-user motivated, not racially motivated. Life isn't a sociology class brah.

[cancer man]

Who's making money now..

http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/08/98_of_florida_welfare_applicants_pass_newly_implemented_drug_tests_discrediting_governor.html

Another super get rich scheme.

[googe]

^ Yep. See how easy it is to dupe the voting public, get popular, and get rich, with the age old "war on drugs" propaganda? All that for nothing.

[ekguy]

It's about time idiot burnouts with no jobs have some accountability. Drugged up idiots won't be able to sponge off of society so easily in florida anymore.

Hope this spreads like a wild fire.

[01RedDX]

.

[CompletelyNumb]

You're reading it wrong.

96% of welfare recipients tested have passed. 2% failed. 2% declined the test.

The program is still in the black, as it were, in that it is saving more than it is costing.

And he no longer owns stocks in any drug testing clinics.

[CompletelyNumb]

Anyways, here's what I think.

Professional sports: drug tests
Olympic athletes: drugs tests
Oil and Gas Industry: drug tests
Military: drug tests
Many other hard working people: drug tests

Social assistance programs? "OMG it's unconstitutional!!"

:banghead:

Go fuck yourself :guns: Test them all.

[cancer man]

Originally posted by CompletelyNumb
You're reading it wrong.

96% of welfare recipients tested have passed. 2% failed. 2% declined the test.

The program is still in the black, as it were, in that it is saving more than it is costing.

And he no longer owns stocks in any drug testing clinics.

Except the fact all his shares were sold to his wife..

[CompletelyNumb]

Minor technicality :poosie:

[01RedDX]

.

[CompletelyNumb]

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.

Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000


The $178 million figure is the cost of welfare, not the drug tests.

[CompletelyNumb]

Some articles are blurring the lines of how he profits from this, but I keep seeing sources say that he sold his shares *after* initially transferring them to his wife, indicating he no longer has anything to do with the company:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/gov-rick-scott-finalizes-deal-to-sell-his-holdings-in-urgent-care-chain/1163630

[Antonito]

Originally posted by calgary403


:werd:

I will guarantee 100% the crime rate will increase. Maybe if they took all that saved welfare money and spent it on drug rehabs and programs for the addicts this would be 100% win.
Excellent idea in theory, but the same people who propose and vote for these laws will be the ones to not want to spend money on helpful programs because:


Originally posted by HiTempguy1


I'd rather pay more money than support a junkie strictly on principle. :dunno:

You just can't fight against this kind of bitter ignorance