(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."
I'm gonna go out on the limb and predict that most of the people on this board are not fans of this.
let me get this straight, people have liitle issue with employers doing drug screens, but they argue that requiring those who need public assistance from meeting the same standard?
My problem with this has nothing to do with the drug testing (though if it comes back positive offering help would be nice) ,but the fact that its at the cost of the person seeking aid. Odds are if they are trying to get on welfare they more than likely can't afford the drug test.
fencer66 said:
let me get this straight, people have liitle issue with employers doing drug screens, but they argue that requiring those who need public assistance from meeting the same standard?
Just like the end of Thelma & Louise there is a giant leap and a crash and burn (off screen for them)
fencer66 said:
let me get this straight, people have liitle issue with employers doing drug screens, but they argue that requiring those who need public assistance from meeting the same standard?
Can't be speak for other people, but I suspect that people dislike both, but they believe that forcing private companies to not screen for drugs just isn't feasible right now. It's a private sector vs public sector thing.
Mythryl said:
My problem with this has nothing to do with the drug testing (though if it comes back positive offering help would be nice) ,but the fact that its at the cost of the person seeking aid. Odds are if they are trying to get on welfare they more than likely can't afford the drug test.
if they get approved for services, the cost of the test comes out of the first check. I think it's something like $50. The part that really skeeves me out about this is Gov. Scott's wife owns a chain of drug testing lab. Gov. Scott and his wife stand to make millions off of this.
Mythryl said:
My problem with this has nothing to do with the drug testing (though if it comes back positive offering help would be nice) ,but the fact that its at the cost of the person seeking aid. Odds are if they are trying to get on welfare they more than likely can't afford the drug test.
Those who pass the test would receive a refund for the cost of the test along with their benefits. But those who do not pass are barred from the program for one year, rising to three years if they fail twice. If someone fails the test, the money is then given to an appointed recipient close to the family.
Mythryl said:
My problem with this has nothing to do with the drug testing (though if it comes back positive offering help would be nice) ,but the fact that its at the cost of the person seeking aid. Odds are if they are trying to get on welfare they more than likely can't afford the drug test.
Those who pass the test would receive a refund for the cost of the test along with their benefits. But those who do not pass are barred from the program for one year, rising to three years if they fail twice. If someone fails the test, the money is then given to an appointed recipient close to the family.
Mythryl said:
My problem with this has nothing to do with the drug testing (though if it comes back positive offering help would be nice) ,but the fact that its at the cost of the person seeking aid. Odds are if they are trying to get on welfare they more than likely can't afford the drug test.
Those who pass the test would receive a refund for the cost of the test along with their benefits. But those who do not pass are barred from the program for one year, rising to three years if they fail twice. If someone fails the test, the money is then given to an appointed recipient close to the family.
i stand corrected then.
They'd still have to pay for the test up-front. And, speaking as someone who's ludicrously poor at the moment, waiting an indefinite amount of time for reimbursement for expenses is enough for my partner and I to not be able to take advantage of certain jobs, and would undoubtedly be a barrier in accessing welfare.
So, I'm a single, unemployed mother of two who qualifies for welfare. I manage to save enough to cough up the cash for the drug test (or however it's handled), but I had a poppy seed bagel for lunch. Now I'm going to spend a year jumping through hoops to convince some burned out bureaucrat I'm not a junkie?
Pom_felo said:
So, I'm a single, unemployed mother of two who qualifies for welfare. I manage to save enough to cough up the cash for the drug test (or however it's handled), but I had a poppy seed bagel for lunch. Now I'm going to spend a year jumping through hoops to convince some burned out bureaucrat I'm not a junkie?
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: ... *insert 9 months of paperwork and phone calls and being on hold for hours on end and being forwarded from one department to another*... yes.
Thistle said:
I would be slightly less horrified by this if they also offered comprehensive recovery services.
Yup.
But why should those dirty useless lazy disgusting drug addicts have any help out of MY POCKET?! It's not like giving them resources to get clean and stay clean would be cheaper in the long run or anything. .
fencer66 said:
let me get this straight, people have liitle issue with employers doing drug screens, but they argue that requiring those who need public assistance from meeting the same standard?
Even if your faux confusion had wandered anywhere near a point, there is still the fact that private employers can choose to screen or not, at their cost and for their own reasons.
What is the cost and reason for public services to do so? Why would anybody even libertarian-ish be saying "yeah, let's add even more cost to public services!"
Or is it that the "free market" will now up the sales of fake pee, meaning a big boost in head shop sales?
Thistle said:
I would be slightly less horrified by this if they also offered comprehensive recovery services.
Yup.
But why should those dirty useless lazy disgusting drug addicts have any help out of MY POCKET?! It's not like giving them resources to get clean and stay clean would be cheaper in the long run or anything. .
If this were a just world, Rick Scott would be in jail for his criminal activities. His for profit hospitals defrauded the government--the fucking Medicare program--out of hundreds of millions of dollars. He is also a slimy, racist, criminal monster.
Thistle said:
I would be slightly less horrified by this if they also offered comprehensive recovery services.
Yup.
But why should those dirty useless lazy disgusting drug addicts have any help out of MY POCKET?! It's not like giving them resources to get clean and stay clean would be cheaper in the long run or anything. .
You're probably right. My guess is it is going to be cheaper to imprison them anyway. At least then we know the money is being spent on food and clothing, and not on the marijuana and abortions.
Thistle said:
I would be slightly less horrified by this if they also offered comprehensive recovery services.
Yup.
But why should those dirty useless lazy disgusting drug addicts have any help out of MY POCKET?! It's not like giving them resources to get clean and stay clean would be cheaper in the long run or anything. .
You're probably right. My guess is it is going to be cheaper to imprison them anyway. At least then we know the money is being spent on food and clothing, and not on the marijuana and abortions.
Damn drug addicted whores going for their tenth abortion t-shirt and complementary cupcakes. I bet they're POT cupcakes!
ckdexterhaven
USA
December 2005
JUN 01, 2011 03:39 PM