FL Gov Passes Law Requiring Welfare Recipients to Pass Drug Test

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
37
#1
(CNN) -- Florida Gov. Rick Scott on Sunday defended recent legislation that requires adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screenings, saying the law provides "personal accountability."

"It's not right for taxpayer money to be paying for somebody's drug addiction," Scott told CNN's T.J. Holmes on Sunday. "On top of that, this is going to increase personal responsibility, personal accountability. We shouldn't be subsidizing people's addiction."

But the ACLU of Florida, which has already filed suit against Scott over a measure requiring government employees to undergo random drug testing, disagrees, and may sue over the welfare law as well.

"What (Scott) is doing is giving ugly legitimacy to an unfortunate stereotype that has been in this country for a couple of decades -- that all welfare recipients are a bunch of drug abusers," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

Scott told CNN he wants to ensure that welfare funds go to their primary target -- to disadvantaged children -- and provide people with an incentive not to use drugs. He signed the measure on June 1, calling it "the right thing for taxpayers."

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, and do not receive a refund for the test.

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?"

"I work for the ACLU, and it's our job to prevent trampling on the constitutional rights of people," Simon said. The Constitution mandates that searches cannot be conducted without probable cause, he said.

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.

Asked about the company Sunday, Scott said he is in the process of selling his family's interest in the company and "it will be sold in a couple of weeks." There is no conflict of interest, he said.

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.

On the measure requiring public employees to undergo drug testing, Simon noted that public employees -- workers in city, county, state and federal government -- are protected by the Constitution and should not undergo "intrusive" drug testing without probable cause to believe a person is using drugs.
I support the idea- at least the title.

But I do have to wonder what the cost of screening every welfare recipient in the state... which I have read is over 100k... EVERY month...

I don't know who's familiar with the cost of having a blood/urine screening... but its up there. I want to guess 2 hundo a pop.

200 x 100k = 20 millions dollars a month. wow.

And I do agree with the warnings of the ACLU... where does it stop? Medicare? Social Security? Tax refunds?

Thoughts? Discuss.
 
Jun 4, 2011
20
0
0
TN
#2
Sounds like a good idea to me. I see abuse of the system left and right here in TN. The leeches have to cost way more than the measures to prevent them. IMO.
 
#3
[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 5567476]I support the idea- at least the title.

But I do have to wonder what the cost of screening every welfare recipient in the state... which I have read is over 100k... EVERY month...

I don't know who's familiar with the cost of having a blood/urine screening... but its up there. I want to guess 2 hundo a pop.

200 x 100k = 20 millions dollars a month. wow.

And I do agree with the warnings of the ACLU... where does it stop? Medicare? Social Security? Tax refunds?

Thoughts? Discuss.[/QUOTE]

I'm torn on this one. On one hand, I do not want welfare recipients laying around doing drugs....and on the other I don't want civil liberties violated. I also don't like that there is a blatant stereotype with this law that welfare users are druggies. There are people out there that have real life problems and are legitimately struggling. I would say more of them are out there than people "living off the system". Heck, a ton of people actually work while on it to suppliment COL in an area. They qualify for the benefits due to children and low pay. Because, let's face it, not all of us make good money or have really nice jobs. They take what they can get.

I really am at a loss with this. I don't know what to think of it. I guess I would have to say no, I don't believe in it. Purely for the fact that the testing program itself is expensive to operate. Wasting money.....to prevent wasting money. I wonder what's next. Mandatory logging of DNA upon birth?
 

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
37
#4
Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children, and do not receive a refund for the test.
^^^^^

this part seems like the easiest loophole to exploit... but the children do need to be protected.

like unicorn said... seems like wasting more money to prevent the wasting of money...

===========

edit

and yes... a blatant stereotype that the majority of people who need assistance are drug users...
 

R_Mac_1

Forum Guru
Nov 29, 2007
3,508
14
0
Corpus Christi, TX
#5
I don't see the stereotype, or at least the problem with it. The law doesn't necessarily imply that all people on welfare are drug users. It could be simply that people in all walks of life do drugs, but those accepting taxpayer money for financial assistance should be accountable for the money.

I do, however see the problem with the slippery-slope precedent for other assistance, as well as the cost for the state fund the testing.
 

F34R

Legend
Feb 11, 2008
40,323
432
83
South Carolina
#6
[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 5567476]I support the idea- at least the title.

But I do have to wonder what the cost of screening every welfare recipient in the state... which I have read is over 100k... EVERY month...

I don't know who's familiar with the cost of having a blood/urine screening... but its up there. I want to guess 2 hundo a pop.

200 x 100k = 20 millions dollars a month. wow.

And I do agree with the warnings of the ACLU... where does it stop? Medicare? Social Security? Tax refunds?

Thoughts? Discuss.[/QUOTE]
I think welfare recipients should be required to pass a drug screening. The cost is the burden of the recipients, not the state.. good idea, and it's about time.
[QUOTE="unicron7, post: 5567483]I'm torn on this one. On one hand, I do not want welfare recipients laying around doing drugs....and on the other I don't want civil liberties violated. I also don't like that there is a blatant stereotype with this law that welfare users are druggies. There are people out there that have real life problems and are legitimately struggling. I would say more of them are out there than people "living off the system". Heck, a ton of people actually work while on it to suppliment COL in an area. They qualify for the benefits due to children and low pay. Because, let's face it, not all of us make good money or have really nice jobs. They take what they can get.

I really am at a loss with this. I don't know what to think of it. I guess I would have to say no, I don't believe in it. Purely for the fact that the testing program itself is expensive to operate. Wasting money.....to prevent wasting money. I wonder what's next. Mandatory logging of DNA upon birth?[/QUOTE]
It's not a civil liberty to receive government assistance. It's not a right. I think anyone that receives it should be required to pass a drug screening. I was on welfare for two years, and I worked full time for minimum wage. I get tired of seeing people abuse the system while they pay for their drugs with the money my taxes help fund. I go to calls all the time where someone has three kids, no job, not even trying, and just lives off the system, and we bust them with drugs. It's ****ing sickening.
 

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
37
#7
[QUOTE="F34R, post: 5567499]I think welfare recipients should be required to pass a drug screening. The cost is the burden of the recipients, not the state.. good idea, and it's about time.

[/QUOTE]

you didn't read the article did you?

if the recipient passes the test... he is reimbursed. ergo, the cost does go to the state.
not to mention overhead cost (staffing, paper work, records, etc)

the main concern in all this is how to keep those children supported.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

F34R

Legend
Feb 11, 2008
40,323
432
83
South Carolina
#8
[QUOTE="DayWalker, post: 5567502]you didn't read the article did you?

if the recipient passes the test... he is reimbursed. ergo, the cost does go to the state.
not to mention overhead cost (staffing, paper work, records, etc)[/QUOTE]
Yes, I read it, "recoup in benefits"... I see your point.

I still think it's necessary. A lot of kids are going unprotected, not taken care of properly, because of abuses of these types of systems.
 

DayWalker

The Heisman
May 9, 2006
13,153
16
0
37
#9
[QUOTE="F34R, post: 5567505]Yes, I read it, "recoup in benefits"... I see your point.

I still think it's necessary. A lot of kids are going unprotected, not taken care of properly, because of abuses of these types of systems.[/QUOTE]

true. but while the state can't determine how the child is raised... the minimum they can do is try to ensure that they are clothed and fed and sheltered...
 

squirrelbo1

young rich and tasteless
Jul 27, 2008
18,358
100
63
28
London
#10
the point is though, if you are legit receiving it then its a minor cost, but if you are using drugs, then you have to pay, so the state wins both ways. doesn't pay for the test AND then can refuse benefits.
 

Lebowski

Master Sage
Nov 29, 2007
14,022
154
0
Bowling
#11
I haven't read all of it, due to be super tired, but I agree with this. There are far more people who abuse the hell out of this system than legit people who are actually struggling are thankful for even 5 bucks. Toronto is a great example of welfare abusing. They complain that their environment is crappy, yet they are the ones that made it crappy from messing it up by doing drugs and being in gangs.
 

bash

Veteran
Aug 24, 2009
4,500
35
0
Ontario Canada
#12
It's not a bad idea but I don't support it. There is much better uses to put that money than to be wasting it on testing everyone.


[QUOTE="DreDayDetox, post: 5567546]I haven't read all of it, due to be super tired, but I agree with this. There are far more people who abuse the hell out of this system than legit people who are actually struggling are thankful for even 5 bucks. Toronto is a great example of welfare abusing. They complain that their environment is crappy, yet they are the ones that made it crappy from messing it up by doing drugs and being in gangs.[/QUOTE]


That is a ridiculous statement and an extreme stereotype.
 

MacP

Veteran
Jun 27, 2008
4,399
19
38
#13
The important thing is do they discriminate the claim if the person is an ex drug addict? I'm not really sure how the US state benefit system works.
 

Royals

Active member
Aug 15, 2008
4,008
23
38
Florida
#14
[QUOTE="MacP, post: 5567567]The important thing is do they discriminate the claim if the person is an ex drug addict? I'm not really sure how the US state benefit system works.[/QUOTE]

I think it's only if they fail a current drug test that they don't receive the welfare.
 
Jun 4, 2011
20
0
0
TN
#15
I reposted and here is what some dubazz wrote...

I've only mentioned this several times now and you slow pokes are just now catching on?

Allow me to be a tad bit flippant and Jon Stewart like if you will.

I think welfare recipients NEED THEIR DRUGS!!!
Yep..I said it.
These people don't have much, they can't afford to take the family to Disneyworld or any other real vacation, so let them have their drugs!

The only thing being accomplished here is making sure the big drug companies who lobby (bribe) politicians with campaign money get their money instead of some illegal source getting that money.

There are plenty of LEGAL DRUGS to be had...in fact alcohol can get you just as phuked up as ANYTHING, and after all, haven't all you red necks been coming down here by the carload to buy your Oxycodone?
This law seems over concerned with things such as Marijuana, but politicians love to act like tough guys and appeal to the idiots who are stupid enough to believe that they are actually accomplishing something.

Y'all ain't too bright.

Sheesh...
 

Bigdoggy

Master Guru
Jan 24, 2008
7,250
58
0
39
#16
I kind of wish with all the money that is forked out for welfare people, they could also put them in school as well. So during that time in school they get food, a place to live, etc etc it's obvious, but after that is done, they are than more qualified for more careers out there. This is definitely a good start but I would love to see a job counseling as well as schooling for the people needing a job.
 
Nov 28, 2004
4,929
5
0
31
#17
i hear a big problem is with the staff workers. they dont get paid much and most of them don't give a s*** whether you legitimately qualify or not. they'd rather not deal with your arguing and just approve people. This is also a problem with food stamps. you have rich college kids getting food stamps just to get free junk. My buddy told me a story of when he was at a gas station, he overheard the guy in front of him ask the cashier to ring up cigarettes as groceries so he could buy them with his food stamps card.

That said. I think they need a new approval process to limit abuse but generally i support it. I really hope though this isnt used as a precident for more invasive procedures.
 

Lebowski

Master Sage
Nov 29, 2007
14,022
154
0
Bowling
#18
[QUOTE="bash, post: 5567557]


That is a ridiculous statement and an extreme stereotype.[/QUOTE]

LOL, stereotype? Exactly where did I mention "black" "asain" "hindu" "whites" ? I want what you're smoking.
 

bash

Veteran
Aug 24, 2009
4,500
35
0
Ontario Canada
#19
[QUOTE="DreDayDetox, post: 5567637]LOL, stereotype? Exactly where did I mention "black" "asain" "hindu" "whites" ? I want what you're smoking.[/QUOTE]

Stereotypes don't have to involve races/religion.
 

Lebowski

Master Sage
Nov 29, 2007
14,022
154
0
Bowling
#20
[QUOTE="bash, post: 5567736]Stereotypes don't have to involve races/religion.[/QUOTE]

yeah they do when you're identifying race, religion not so much..but I wasn't identifying with any race, I wasn't generalizing any nationality..I was only generalizing a majority of the welfare population, NOT EVERYONE...the system constantly gets abused..look at the Ford housing scandal..everyone who works in building management in Toronto, including my dad, puts up with theses doped up losers who break **** in their home when they're under the influence and then even though it's their fault, someone else pays for damages..tax payers included
 

mickice

Ultimate Veteran
Oct 8, 2006
22,327
112
0
33
Australia, In a Kangaroo's pouch.
#21
Instead of being productive with their money I do believe alot of people who receive welfare across many countries do spend it all on alcohol and drugs. Drug testing is a step in the right direction even if it is costly, it's only money.
Once we become aware of those on the drugs we can give them the proper help they need, handing jobs out to people who aren't physically and mentally fit to work is not the answer.
 
Last edited:

squirrelbo1

young rich and tasteless
Jul 27, 2008
18,358
100
63
28
London
#22
[QUOTE="DreDayDetox, post: 5567546]I haven't read all of it, due to be super tired, but I agree with this. There are far more people who abuse the hell out of this system than legit people who are actually struggling are thankful for even 5 bucks. Toronto is a great example of welfare abusing. They complain that their environment is crappy, yet they are the ones that made it crappy from messing it up by doing drugs and being in gangs.[/QUOTE]

massive generalisation.

[QUOTE="DreDayDetox, post: 5567637]LOL, stereotype? Exactly where did I mention "black" "asain" "hindu" "whites" ? I want what you're smoking.[/QUOTE]
doesnt have to be race religion. you stereotyped a certain 'class' of people (I use class in inverted commas because its not necessarily class based but for the most part those who receive benefits are lower working class. it has also been argued that because of successive generations of people on welfare benefits a welfare class (almost a sub working class) has developed and you said that most people in that 'class' spend money of drugs, which is a massive stereotype.

[QUOTE="DreDayDetox, post: 5567751]yeah they do when you're identifying race, religion not so much..but I wasn't identifying with any race, I wasn't generalizing any nationality..I was only generalizing a majority of the welfare population, NOT EVERYONE...the system constantly gets abused..look at the Ford housing scandal..everyone who works in building management in Toronto, including my dad, puts up with theses doped up losers who break **** in their home when they're under the influence and then even though it's their fault, someone else pays for damages..tax payers included[/QUOTE]
you said "most people" that's simply untrue. the vast majority of people spend the little money they get on living. yeah they may buy cigarettes and alcohol, BUT most just use it to live. sure a lot of people spend it on drugs, but most don't.

everybody in the UK receives child benefits (if they have a kid, up to 16 years- and yes even if you earn 20 million a year) and I can tell you that most people in the UK don't do illegal drugs. so saying all those that receive welfare money spends it on drugs is just completely and utterly wrong. if you want to argue otherwise im ready to laugh.
 
Last edited:
Oct 23, 2007
4,885
43
0
39
#23
I would like to add a new element to this conversation. I read something about this last week, and it referred to the "fact" that the Governor's wife owns a series of drug testing clinics in Florida, and they apparently belonged to him at one point, but he turned them over to her at one point. This law that was passed was something he campaigned on, not something that was brought up by Florida's Congress.

While I MOSTLY support drug testing those on welfare, I tend to have problems when it _appears_ that his drug testing push may have been motivated by profit. It's possible it completely circumstance, but even if it is it just opens up a can of worms and casts a shadow on the entire thing.

I have to run, so someone please do a little research on this and post a link, I am literally leaving the office right now.
 
May 5, 2011
4,773
76
48
USA
#24
Drugs? Okay, if you're going to address people on welfare being on drugs, then why not look at the entire thing? What about the woman who has 7-15 kids just to get a welfare check? And then her daughters do the same thing.

I'm on the fence about this. I don't think a lot of people on welfare are on drugs, but what about the ones who are on drugs? That would weed them out.

I just see more going on then just drugs. I say address the whole system.
 

Bigdoggy

Master Guru
Jan 24, 2008
7,250
58
0
39
#26
[QUOTE="weskurtz81, post: 5568088]I would like to add a new element to this conversation. I read something about this last week, and it referred to the "fact" that the Governor's wife owns a series of drug testing clinics in Florida, and they apparently belonged to him at one point, but he turned them over to her at one point. This law that was passed was something he campaigned on, not something that was brought up by Florida's Congress.

While I MOSTLY support drug testing those on welfare, I tend to have problems when it _appears_ that his drug testing push may have been motivated by profit. It's possible it completely circumstance, but even if it is it just opens up a can of worms and casts a shadow on the entire thing.

I have to run, so someone please do a little research on this and post a link, I am literally leaving the office right now.[/QUOTE]

usually that is the only way they are going to push anything, there has to be a way to make money on it. Hell, The seat belt laws are actually funded to keep it all going, which in turn makes a profit. But when I listened to the gomer on TV which was a police officer, he stated "well, we don't pull people over just because they are not wearing a seat belt" I mean pure bull**** to the max right there, yes they do. They don't say "we pulled you over for not wearing a seatbelt", they find some other excuse. It's all about money/profit. If there is nothing to truely gain from it, there is a very high chance it wont go through. Welfare on the other hand creates profit to certain homes and apartments. Here in Minnesota, there is less and less of that going on. Apartment complex owners or people that rent them out don't have to have section 8 like they use to.

whole point is, money, it's always some profit being made, if it's not the profit, it's the community chipping in on it than. but no matter where, someone is funding something to make something.
 
Oct 23, 2007
4,885
43
0
39
#27
[QUOTE="Bigdoggy, post: 5568168]usually that is the only way they are going to push anything, there has to be a way to make money on it. Hell, The seat belt laws are actually funded to keep it all going, which in turn makes a profit. But when I listened to the gomer on TV which was a police officer, he stated "well, we don't pull people over just because they are not wearing a seat belt" I mean pure bull**** to the max right there, yes they do. They don't say "we pulled you over for not wearing a seatbelt", they find some other excuse. It's all about money/profit. If there is nothing to truely gain from it, there is a very high chance it wont go through. Welfare on the other hand creates profit to certain homes and apartments. Here in Minnesota, there is less and less of that going on. Apartment complex owners or people that rent them out don't have to have section 8 like they use to.

whole point is, money, it's always some profit being made, if it's not the profit, it's the community chipping in on it than. but no matter where, someone is funding something to make something.[/QUOTE]

The problem is though, as someone that can push an agenda in public office, should you be pushing an agenda that will make you a ton of money on the back end? Granted, he divested his interest in Solantic, but he gave it to his wife, so unless they exclude Solantic from taking part in the government mandated drug testing, HE stands to make a ton of money by pushing that agenda.

It would be similar to the chief of police of a certain town saying they want to bring in red light cameras during his campaign, and he is the owner of a red light camera company, do you see the issue with that?
 

Bigdoggy

Master Guru
Jan 24, 2008
7,250
58
0
39
#28
[QUOTE="weskurtz81, post: 5568182]The problem is though, as someone that can push an agenda in public office, should you be pushing an agenda that will make you a ton of money on the back end? Granted, he divested his interest in Solantic, but he gave it to his wife, so unless they exclude Solantic from taking part in the government mandated drug testing, HE stands to make a ton of money by pushing that agenda.

It would be similar to the chief of police of a certain town saying they want to bring in red light cameras during his campaign, and he is the owner of a red light camera company, do you see the issue with that?[/QUOTE]

I see the problem you are talking about, I was just saying there usually has to be some sort of profit. But to make it completely fair, his company that he gave to his wife or however it worked, that company shouldn't be allowed to take any part in the drug testing, at all. Considering he is the person that is trying to past that, his drug testing company should have no part in it.
 
Oct 23, 2007
4,885
43
0
39
#29
[QUOTE="Bigdoggy, post: 5568618]I see the problem you are talking about, I was just saying there usually has to be some sort of profit. But to make it completely fair, his company that he gave to his wife or however it worked, that company shouldn't be allowed to take any part in the drug testing, at all. Considering he is the person that is trying to past that, his drug testing company should have no part in it.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, this would be the solution, we will see what happens as it's not even really planned out yet.
 

Bigdoggy

Master Guru
Jan 24, 2008
7,250
58
0
39
#30
[QUOTE="weskurtz81, post: 5568808]Exactly, this would be the solution, we will see what happens as it's not even really planned out yet.[/QUOTE]

Has this guy been trying to push this drug testing thing for awhile or how long he has been trying to get this past? there may obviously be an agenda if he was trying to push this after he got that company.