Required Drug Testing for Welfare in Florida

Pages

Gov. Rick Scott is stirring up some controversy. I'm interested to hear some thoughts from GWJers on Florida's plan to require drug testing for welfare recipients.

article wrote:

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.

Is this paired with subsidies for treatment? Does that quote up above there mean that government employees, starting with his administration and the legislature also undergo mandatory screenings? Hey, how about state contractors, too? If not, my thoughts are "Rawr, look at me, I'm tough on crime, rawr! So butch!"

It's about time! Everyone knows that once you cut off a drug addict's welfare funds they're going to immediately take personal responsibility and kick the addiction.

duh.

The only thing this will result in is a spike in drug related crime followed up by shipping more poor people to prison. Brilliant.

MikeMac wrote:

It's about time! Everyone knows that once you cut off a drug addict's welfare funds they're going to immediately take personal responsibility and kick the addiction.

duh.

The only thing this will result in is a spike in drug related crime followed up by shipping more poor people to prison. Brilliant.

Ooh, and "tough on crime" fearmongering..

Why stop there, those receiving welfare should take weekly alcohol and tobacco tests as well. If you believe wasting tax payer money on "drugs", then this is reasonable. You pop positive, you lose money...

This entire idea is stupid. Now taxpayers are wasting their money on testing. Why not spend money on security cameras, to make sure we aren't wasting tax money on people that do risky things like skating, diving or snowboarding? Then waste money on a security guard to report to the revenue service and/or police of the state on infractions of state law.

We also need vagina-cams to make sure those welfare recipients aren't having unprotected sex.

Oops. Double posted!

BadKen wrote:

We also need vagina-cams to make sure those welfare recipients aren't having unprotected sex.

Single mothers shouldn't even be approved for an application.

Wow, this is awkward. We're going to require regular drug testing for Coffee Grinders starting next week. Each forum rank will escalate into even more aggressive, invasive tests. By the time you're ready to choose your tag, all dignity and self-respect will be gone. The tag threads will be hilarious.

Certis wrote:

Wow, this is awkward. We're going to require regular drug testing for Coffee Grinders starting next week. Each forum rank will escalate into even more aggressive, invasive tests. By the time you're ready to choose your tag, all dignity and self-respect will be gone. The tag threads will be hilarious.

This presumes those of us with tags have dignity and/or self-respect.

Hah! As one of the privileged, I sneer at you untagged welfare queens, and demand humiliation before you can have any of my hard-earned attention.

More seriously: often, they need welfare because they have a drug problem. Florida should be focusing on getting them off the drugs -- ie, treatment -- to get them off welfare.

Kinda reminds me of that old quote:

Anatole France wrote:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

MikeMac wrote:

The only thing this will result in is a spike in drug related crime followed up by shipping more poor people to prison. Brilliant.

And then you'll pay ever more for them. The government should give them food stamps and write their name on it.

My country has a better system to get rid of poor people. It raises the living costs in developed cities (places with jobs) and then the poor unemployed people would have to move to undeveloped parts of the country.While doing that the government raises gasoline and other transportation costs to make sure those poor people don't come back and visit too often.

At what point does that actually improve their quality of life?

Knowing how Florida works, this doesn't surprise me in the least bit. Glad I left.

4xis.black wrote:

At what point does that actually improve their quality of life?

It doesn't, it's all about repressing the poor. Much like the proposal in the OP. It sounds like Israel is the perfect Objectivist state.

I'll be the devil's advocate here:

So what's wrong about attaching conditions to accepting free money?

In the private sector many employees have an agreement with their employer that they will submit to random drug testing, won't come to work intoxicated, etc. as a condition of employment. Why should public welfare be any different?

And the points made in this thread about treatment are well taken, but are there well accepted studies out there which show that treatment works? Most everything I see in the MSM points to backslide after backslide after backslide for those that enter a treatment program.

I remember having a conversation with a Mainland Chinese national in which I mentioned the worrying statistic that we have a higher percentage of our citizens behind bars that they do. He seemed perplexed by this and I mentioned that it was largely because of the "war on drugs" and after explaining what that meant, he seemed even more mystified. He explained that it was alien to him that we, an advanced nation, would treat drug use as a crime rather than a disease. He wondered aloud if we incarcerated folks for having tuberculosis too.

Just, don't any poor people have poppyseed bagels.

Take not that what I was talking about my country isn't a special case. It's just an extreme case of a socialist country. I've heard that in Poland young couples also have major trouble finding an affordable housing. High housing costs in socialist countries means the people end up saving 0$ in the end of the month.

I apologize I derailed the topic a little more than it should due to my narrow perspective. I'd like to point out that Poor people are not necessarily addicted to drugs . But being addicted to drugs seriously degrades your economic condition and health . Drug abuse impacts socialist countries much more than it impacts capitalist countries in the USA. Most people who hurt themselves in the US will end up paying the bill. In socialist countries everyone pays the bill especially people with rare diseases who don't get the best treatment because the government is spending extra cash to save people who got tobacco and alcohol related illnesses .

I've seen a documentary about one of the Scandinavian countries that made a heart disease avoidance program. It had people a lot of people die from heart disease and decided to teach the people how to avoid dying rather than live in risk. This doesn't only save lives It also saves a lot of money to the government. The people are already paying about 80%+ taxes so if the government need funding it will sink into debt or would have to hurt services provided to the people .

Paleocon wrote:

I remember having a conversation with a Mainland Chinese national in which I mentioned the worrying statistic that we have a higher percentage of our citizens behind bars that they do.

You should take into consideration that in China there is more than one crime punishable by death . China also have other ways to deal with its poor people - force them to work for 15 hours for low pay while the government rake in the profits.

I think if they want to drug test for welfare they should also implement drug tests for anyone holding a public office. No reason for elected officials to escape scrutiny since their pay comes from the same taxpayer pot.

Bear wrote:

I think if they want to drug test for welfare they should also implement drug tests for anyone holding a public office. No reason for elected officials to escape scrutiny since their pay comes from the same taxpayer pot.

Or the senior management for any corporation receiving government funds.

MacBrave wrote:

I'll be the devil's advocate here:
In the private sector many employees have an agreement with their employer that they will submit to random drug testing, won't come to work intoxicated, etc. as a condition of employment. Why should public welfare be any different?

In the private sector, it been my experience that a large portion of the jobs that do random drug testing are blue collar, low wage, high turnover, entry-level positions. I've never had to take one at any of my higher-paying white-collar jobs requiring more experience. Anectdotes are worthless, but I'm curious if anyone knows if other types of private-sector jobs are also subject to random testing outside of the criteria I mentioned.

Amoebic wrote:
MacBrave wrote:

I'll be the devil's advocate here:
In the private sector many employees have an agreement with their employer that they will submit to random drug testing, won't come to work intoxicated, etc. as a condition of employment. Why should public welfare be any different?

In the private sector, it been my experience that a large portion of the jobs that do random drug testing are blue collar, low wage, high turnover, entry-level positions. I've never had to take one at any of my higher-paying white-collar jobs requiring more experience. Anectdotes are worthless, but I'm curious if anyone knows if other types of private-sector jobs are also subject to random testing outside of the criteria I mentioned.

Knowing the plural of anecdote is not data: Same experiences here, low-pay, high turnover jobs, drug tests galore. High paying consultant contracts? No drug tests mentioned.

Kannon wrote:
Amoebic wrote:
MacBrave wrote:

I'll be the devil's advocate here:
In the private sector many employees have an agreement with their employer that they will submit to random drug testing, won't come to work intoxicated, etc. as a condition of employment. Why should public welfare be any different?

In the private sector, it been my experience that a large portion of the jobs that do random drug testing are blue collar, low wage, high turnover, entry-level positions. I've never had to take one at any of my higher-paying white-collar jobs requiring more experience. Anectdotes are worthless, but I'm curious if anyone knows if other types of private-sector jobs are also subject to random testing outside of the criteria I mentioned.

Knowing the plural of anecdote is not data: Same experiences here, low-pay, high turnover jobs, drug tests galore. High paying consultant contracts? No drug tests mentioned.

The government should've included mandatory drug testing as part of the Wall Street bailout. I'd be curious to see how much of that industry is on coke or adderall.

Amoebic wrote:
MacBrave wrote:

I'll be the devil's advocate here:
In the private sector many employees have an agreement with their employer that they will submit to random drug testing, won't come to work intoxicated, etc. as a condition of employment. Why should public welfare be any different?

In the private sector, it been my experience that a large portion of the jobs that do random drug testing are blue collar, low wage, high turnover, entry-level positions. I've never had to take one at any of my higher-paying white-collar jobs requiring more experience. Anectdotes are worthless, but I'm curious if anyone knows if other types of private-sector jobs are also subject to random testing outside of the criteria I mentioned.

Everyone in the military and most jobs that require a security clearance do random drug testing.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Amoebic wrote:
MacBrave wrote:

I'll be the devil's advocate here:
In the private sector many employees have an agreement with their employer that they will submit to random drug testing, won't come to work intoxicated, etc. as a condition of employment. Why should public welfare be any different?

In the private sector, it been my experience that a large portion of the jobs that do random drug testing are blue collar, low wage, high turnover, entry-level positions. I've never had to take one at any of my higher-paying white-collar jobs requiring more experience. Anectdotes are worthless, but I'm curious if anyone knows if other types of private-sector jobs are also subject to random testing outside of the criteria I mentioned.

Everyone in the military and most jobs that require a security clearance does random drug testing.

Many jobs in the education sector as well. The last job I was up for required a background check and drug test.

I have no problem with screening people with a documented history. But this just smacks of our tawdry history blaming the poor, punishing them, and dehumanizing them. And we can boil it down to carpet bombing testing and wasting even more money that could go to the needy.

Many health sector employers have drug testing as a requirement. Everyone at my last 2 companies was required to get drug tested. Everyone.

It also appears that the drug test is a one-time test when they apply. This is just like what a lot of employers do as a requirement of employment. Someone mentioned random drug testing, but that does not appear to apply in this case.

As for the implication that he's doing this in order to help his own business interests, this was in the original link:

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.

KingGorilla wrote:

I have no problem with screening people with a documented history. But this just smacks of our tawdry history blaming the poor, punishing them, and dehumanizing them. And we can boil it down to carpet bombing testing and wasting even more money that could go to the needy.

Yeah, what you said.

Yes, these people are getting public money. Know what? Loads of people get public money. What's next, require drug screening for anyone getting financial aid? How about requiring random tests of anyone attending a public high school or college; they're receiving federal money. Hey, wait a minute--that's a public road! You, the soccer mom in the minivan, pull over now and give me a urine sample!

I'm with MacBrave on this one. Sure we can find all the ways this guy is a hypocrite and imagine all sorts of horrible abuses of this new power but I think the idea is sound. I wouldn't want my tax dollars paying for someone's addiction. I wouldn't want people buying alcohol or cigarettes with it either. I'd want them using it to keep themselves alive and help them get a job. I thought that was the point of welfare.

I see your point KingGorilla but it sounds to me like the only people who will be denied are those who actually test positive. If you wonder whether or not someone's using drugs and a test proves that they are, I'm not really sure how that's unfair. Your assumption was correct, and it's not like you're going to deny them if they test negative.

Pages