New Florida law requires Welfare applicants to undergo drug screening tests

[Skylar1]

(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."

full article: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/...html?hpt=hp_t2

your thoughts?

[Cobra Commander]

Sounds like a good plan to me.

I already disagree with paying people to sit around and do nothing, so I definitely disagree with paying them when they're sitting around getting high when they should be...WORKING.

[Skylar1]

Sounds like a good plan to me.

I already disagree with paying people to sit around and do nothing, so I definitely disagree with paying them when they're sitting around getting high when they should be...WORKING.

yeah, I mean. It says democrats oppose it, but yet I can't help but feel this is inherently a good thing. They're talking about screening for something that is illegal anyways, and (without stereotyping) there are a lot of people that end up on the welfare system.. because of an addiction to drugs.

[Wio]

The irony is that the people who need welfare the most are druggies. Clean people are much more capable of getting off their feet. It's a welfare dilemma.

[animeyay]

I don't see a problem with it, honestly. Yes, I can be heartless.

Like that governor said, it's a matter of fairness. If you're gonna do drugs, then face the consequences at your own cost. Do NOT use other people's money for your own benefit.

I usually side with the Democrats in terms of social issues, but this, and illegal immigration, are something I want the gov't to be more strict about. My state Maryland just passed a legislation granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. Signatures for a referendum are being collected right now, and I am so going to vote it down next year.

[Eris]

The irony is that the people who need welfare the most are druggies. Clean people are much more capable of getting off their feet. It's a welfare dilemma.

Indeed. If anything this sort of a deal will drive them into criminal activities rather than dissuade them from doing drugs. This will in turn send these people to prison, where they cost even more than they would on welfare, and if you thought getting a job as a drug addict was hard, try getting a job as a drug addict who has done prison time, so they're forced into a life of crime (and prison-time) which is extremely costly for society.

The solution to the problem of welfare funding drugs is not to cut welfare to those who do drugs, it's to get those who do drugs to stop doing drugs.

[Skylar1]

The solution to the problem of welfare funding drugs is not to cut welfare to those who do drugs, it's to get those who do drugs to stop doing drugs.

but what if this could do that though, to a certain extent?

basically, "you can't apply due to your substance abuse, but if you get help and become clean, you can come back and apply again.", and then offer them programs to get clean.

[Wio]

Getting them to stop taking drugs is a thing easier said than done.
I think the war on drugs here in the U.S. was not a good approach due to the consequences of making something illegal.

[Skilero]

You've got to start cuts somewhere.
I'd rather cut from the people who've already had their chance and ruined it than cut from people who are in welfare for direct socioeconomic reasons they have little control over or from helpless students who need a good education to be successful in life.

Democrats complain about this legislation because welfare recipients vote in their direction. If not for that, the Democrats' argument is that 13 trillion dollars in debt is sustainable.

[Shinn Kamiyra]

The idea itself seems good in nature, though I do believe FL Democrats have a valid point in that its near "downright unconstitutional" for this law to require mandatory drug screenings without probable cause. Depending on how it goes, it opens the doors for who knows what else may be subject to these screenings. It's extremely controversial in its future application and should be mandated to go through a regulated trial phase, if you will, to see how it pans out.

I can see the ACLU having a field day with this one already. >__>

[Skylar1]

The idea itself seems good in nature, though I do believe FL Democrats have a valid point in that its near "downright unconstitutional" for this law to require mandatory drug screenings without probable cause. Depending on how it goes, it opens the doors for who knows what else may be subject to these screenings. It's extremely controversial in its future application and should be mandated to go through a regulated trial phase, if you will, to see how it pans out.

I can see the ACLU having a field day with this one already. >__>

is it unconstitutional for a company to require you to take a drug test before hiring you without probable cause?

[Shinn Kamiyra]

is it unconstitutional for a company to require you to take a drug test before hiring you without probable cause?

That is what FL Democrats said, though I haven't enough information to say whether for sure it is or not. Allow me to clarify in that while I said they have a point, I don't completely agree with them.

Now of course it's completely within a company's right to test their probable employees before hiring them, however there's a fundamental matter of choice where said person will likely have other options should they fail and not get the job. In a case involving welfare, the person(s) involved are struggling simply to get by and to survive. Is it really fair to add insult to injury, forcing them to take a drug test without any sort of proof beforehand? As I said, it's a controversial subject.

[Aleyna]

I understand that this can be good, but they should have a reason before they check someone, not just automatically check the person.

[Skilero]

I understand that this can be good, but they should have a reason before they check someone, not just automatically check the person.

I think the fact that they're asking for the taxpayer's money is reason enough for screening.

[Skylar1]

Now of course it's completely within a company's right to test their probable employees before hiring them, however there's a fundamental matter of choice where said person will likely have other options should they fail and not get the job. In a case involving welfare, the person(s) involved are struggling simply to get by and to survive. Is it really fair to add insult to injury, forcing them to take a drug test without any sort of proof beforehand? As I said, it's a controversial subject.

I don't see the difference.

Working earns you money, which helps you get through a tough time just the same as welfare would.

[Shinn Kamiyra]

I don't see the difference.

Working earns you money, which helps you get through a tough time just the same as welfare would.

A difference in opinion then. We'll leave it at that.

Regardless, when working for a company, as an employee you become a representative for those who hired you. It's only natural that they wish to make sure you're not doing drugs. However, with welfare, is there a difference here? Of course there is. There's no representation here. All you're doing is simply trying to get by. Therefore why should you be subject to drug screenings without any sort of proof that you've been doing drugs?

People will argue that this is a violation of their privacy and even being unconstitutional, as Democrats have already done. It's the controversial nature of this law as it is right now that I'm somewhat troubled by. It should've been worked and reworked through trial and error before being passed into law to see how people would respond to it and how best to go about it. The fact that they didn't is going to bring all sorts of trouble out into the open now.

[Wio]

Now of course it's completely within a company's right to test their probable employees before hiring them, however there's a fundamental matter of choice where said person will likely have other options should they fail and not get the job. In a case involving welfare, the person(s) involved are struggling simply to get by and to survive. Is it really fair to add insult to injury, forcing them to take a drug test without any sort of proof beforehand? As I said, it's a controversial subject.

When an officer has a warrant, they can use physical force to carry out their search. The government can't use physical force to get you on welfare.

Also, it's simply untrue that public welfare is about survival. Public welfare is about convenience. You can survive one private welfare alone, it's just not as convenient.

[Skylar1]

People will argue that this is a violation of their privacy and even being unconstitutional, as Democrats have already done. It's the controversial nature of this law as it is right now that I'm somewhat troubled by. It should've been worked and reworked through trial and error before being passed into law to see how people would respond to it and how best to go about it. The fact that they didn't is going to bring all sorts of trouble out into the open now.

no, it's not a privacy issue.

were not talking about a government agency coming to your home one random evening and testing you for drugs. Applying for welfare is a self-elective process.

if you don't want to be screened, then don't apply for welfare. If you're not on drugs, you shouldn't have anything to worry about though.

[Eris]

but what if this could do that though, to a certain extent?

basically, "you can't apply due to your substance abuse, but if you get help and become clean, you can come back and apply again.", and then offer them programs to get clean.

Yeah, that's not how addiction to hard drugs works. If you give a herion addict the options of going to rehab and hitting up a liquor store for another fix, a significant number is going to go for the first option.

Getting them to stop taking drugs is a thing easier said than done.
I think the war on drugs here in the U.S. was not a good approach due to the consequences of making something illegal.

Fantastically stupid approach. Cracking down on stuff is generally not effective at all. It's just impotent politicians' way of appearing decisive to get votes. Actually solving problems like crime and drugs requires addressing the cause rather than the symptom, which means doing something about poverty and segregation. But as that is a slow process that is largely invisible to the voters, people who go for that line appear indecisive.

[Shinn Kamiyra]

When an officer has a warrant, they can use physical force to carry out their search. The government can't use physical force to get you on welfare.

Also, it's simply untrue that public welfare is about survival. Public welfare is about convenience. You can survive one private welfare alone, it's just not as convenient.

A certain level of convenience brought on by unfavorable circumstances, one might say. Regardless, I'll take back what I said about survival. Let's call it living within expected convenience.

no, it's not a privacy issue.

were not talking about a government agency coming to your home one random evening and testing you for drugs. Applying for welfare is a self-elective process.

if you don't want to be screened, then don't apply for welfare. If you're not on drugs, you shouldn't have anything to worry about though.

So then, according to you, it's alright for the government to impose a drug screening on you simply because you're asking for help? I understand that this might seem fair and just at first. After all, what's the problem in a simple drug test when you're asking for basically free money, and if all turns out well, you're reimbursed in the end.

The main underlying problem here is where to draw the line. If the government is allowed to force drug screenings for those who wish for welfare, what's to stop them from applying the same restrictions to other programs people use? What happens to people's right to privacy when they haven't done anything so as to suggest otherwise? If you don't think that this is a privacy issue, you're mistaken.

[Cobra Commander]

I guess what it boils down to for me is that it's a matter of choice. I'm against welfare in general, but I'm much more lenient on people getting food stamps when they have jobs and simply cannot make enough money, or they've lost their job through no fault of their own and cannot get a new one.

Doing drugs is a lifestyle choice. I can't see giving them free stuff for making a choice to lead a life of chemical dependency. Now, if those people were offered a gov't funded rehab program, it'd be okay with me. I will concede that Eris makes a good point about putting these people into the prison system, and will leave it that there is no good solution at the moment.

I liken the drug users to these people. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...to-adult-baby/

[Ginny Weasley]

All I can say is, good. Wish they'd do the same thing in California. There are tons of well fair free loaders here. Most of them are either druggies or these pathetic women who have like 10 kids fathered by 10 different men because they are too stupid to use birth control. : )

[Cobra Commander]

A certain percentage of the people we're griping about were never taught any better...it's a matter of education. I don't believe that parents should be released from responsibilty for teaching their children, but if they're not going to, someone's got to.

On the other hand, an adult who "stops learning" after high school is a fool and deserves what s/he gets.

[Meenah]

I guess thats something I can definitely agree on, and its funny that I have a talk with this with my mom a little while back when she had to pay her taxes. You see she is a nurse and some patients she have don't have insurances don't have a job as well. So she complained to me and said "so my taxes will go to them and I bet the money they use for taxes is to buy them drugs". So the article really made me laugh in a way that it happens. I do say its real screwed up and I wonder all the time why do people who work hard support those who don't want to do anything for themselves and go to the government? Even to have a minimum wage-like job would even help out to the country and as well as their own family.

I don't worry because I'm clean, and it should go for the same that those are clean. Drug users and people sit around... meh, you all irritate me. >_>;

[Piper]

I strongly agree with the new law. Being a taxpayer myself, I feel that since I must wake up (when I hate to wake up) and go to work, we should have a say as to what we do with our tax money. One being revamp the welfare system. It's being abused way too much. For any other type of government aid such as disability and social security, they should only provide it to those that have put money into the system already by their tax money. It's not okay for us to give out government aid to illegal immigrants that gave birth to their children here.

This drug testing is a step in the right direction if you ask me.