Scott signs law requiring drug testing for welfare recipients

[Robert]

Drug dealers should get a real job...

Maybe working in a bar or a shop that sells cigarettes?

 

[redrumloa]

I've shared a pint or two with you, Cecilia. Just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean it's not a drug.

Almost everyone on the planet is a drug user.

Alcohol is not illegal, yet...

 

[Robert]

Alcohol is not illegal, yet...

So, is this new law only going to test for drugs that are illegal?

If so, would that include so-called recreational drugs?

Again if so, would that then mean that a major alcoholic and heavy smoker would be allowed to fund his habits from welfare yet someone who only indulged in something (e.g. ecstacy) once every other month or so could have their welfare stopped?

As I stated above, if this is indeed the case then it is completely idiotic and it baffles me how anyone could support such illogical and obviously counter-productive stupidity.

 

[Wayne]

If the logic behind this is simply that people claiming welfare shouldn't be allowed to spend any of that money on enjoying themselves, then it's completely idiotic.

Enjoying themselves I have no troubles with. Using "my" money to buy and use illegal narcotics when they should be out looking for work instead? MAJOR problems with that.

Besides, as I explained it on Facebook, if you are employed and getting a paycheck, then that's your job. If you're unemployed and sucking on the public tit, then your job is supposed to be finding employment, not using the money that we (US Citizens) provide for unemployment to buy drugs.

Put simply, if you are unemployed and drawing a government check every week, you have absolutely zero business spending said money on drugs. If you have a job, you're subject to random drug tests. If you're unemployed, you're still taking money (from the system) so why should you be any different when it comes to random drug tests?

I know it's a cultural difference between Glasgow and the States, but I simply don't see an issue with people who're taking public funds being subjected to the same random drug tests as every other citizen.

Why should my tax dollars ultimately go to fund drug dealers?

According to legislative analysts, 113,346 people are receiving temporary cash assistance. However, only people 18 and older will be tested, and officials from the Department of Children and Families estimate that will total about 4,400 adults who apply for aid each month.

What I read into that is random drug testing for those 18 years and older.

The only part I do have a little bit of a problem with is making the recipient pay for the drug test up front. Even if it's refunded on successful passing, and even if it's really only $10 per person, when a true needy person asks for help, even that $10 might be difficult to come up with.

I'd feel happier if the random tests were picked up by the government based on pass or fail. If someone passed the test, cool. If not, then they are both excused from the public dole and charged for the price of the test. Fair enough I would think.

Wayne

 

[the_leander]

Using "my" money to buy and use illegal narcotics when they should be out looking for work instead? MAJOR problems with that.

Presumably you have less of a problem with an increase in the crime rate and the added costs associated with it once this starts getting enforced then?

If you have a job, you're subject to random drug tests.

And

I know it's a cultural difference between Glasgow and the States, but I simply don't see an issue with people who're taking public funds being subjected to the same random drug tests as every other citizen.

It's law for all employers to drugs test their employees?

You're right about the cultural differences though, with very exceptions (armed forces, police etc) the concept of wholesale random drugs testing would be frowned upon as an infringement of a person's right to privacy.

 

[cecilia]

I've shared a pint or two with you, Cecilia. Just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean it's not a drug.

Almost everyone on the planet is a drug user.

that's not "using" drugs. A glass of wine or beer with a meal does not alter my "mood". ie, I don't get drunk. And using drugs is all about changing your "state". mental, physical , emotional or whatever.

when I had that beer with you all I was doing was 1) digesting, 2) enjoying your company. Which, as you know, I was doing even without drinking a thing.

I know my cousin who smoked cigarettes did it because she 'enjoyed' it. Something was altered. Even if I can't figure out what that is. When she got cancer and i suggested she should stop...she said she just enjoyed smoking too much to stop. Even then.

my point is that I am not addicted to my occasional beer or wine with dinner. I enjoy them as much as i enjoy anything else I eat. Chocolate, strawberries, etc. All fun stuff, but hardly addicted. If I'm addicted to anything it's oxygen and sleeping.
Well, I quite like the internet....LOL

 

[redrumloa]

Presumably you have less of a problem with an increase in the crime rate and the added costs associated with it once this starts getting enforced then?

Not likely. The more drugs you feed an addict, the more they need. Giving a druggie money does not cut down on crime. Taking one ability to get drugs away from them may sober them up enough to think clearly. All in all, I think this will have a net effect of zero on crime.

It's law for all employers to drugs test their employees?

You're right about the cultural differences though, with very exceptions (armed forces, police etc) the concept of wholesale random drugs testing would be frowned upon as an infringement of a person's right to privacy.

It's not law, but it is legal. Just about ever reputable company in the USA require drug screening before employment and most companies have policies that permit random drug or non-random screenings. It is a simple fact of life. If an employee causes an accident or otherwise causes harm because of being under the influence and the company didn't have such a policy in place, they could be liable in court.

 

[Robert]

@cecilia.

I suppose it's a question of semantics regarding the word "use."

I consider having a cup of tea in the morning a "use" of drugs, as it wakes me up a bit, as well as tasting nice.

Similarly, if I'm relaxing with a glass of wine or having a beer with your good self.

For me, being addicted to something is a different thing to using it.

 

[the_leander]

Not likely. The more drugs you feed an addict, the more they need. Giving a druggie money does not cut down on crime. Taking one ability to get drugs away from them may sober them up enough to think clearly. All in all, I think this will have a net effect of zero on crime.

I was going to be a bit flippant in my response to this but tbh with an interview due at 10am today I really need to concentrate on something other than that, so here goes. You're quite right in that with many illicit drugs there the habit snowballs over time, with that in mind and taking your previous comment of an addict needing to find their rock bottom before they can ever really get clean, the only thing you will achieve by restricting their access to legitimate money will be for them to find alternate sources of funds. It isn't like a welfare cheque is going to cover even a fraction of a hardened users requirements now, is it? Your comment about them "sobering up" I think qualifies as wishful thinking.

It's not law, but it is legal. Just about ever reputable company in the USA require drug screening before employment and most companies have policies that permit random drug or non-random screenings. It is a simple fact of life. If an employee causes an accident or otherwise causes harm because of being under the influence and the company didn't have such a policy in place, they could be liable in court.

This is possibly one of the surprising and if I'm honest discomforting things I've ever read about the US. And you put up with this presumption of guilt?

 

[cecilia]

@cecilia.

I suppose it's a question of semantics regarding the word "use."

I consider having a cup of tea in the morning a "use" of drugs, as it wakes me up a bit, as well as tasting nice.

Similarly, if I'm relaxing with a glass of wine or having a beer with your good self.

For me, being addicted to something is a different thing to using it.

well, I may be one of the few that has no discernible reaction to such "drugs"
meaning, I don't get 'awake' from coffee...or even tea. I don't get woozy from a glass of beer. If I had more than 2 glasses I would either throw up or fall asleep. My body simply doesn't allow me to 'poison' myself with overindulgence. This isn't something I do on purpose....it just IS the way my body reacts naturally.
I am not an addict just because of luck.

I'm convinced some people are simply not lucky. They seem to have an Immediate reaction to some drugs and, WHAM, hooked.
And that's why I think it's silly to get all 'moral' about this.
drugs have nothing to do with being superior or a better person or any of that nonsense.

If society wants to solve this problem they have to do it with medical solutions, no finger wagging.

 

[faethor]

I'm still trying to figure out the savings here. Let's say we test Floridians for illegal drugs and we find 10% of Welfare receiptants are on drugs. It's not like they should let them walk the streets there are laws against this. So, at the piss stations have cops and arrest them. Now convict them and put them in Jail. It now costs us law enforcement and court costs, jail time at about $20K /year for someone, and then likely supervison costs after the event. What's the average welfare check? Is it $1,500/month? If so you've just locked in a prision cost for that person. And you have now removed a parent from children. Those kids still get stuff like food stamps and medical. So you haven't saved anything there. And if it's a single family home there's now no guardian so we need to build some system and pay there to put a guardian or orphanage in place. So again you've increased cost.

Florida failing to enforce drug laws by failing to arrest people is a problem and shouldn't be done. Can you imagine the lawsuits that now the State knows someone is on drugs and that person, while on drugs, kills someone? Bars get sued for serving more when someone's clearly drunk. Imagine the lawsuit for a record of a crime and failing to enforce it leading to other crimes.

And what we hear from Scott is he sold all of his medical holdings to his wife so in no way will he be able to profit from this new law. Someone needs to throw their shoes at him.

 

[redrumloa]

This is possibly one of the surprising and if I'm honest discomforting things I've ever read about the US. And you put up with this presumption of guilt?

I absolutely hate it, unlike some other Whyzzat users who are in favor of it. If welfare abuse was not such an extrememe problem, I would not favor it for them either. The simple fact is the welfare system *IS* being abused and many of the abusers are druggies.

 

[cybereye]

I'm still trying to figure out the savings here. Let's say we test Floridians for illegal drugs and we find 10% of Welfare receiptants are on drugs. It's not like they should let them walk the streets there are laws against this. So, at the piss stations have cops and arrest them. Now convict them and put them in Jail. It now costs us law enforcement and court costs, jail time at about $20K /year for someone, and then likely supervison costs after the event. What's the average welfare check? Is it $1,500/month? If so you've just locked in a prision cost for that person. And you have now removed a parent from children. Those kids still get stuff like food stamps and medical. So you haven't saved anything there. And if it's a single family home there's now no guardian so we need to build some system and pay there to put a guardian or orphanage in place. So again you've increased cost.

Florida failing to enforce drug laws by failing to arrest people is a problem and shouldn't be done. Can you imagine the lawsuits that now the State knows someone is on drugs and that person, while on drugs, kills someone? Bars get sued for serving more when someone's clearly drunk. Imagine the lawsuit for a record of a crime and failing to enforce it leading to other crimes.

And what we hear from Scott is he sold all of his medical holdings to his wife so in no way will he be able to profit from this new law. Someone needs to throw their shoes at him.

Nothing is perfect. The law goal is to cut down the dollars, encourage personal accountability, and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars. The welfare agencies job not a police, but the support those who needed. The welfare agencies also give welfare drug users a chance to try to improve personal accountability. The effectiveness of testing is unknown. A pilot program that tested some welfare recipients between 1999 and 2001 found that there was little difference in employment and earnings between those who tested positive for drug use and those who were clean, according to an evaluation by a Florida State University researcher.

“Applicants for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment.
Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving the funds for three years.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ng_welfare_recipients_to_take_drug_test_.html

 

[the_leander]

Nothing is perfect. The law goal is to cut down the dollars, encourage personal accountability, and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars. The welfare agencies job not a police, but the support those who needed.

There is imperfect and then there is simply not fit for purpose. And whilst it might indeed "prevent misuse of tax dollars" any savings made at the welfare end will almost certainly be offset by the costs to society overall for the reasons Faethor pointed out.

If drug addiction is an illness, would it not be a better idea to treat it as such and place all of these people into the equivalent of an asylum? It would seem to me that doing so would instantly cut crime rates, it'd break the cycles of dysfunctional, drug taking families raising their kids to do likewise. It'd destroy the market leaving the dealers high and dry too. If they want to get out, they need only go clean, until then they'd be supplied with replacement therapies such as methadone (for opium and heroin users) away from the public and doing no-one but themselves any damage.

The welfare agencies also give welfare drug users a chance to try to improve personal accountability.

The problem with that is, until an addict hits rock bottom, they are highly unlikely to deal with their issues and take responsibility for themselves. Within this I would again point out that the speed at which they hit rock bottom is the deciding factor between them sorting themselves out, or busting through the pearly gates whilst still on fire.

The effectiveness of testing is unknown. A pilot program that tested some welfare recipients between 1999 and 2001 found that there was little difference in employment and earnings between those who tested positive for drug use and those who were clean, according to an evaluation by a Florida State University researcher.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ng_welfare_recipients_to_take_drug_test_.html

That would suggest then that further study is required before enacting legislation wholesale. It's easy to stop a pilot program when it screws up. Try getting a politician to go back on a law they trumpeted all over town when it screws up.

 

[Robert]

I've still not seen anyone explain exactly how this will work, despite plenty being in favour of it.

 

[faethor]

Nothing is perfect. The law goal is to cut down the dollars, encourage personal accountability, and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars. .... The effectiveness of testing is unknown. A pilot program that tested some welfare recipients between 1999 and 2001 found that there was little difference in employment and earnings between those who tested positive for drug use and those who were clean, according to an evaluation by a Florida State University researcher.

This study is in support of not drug testing, IMO. As it shows the drug and non-drug person are equally employable and earnable. Thus, I'd have to say the drugs are unlikely to be the problem holding the person back.

I'd have to argue that it's a misuse of tax dollars to identify criminal behavior, drug usage, and take no action. If drugs are illegal should we not round them up and put them in jail?

Applicants for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment. Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving the funds for three years.”

This sound as if Florida has failed to understand the error rate of tests. False positives in urine testing have been surveyed as high as 10%. Dietary legal food can throw off a test. Here's the Mythbusters PoppySeed test - http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-poppy-seed-drug-test-minimyth.html . Now while positive I wouldn't only take their word but there has been other tests that seem to indicate one can create a false positive.

So 1 false positive and now that person can't get food assistance for a year? Egads bad legislation. Well and not to mention has already been ruled illegal within the state of Florida in court cases previous to Scott's term as Governor.

 

[cybereye]

There is imperfect and then there is simply not fit for purpose. And whilst it might indeed "prevent misuse of tax dollars" any savings made at the welfare end will almost certainly be offset by the costs to society overall for the reasons Faethor pointed out.

If welfare is around helping people that in needed, it will never offset. There will always be poor people. You can give up that pipe dream.

If drug addiction is an illness, would it not be a better idea to treat it as such and place all of these people into the equivalent of an asylum? It would seem to me that doing so would instantly cut crime rates, it'd break the cycles of dysfunctional, drug taking families raising their kids to do likewise. It'd destroy the market leaving the dealers high and dry too. If they want to get out, they need only go clean, until then they'd be supplied with replacement therapies such as methadone (for opium and heroin users) away from the public and doing no-one but themselves any damage.

Drug addiction is an illness as alcoholics is an illness. Does all alcoholics go to asylum as well? I know few alcoholics had gotten out of drinking and still have that illness. It can't be cured. That apply drug addiction users as well. We will never have 100% drugs free, another pipe dream.

The problem with that is, until an addict hits rock bottom, they are highly unlikely to deal with their issues and take responsibility for themselves. Within this I would again point out that the speed at which they hit rock bottom is the deciding factor between them sorting themselves out, or busting through the pearly gates whilst still on fire.

That the price of freedom for them. They choose to take the drugs. They choose that path before they took those drugs. There are other Florida organizations drug addiction help out there that have open arm. The drug users have to make that choice. You can't force them to learn if they do not want to learn.

That would suggest then that further study is required before enacting legislation wholesale. It's easy to stop a pilot program when it screws up. Try getting a politician to go back on a law they trumpeted all over town when it screws up.

Any plot or surveys will never tell you the whole story in theory. When it come down to people as a plot or surveys it never stay the same fact. It always changing. The plot or surveys may be a flaws itself. I think that law would show the best plot at this point and see what the out come the next 10 years.

I'd have to argue that it's a misuse of tax dollars to identify criminal behavior, drug usage, and take no action. If drugs are illegal should we not round them up and put them in jail?

Many non-drug welfare users may feel another TWA. In my view, I love it. That another pipe dream.

This sound as if Florida has failed to understand the error rate of tests. False positives in urine testing have been surveyed as high as 10%. Dietary legal food can throw off a test. Here's the Mythbusters PoppySeed test - http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-poppy-seed-drug-test-minimyth.html . Now while positive I wouldn't only take their word but there has been other tests that seem to indicate one can create a false positive.

So 1 false positive and now that person can't get food assistance for a year? Egads bad legislation. Well and not to mention has already been ruled illegal within the state of Florida in court cases previous to Scott's term as Governor.

Cool, That sure will save more tax dollars. I hope many non-drug welfare learn why they can't get it. It not a perfect world. A perfect world is just another pipe dream.

 

[cecilia]

Drug addiction is an illness as alcoholics is an illness. Does all alcoholics go to asylum as well? I know few alcoholics had gotten out of drinking and still have that illness. It can't be cured. That apply drug addiction users as well. We will never have 100% drugs free, another pipe dream

except that there ARE systems in place to help out some alcoholics. Organizations like AA are not for everyone - too religious for my taste and I'm not an alcoholic - but I have met people for whom it was a great help.

and that isn't the only organization.....I know some people who were on and off cocaine (and other stuff) for YEARS. They are finally out of that and living productive lives. That's reality - no pipe dream.

will there be people who can never overcome their addictions. you bet. But I would rather have them in some Place monitoring their medical condition than roaming the streets looking for their dealer.

There will always be poor people

There will always be rich people. You can give up that pipe dream.

 

[the_leander]

If welfare is around helping people that in needed, it will never offset. There will always be poor people. You can give up that pipe dream.

And there we have it folks. Wilful ignorance of the costs. <golf claps>

Drug addiction is an illness as alcoholics is an illness. Does all alcoholics go to asylum as well? I know few alcoholics had gotten out of drinking and still have that illness. It can't be cured. That apply drug addiction users as well. We will never have 100% drugs free, another pipe dream.

I didn't say cured, I said had gone clean. And yes, for those who are unwilling or simply incapable of getting off of drugs/drink, having some kind of secure unit to deal with them, where they can at least be monitored, cared for (which lets face it, many are unable to do for themselves) and kept from harming others is a wholly practical solution. You're right though - having the resources to wipe this situation out will never happen, too many people have vested interests in having whipping boys close to hand.

That the price of freedom for them. They choose to take the drugs. They choose that path before they took those drugs.

What a complete cop-out on all levels.

There are other Florida organizations drug addiction help out there that have open arm. The drug users have to make that choice. You can't force them to learn if they do not want to learn.

"There are other Florida organisations criminal rehabilitation help out there that have open arm. The criminals have to make that choice. You can't force them to learn if they do not want to learn."

Hmm, s'funny... Still reads like nonsense. In the case of criminals however, when they don't learn they get locked up and assuming they aren't themselves junkies are in a considerably better position to make a choice.

Any plot or surveys will never tell you the whole story in theory.

That's no argument to go off blindly into making life altering legislation sir. In fact it if you're in charge you have a duty of care toward the people you were elected by. To not commission pilot studies or to investigate how other places tackle the issue is at best negligent.

I think that law would show the best plot at this point and see what the out come the next 10 years.

And how many people's lives are you prepared to sacrifice by choosing to run blind testing this out?

 

[Wayne]

It's not like they should let them walk the streets there are laws against this. So, at the piss stations have cops and arrest them.

That's the funny thing. Law is sometimes very tricky and weird. It's not really against the law to be completely stoned off your ass (except under situations like driving where you endanger others). It is however illegal to be in possession of illegal narcotics (emphasis on illegal, for those who have legalized, medical marijuana).

So. If you sit in your house and get completely blotto, no harm no foul, but when the government gives you a stipend for sitting on your ass, then the government has -- to some small degree -- the right to impose certain criteria on said stipend. No different from any employer in America, a great majority of whom already do random drug testing and make successful passing of the test a criteria for (continued) employment.

Is it a perfect idea? Probably not, but -- not to derail the subject -- until someone comes up with a better method of not supporting crack whores who get public assistance, it'll have to do.

Me? while I don't partake (never have really), I think we should legalize marijuana and tax the ever living hell out of it. Turn the average pot farmer into a businessman, get his cut in taxes, create a new industry. Regulate it just like you do cigarettes and alcohol. (of the two, I think cigarettes are a far greater evil).

If you ask me about harder substances? Not so sure.

Wayne