Florida Requires Drug Test for Welfare

[Steamboat Ricky]

From CNN:

Florida Gov. Rick Scott is defending recent legislation that requires adults in the state 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 said on CNN 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 disagrees. It has already filed suit against Scott over a measure requiring government employees to undergo random drug testing. It says it 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.

-------------------------

What does everyone think of this law? Do you want your state to follow suit? Is it just? Unjust? Stereotypical?


I for one am against this. Is there no other way that the government can issue funds so that users cannot use the government assisted funds to purchase drugs? I think that all Americans should have the capacity to stay alive. Would it not be possible to distribute welfare funds strictly on preloaded gift cards that could not be redeemed for cash? I'm pretty naive, but I'm not sure I've ever heard of a drug deal going down that involved swiping plastic.

Thoughts?

 

[klunderbunker]

I tend to agree with what Ricky says here, at least in theory. I can understand Scott's theory here as there's a chance that Welfare recipients could use said money on drug addictions. That being said, so could any other person in the state of Florida. It does seem like he's singling them out, but I can see the theory behind it. However, I don't at all believe that that would be his major reasoning behind this, which brings me to Solantic.

What is Solantic you ask? Why that would be Rick Scott's company. What does Solantic do you ask? It's considered an alternative to the emergency room where customers/patients can receive physicals, shots, emergency care and, you guessed it, drug screening. Now clearly a career businessman that suddenly has political power and runs a company that provides drug screening has nothing but public interests in mind when he signs a law requiring Welfare recipients (as well as all state workers I believe) to submit to drug tests. Not a single thing wrong there at all right?

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. Not the law requiring tests searching for illegal drugs, but the fact people like the ACLU are claiming this violates one's personal privacy. No, it doesn't. If you don't want to be tested, don't file for welfare. It's that simple.

As a staunch member of the "hate everything Republicans do" movement, this is one time where I'll support a Republican. I don't know his motivations, and I can't speak to the possible misuses of the law (there's always possible misuses), but it's time people be held accountable for what they do, especially in my money (theoretically, if every state passed this) is going to fund illegal actions (you know, ones not perpetrated by the government).

No one is saying you can't do drugs...well, wait. Actually, that's not true. There is federal laws which says you can't do drugs. So a government entity is preventing taxpayer money from going to those who break government laws. Who the fuck can have a problem with this?

I think that all Americans should have the capacity to stay alive.

Assuming the "drugs" being referred to in the legislation are ones which are deemed illegal, how exactly do those drugs how people stay alive?

You confused me on that.

I tend to agree with what Ricky says here, at least in theory. I can understand Scott's theory here as there's a chance that Welfare recipients could use said money on drug addictions. That being said, so could any other person in the state of Florida. It does seem like he's singling them out, but I can see the theory behind it. However, I don't at all believe that that would be his major reasoning behind this, which brings me to Solantic.

What is Solantic you ask? Why that would be Rick Scott's company. What does Solantic do you ask? It's considered an alternative to the emergency room where customers/patients can receive physicals, shots, emergency care and, you guessed it, drug screening. Now clearly a career businessman that suddenly has political power and runs a company that provides drug screening has nothing but public interests in mind when he signs a law requiring Welfare recipients (as well as all state workers I believe) to submit to drug tests. Not a single thing wrong there at all right?

From the CNN.com article:

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.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Americans should be equally viewed upon, not discriminated. If Rick Scott is interested in personal accountability, then all Americans receiving funds from the government should be subject to a drug test, not certain segments. It's not fair that persons X, Y, and Z all receive government financial assistance, but only person X is subject to a drug screening because they are poor. Like the ACLU is saying, this is giving credence to the stereotype that the poor, or the people on welfare are all drug addicts. This isn't much different than Congressman Broun stating that American should discriminate at airports against people in 'arabian attire'.

The problem isn't the fact that he wants to make sure that there is accountability, and that the government can be sure the money is going towards what it's intended for, it's the disproportionate way in which the law would apply.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Assuming the "drugs" being referred to in the legislation are ones which are deemed illegal, how exactly do those drugs how people stay alive?

You confused me on that.

Sorry. I'm referring to these people being able to purchase food and perhaps pay rent.


The government can prevent money being used to purchase illegal drugs using the plastic system that I proposed. Welfare, in it's classical sense, is used to provide for the general welfare of the citizen. Food and rent are essentials.

 

[Slyfox696]

Americans should be equally viewed upon, not discriminated. If Rick Scott is interested in personal accountability, then all Americans receiving funds from the government should be subject to a drug test, not certain segments. It's not fair that persons X, Y, and Z all receive government financial assistance, but only person X is subject to a drug screening because they are poor. Like the ACLU is saying, this is giving credence to the stereotype that the poor, or the people on welfare are all drug addicts. This isn't much different than Congressman Broun stating that American should discriminate at airports against people in 'arabian attire'.

The problem isn't the fact that he wants to make sure that there is accountability, and that the government can be sure the money is going towards what it's intended for, it's the disproportionate way in which the law would apply.

I have absolutely no problem with the majority of government assistance being regulated, but the method of regulation has to depend upon what's being handed out. I'm a HUGE believer in government assistance to those in need, unfortunately too many people take advantage of the system.

But, like I said, the regulation has to depend upon the type of assistance. Drug tests can't be the standard for all government assistance. For example, the Free and Reduced Lunch program for schools really has nothing to do with how you spend your money, but rather how much income is coming into the household. In that, a drug test isn't really necessary.

As I mentioned, I'm a big believer in government helping citizens who need the assistance. However, I see way too many people who take advantage of the system and waste good money simply because they are lazy. There needs to be levels of accountability in order to receive public assistance. I work my ass off every day, and make a comfortable, but hardly luxurious, living. The last thing I need is the money I work hard for to be spent on those who are unwilling to do the same.

Does it "unfairly" target low income people? Not really, because usually the people receiving government assistance are going to be low income people. Anyone who makes a good living is (or at least should be) automatically disqualified from receiving government welfare assistance. In that way, I'd argue that people like me have ALWAYS been discriminated against, in that I work hard in an area which makes me a decent living. I'm not making $50,000 a year, but I don't qualify for government assistance either, so to say the poor are being unfairly targeted seems incredibly short-sighted to me, as they're the only ones who can even take advantage of many of these programs in the first place.

And as far as the ACLU saying this will further the myth that all people on welfare are drug addicts, nothing could be further from the truth. This will actually DISPEL the myth that welfare is a place for drug addicts, because they're going to be tested. And if someone passes the test, then they are presumably not a drug addict. So, if anything, this will HELP the perception that those on welfare are not drug addicts.

Sorry. I'm referring to these people being able to purchase food and perhaps pay rent.


The government can prevent money being used to purchase illegal drugs using the plastic system that I proposed. Welfare, in it's classical sense, is used to provide for the general welfare of the citizen. Food and rent are essentials.

Yes, but that really has nothing to do with taking a drug test. If a human being should choose drugs over food and housing, then that's their problem, not mine. I shouldn't be expected to pay for that. The government isn't saying that the poor can't be given food and housing, they're just saying the poor isn't going to be given taxpayer money if they're breaking the law.

If a person needs government assistance to live, then they have to quit breaking the law. It's that simple.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Does it "unfairly" target low income people? Not really, because usually the people receiving government assistance are going to be low income people. Anyone who makes a good living is (or at least should be) automatically disqualified from receiving government welfare assistance. In that way, I'd argue that people like me have ALWAYS been discriminated against, in that I work hard in an area which makes me a decent living. I'm not making $50,000 a year, but I don't qualify for government assistance either, so to say the poor are being unfairly targeted seems incredibly short-sighted to me, as they're the only ones who can even take advantage of many of these programs in the first place.

Allow me to use a quote to illustrate why I believe this unfairly targets low income persons:

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

The law, even if it would only be applying to a certain segment of the population because of the inherent nature of the crime, still applies to everyone. A law like the one being proposed would not do this, it would specifically target the low-income persons. If the law was something more like, anyone receiving direct monetary funds as a form of financial aid is required to undergo a drug screening, then that would be a different story. If the rich for whatever reason would have to receive monetary funds from the government, they would be subject to the same procedure as the poor.

I don't know all the financial aid programs in Florida, but I'm quite sure there is more than just welfare which hands out direct monetary funds as aid - whether that be disability cheques or what have you. If people on welfare are a concern, so should everyone else who receives cash from the government. To say, "Persons X, Y, and Z all receive cash from us, but we're only going to drug screen X" is unfair.

 

[Slyfox696]

Allow me to use a quote to illustrate why I believe this unfairly targets low income persons:



The law, even if it would only be applying to a certain segment of the population because of the inherent nature of the crime, still applies to everyone. A law like the one being proposed would not do this, it would specifically target the low-income persons. If the law was something more like, anyone receiving direct monetary funds as a form of financial aid is required to undergo a drug screening, then that would be a different story. If the rich for whatever reason would have to receive monetary funds from the government, they would be subject to the same procedure as the poor.

I don't know all the financial aid programs in Florida, but I'm quite sure there is more than just welfare which hands out direct monetary funds as aid - whether that be disability cheques or what have you. If people on welfare are a concern, so should everyone else who receives cash from the government. To say, "Persons X, Y, and Z all receive cash from us, but we're only going to drug screen X" is unfair.

I understand what you're saying, the difference between your quote and this situation is that the rich have already be targeted when it comes to programs like welfare because they've never been allowed to partake in the first place. Whereas sleeping under a bridge, begging in the streets and stealing a loaf of bread is something which could be done by anyone, regardless of any classification factors, receiving welfare aid is not. In that, the rich have already been "unfairly" targeted as they have been disqualified to receive said aid.


I suppose what it ultimately comes down to is how many government assistance programs there are which equally benefit those who are wealthy and those who are not. Just off the top of my head, I can't think of a single one (not including Social Security, since your Social Security benefits have presumably been paid for during your working career), which is not to say they don't exist, just that I can't think of any at the moment. Probably because I'm not rich.

But, let's say for argument's sake there are 5 government assistance programs which benefit those over the poverty line as well as under it. I have absolutely ZERO problem with those being subject to government regulations as well, with the regulations being dependent upon the type of assistance being offered. Certainly no one should be allowed to break the laws of the same government which is providing the money.

It almost sounds like to me that you agree, in theory, with this law, but feel it needs to be extended to any and all government assistance programs. And to that I would say, "I'm all for it".

 

[LegendK1ller]

This is a law I have been thinking of for a long time. I am from Illinois, we are by far one of the worst states economically. There are so many people on welfare right now, it is ridiculous. I know for sure many people in my town are on welfare that are doing drugs. It pisses me off that we have to pay for inconsiderate pieces of shit. I in fact believe that they should do drug testing and not only that, they should do random drug testing. If they do not come in for their random drug testing, they should be penalized in some form.

To the people deeming this as bull shit, really need to take a look around them. I do not want to sit here and pay for people to get their fix. This is a great solution and I can only hope that Illinois adapts this law.

I won't get started on Socialism either.

 

[SalvIsWin]

It almost sounds like to me that you agree, in theory, with this law, but feel it needs to be extended to any and all government assistance programs. And to that I would say, "I'm all for it".

I wouldn't say agree as much as I would say, I don't have a problem with it - but I suppose that's all semantics. There could be zero financial aid programs from the government besides welfare, at which point I would withdraw my statement because it's irrelevant. But yes, if there are multiple programs, ones which target above and below the poverty line, they should all be subject to a law like the one being discussed. The real question is: are there multiple programs?

 

[RockFan89]

This is probably the only time I completely agree with slyfox, anyone getting government aid should be subject to drug testing. And I'm not just talking about welfare, we should through in medicaid, food stamps, even college grants from the government (along with a stronger GPA requirement). You want to use my tax dollars, then you better prove you're not using it just to get high.

I for one am against this. Is there no other way that the government can issue funds so that users cannot use the government assisted funds to purchase drugs? I think that all Americans should have the capacity to stay alive. Would it not be possible to distribute welfare funds strictly on preloaded gift cards that could not be redeemed for cash? I'm pretty naive, but I'm not sure I've ever heard of a drug deal going down that involved swiping plastic.

Both preloaded cards as well as food stamps have been sold on the street for cash which is then used for drugs. Some of these desperate people will sell $100 of this type of aid for $20 cash to get high. It's disgusting.

"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.

We need to stop with this political correct BS. We all know many people on government aid or in government housing are drug addicts. Tax Payers should not be footing the bill for their habits.


One more thing, I suggest that anyone over the age of 21 who does not have a high school diploma or a GED should also not be allowed to get government aid (with exceptions for immigrants or those with real disabilities or extreme circumstances). Tax payers already spent thousands of dollars to school you during your childhood and nothing came out of that, so throwing money to help someone who clearly doesn't want to help themselves would be a complete waste.

 

[The Man They Call WMD]

I'm from Florida, ppl are now saying around here that Rick Scott hates black people.
( He prob does) I don't think this law targets black ppl but I can see how someone could try to make this argument. The thing about Rick Scott tho is that he is very unpopular here and has a minimal chance of being re elected. He knows this so he is making laws like this.

 

[Rayne]

I'm against this for reasons of practicality.

The premise is that if people want state aid, they shouldn't be purchasing drugs is an idea that resonates with people, but it is an idea that fails to understand addiction. What if someone needs aid, but isn't willing to give up substance abuse? (Which isn't simply a matter of saying 'well, I'm just not going to do this, and that's that.') The idea that "well, they just don't get aid then" forgets that these people still exist, and that they are not going to crawl into a hole and die. They're still around, and they're going to find the means to survive somehow. How do you get by when you don't make enough to live off of, and can't get help from the state?

CRIME! Someone else has the things you need to survive; you take it from them. The reflexive answer is, "well, then they'll go to jail", which fails on two points.

According to the low end estimate provided by the Florida Department of Corrections (link), it costs an average of $52 per day, or nearly $19,000 a year, to incarcerate an inmate. I promise you that the average welfare payment is less than that, unless the system has gone entirely insane; in my early 20's, I was enjoying a fair bit of nightlife at $19,000 a year. In an era in which we are trying to reduce the cost of government, because we've realized we can't afford the feel-good programs started in the 1980's, it seems foolish to me that we would spend more money to incarcerate someone than we would to provide for them, in the name of having our money properly spent.

This also overlooks the very simple idea that while it is easy to talk about crime in the abstract; "if someone commits a crime, they go to jail", the story is far different when it becomes your house that is broken into and robbed. Make no mistake about it, this law will raise crime rates in Florida, especially among lower-income communities.

The primary failing of this law is that it does not provide for diversion. It is a yes/no proposition; if you fail your drug test, you don't get state aid. A more practical program would require aid recipients who test positive to enter a drug abuse program; from something as simple as attending NA meetings for a low-level user, to a detox program for heavy users.

No one is saying you can't do drugs...well, wait. Actually, that's not true. There is federal laws which says you can't do drugs.

This might seem like a minor technical point, but it's an important one. The law says you cannot possess drugs. You can sit on a street, so done up on heroin you can't lift your eyelids, and the worst charges you could be hit with are public intoxication and perhaps vagrancy. The way this law is worded, it punishes the single mother who smokes half a joint at a friend's party the same as the heavy heroin user selling his food stamps for junk.

The idea that welfare money shouldn't be spent to purchase drugs is a sound one. However, in the rush to legislate behavior, it casts a far wider net than the one needed, and I believe that it will end up costing more money than it will save.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Everyone in this thread has made good points, but my thinking lies in another direction: Where does the cycle of dependency end?

The politically correct thing to say is that we don't want to hurt children, and that refusing to give welfare to a drug dependent parent will hurt them. But aren't the kids being hurt in the long run by having drug dependent parents? If we keep giving them money that may very well be used to buy drugs, how are we helping these kids we're so concerned about?

Employers will fire employees for repeated drug use, thereby depriving them of their income, so what's so unfair about refusing to pay welfare to someone who tests dirty?

Yes, it's only a small step in the war on poverty/drugs, but we've got to start somewhere. And isn't it possible.....just possible.....that some folks will choose to abandon their drug habits in order to get their welfare?

No, it doesn't solve everything, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

How does this bode for people that are currently addicted but that are actively seeking help? Hopefully there are provisions in this law that allow people like this to receive welfare.

 

[Shocky]

About fucking time someone had the balls to stand up to the shit welfare program. As someone that has worked in and around retail and has a background in anthropology, I absolutely despise are current welfare program. Too much enabling, and not enough motivation to get life long recipients off their ass and off the program.

I've spent plenty of time at Job and Family Services in downtown Cincinnati, and it pissed me off to see the people on the system. Working in retail, I used to see people come up with 500 dollars worth of foodstamps (when they were actually stamps) and load up on cart loads of steak and shit I couldn't afford on my paycheck. Then came people selling their stamps for money to get beer, drugs or cigarettes. No matter how often they change the system, people will find a way to manipulate and abuse said system.

I for one am all for helping people that genuinely need it. I don't feel that people who can afford to support their drug habit should be given free money and benefits. It's a simple choice, get your vice fix, or feed your family. Spare me the addiction argument.

If I have to be drug tested to get insurance and to have a good job, then damn it, people are going to get tested if they are going to take public money.

 

[Rayne]

I for one am all for helping people that genuinely need it. I don't feel that people who can afford to support their drug habit should be given free money and benefits. It's a simple choice, get your vice fix, or feed your family. Spare me the addiction argument.

You might not like the argument, but that doesn't mean it's a real one and you can afford to ignore it. It's not a simple choice, and if you think it is, go meet some heroin junkies and tell them "just stop already, ffs", and see how far that gets you.

The moral argument is a good one, but we shouldn't be legislating from a morality base. We don't have the cash for that anymore. We need to look at the practicality of the situation. You say "quit drugs or starve", but the problem is, people aren't going to say "well, I guess I'll just crawl into a hole and die then". People want to live. As the crack epidemic of the '80s proved, if people need something, they're going to take it. And we don't have the space in jail that we did in the Reagan years. If this is truly an issue of saving money on people that don't deserve our largesse, should we be spending even more money to keep them incarcerated?

The moral argument, again, is a good one, however the law is poorly written and is based on how people wish other people would act, not on how they actually will act.

 

[Vega]

I'm from middle europe, so because the cultural difference I seem to have a different point of view or set of ethics than most people posting here since this is an American board.

I have just some questions to those supporting the proposal: What is the alternative to giving them money so they can survive? Starving? Suicide? Fueling crimes which are commited with the intention of surviving? Maybe I have a wrong idea of American welfare system, is there another kind of support so that nobody has to starve (like soup kitchens or anti-addiction programs), or is it perfectly acceptable in American society to just let people with addictions die? And what about people with movie addiction who might spend valuable tax money on cinemas or smokers who might spend your hard-earned dollars on cigarettes? Please clear me up, I think I'm grossly misinformed. In Germany, we have Hartz IV, a program which provides everyone without work with money (530$ plus rent for cheap homes). Is that welfare program something similar?

 

[Shocky]

You might not like the argument, but that doesn't mean it's a real one and you can afford to ignore it. It's not a simple choice, and if you think it is, go meet some heroin junkies and tell them "just stop already, ffs", and see how far that gets you.

The moral argument is a good one, but we shouldn't be legislating from a morality base. We don't have the cash for that anymore. We need to look at the practicality of the situation. You say "quit drugs or starve", but the problem is, people aren't going to say "well, I guess I'll just crawl into a hole and die then". People want to live. As the crack epidemic of the '80s proved, if people need something, they're going to take it. And we don't have the space in jail that we did in the Reagan years. If this is truly an issue of saving money on people that don't deserve our largesse, should we be spending even more money to keep them incarcerated?

The moral argument, again, is a good one, however the law is poorly written and is based on how people wish other people would act, not on how they actually will act.

I'm all for helping those out that deserve it. Granted, my definition of deserve is different then the rest of people. My college room mate was a recovering Meth addict. I've known many people that have hooked themselves on hard drugs. The big thing, these people weren't looking to the government to get by on their monthly bills. Ultimately most kicked their habits, but I've lost my fair share of friends to it as well. Addiction sucks, but to put it bluntly (something KB has said time and time again on here), no one put the needle in you besides you. Ultimately personal responsibility has to happen.

I take a very Libertarian approach to drug addiction, do whatever you like, hell we might give you a chance to clean yourself up. You burn the system though, you lose out in the long run.

I'm from middle europe, so because the cultural difference I seem to have a different point of view or set of ethics than most people posting here since this is an American board.

I have just some questions to those supporting the proposal: What is the alternative to giving them money so they can survive? Starving? Suicide? Fueling crimes which are commited with the intention of surviving? Maybe I have a wrong idea of American welfare system, is there another kind of support so that nobody has to starve (like soup kitchens or anti-addiction programs), or is it perfectly acceptable in American society to just let people with addictions die? And what about people with movie addiction who might spend valuable tax money on cinemas or smokers who might spend your hard-earned dollars on cigarettes? Please clear me up, I think I'm grossly misinformed. In Germany, we have Hartz IV, a program which provides everyone without work with money (530$ plus rent for cheap homes). Is that welfare program something similar?

There are plenty of charities and church programs, public food shelters, soup kitches, etc... You rarely hear of anyone starving to death in the Untied States. We have so much damn food here it's really hard to have some starve that can help themselves.


Welfare is so hard to describe, as there many forms of it here stateside.

Food Stamps provides vouchers for food, but have no cash value.

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides publicly bought homes in the suburbs to give to low income families from the inner city. This gives people a chance to get into better communities as far as crime and education goes.

Section 8 Housing is semi-similar, where the government pays certain landlords money to provide discounts for low income tenants. Essentially it provides incentives to land lords to rent to low end tenants.

There are countless other programs that are out there as well.

The problem and frustration stems from people that abuse the system in various ways. I live on a tight budget, I'm middle class, yet I see people below me living relatively tax free, with free housing, and free food, etc. etc. I don't mind helping out, but I also don't like being taken advantage of.

 

[Rayne]

I'm all for helping those out that deserve it. Granted, my definition of deserve is different then the rest of people. My college room mate was a recovering Meth addict. I've known many people that have hooked themselves on hard drugs. The big thing, these people weren't looking to the government to get by on their monthly bills. Ultimately most kicked their habits, but I've lost my fair share of friends to it as well. Addiction sucks, but to put it bluntly (something KB has said time and time again on here), no one put the needle in you besides you. Ultimately personal responsibility has to happen.

I take a very Libertarian approach to drug addiction, do whatever you like, hell we might give you a chance to clean yourself up. You burn the system though, you lose out in the long run.

But the argument is that it's not only those people who lose out in the long run; it's everyone else, too. People just don't say, "well, I guess I'll starve to death then." When people get desperate, they break your windows and steal your jewelery. Then we put them in prison, which costs more than welfare, defeating the entire cost argument.

Another problem is it's not just the user who's affected. The single mother who smokes part of a joint at a cookout is treated the same as the heavy heroin user trading his food stamps for junk. Should that woman's kids starve because she took a pull off a joint she was passed? Or should we take her kids for smoking part of that joint, and put them in an already overburdened foster system that can't find homes for the kids it has already?

Mine isn't an argument about the freedom of drug use. Mine's an argument of finding the most effective method to deal with a problem, and as this law is written, it creates more problems then it solves.

 

[Wade's Public Transit Bomb]

For those of you who don't know what the typical UA looks for:

IT LOOKS FOR DRUGS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE OR GENDER OR THE FUCK.

Pharmaceutical drugs aren't looked at as bad if found, but you better f'n believe that if they find something, you need to have a reason for it. And poppy seeds oddly enough. lol

The way I am looking at this is the way I look at my job's policy on drug test (which is also random). My job wants as little liability as they can get when some asshole does something stupid and get hurt. Most jobs make you get a drug test while you are getting medical treatment. I completely understand why too.

Drugs are bad. I've been taught this ever since the D.A.R.E, program found its way into McGlone Elementary school. Why are drugs bad? They alter your mental and/or physical state and lead to another host of problems.

And from watching people on food stamps, I can tell you that there is a good chunk of people who do drugs and use food stamps to support their drug habit either by selling them or paying for "munchies." Guess the drug I am hinting at and get a rep. haha

 

[HBK-aholic]

If you can afford drugs you don't need money from the state. I wish England did something like this. I don't WANT to be paying for someone's filthy drug habit and I shouldn't have to. For those children living with drug addict parents, of the country caared that much it'd take them into care. Someone who puts drugs before food for their children doesn't deserve to have children.

I'm sure those who don't do 'hard' drugs will complain about this, but as has been said before, if you can afford any type of drug at all you shouldn't be entitled to any money from those people actually working for a living. Also those saying this infringes on 'rights' gave me a good laugh. If you don't want to be tested, don't expect free money. Well done Florida.

 

[Minnesota Connection]

Questions that I am unsure about that raise an eyebrow or two...

1- Who decides who gets tested? What type of people will be tested?

2- Is it one test or is it multiple tests? Drug addicts have a three day window to pass a piss test simply by refraining from the test. If it is multiple tests, then who decides who gets a 2nd test. A 3rd test. A 4th test?

3- Whats the point? Pieces of shit are just that... Pieces of shit. Let me rephrase. The people on government assistance while doing drugs, are pieces of shit.

But the problem with drug tests as I said in number two is, the only people the test will catch is potheads. If that is the case... Do you really need multi-million dollar legislation to block potheads?

....?

4- The system is built for abuse. Its as simple as that. You will ALWAYS have those select few, no matter how strict, well organized and well-intentioned this law may be.

It may reduce SOME of the costs due to abuse, but you can't look me in the eye and say this legislation will not prevent non-drug users, from obtaining help. (False negatives do happen and I doubt they will hand out re-tests after you've failed)

5- Lastly, we are all paying for these drug tests. Granted its taken from the money that would go to the recipient, but be realistic here. The money given to them is actually all of our money and all of our money would then be spent on 5,000 drug tests and more a year. Is that truly the best way to "cut costs" by paying for drug analysis at 150 bucks a pop?
_____________

In principle I agree with the law, in the real world.. I think its a bad idea. I'm split. While I agree with the law, I do not agree with the reasons it was implemented and I probably will not agree with the way it will be applied.

Will black people be tested ten times and the Asian guy once? Will the white people be singled out as if not to raise suspicions about racism?

 

[Uncle Chester]

Why shouldn't we discriminate against blacks if a larger percentage of them use drugs? I's dumb.

I like the idea of drug testing for these people, random drug testing not a set date or time but it would be good. Though' I think certain drugs can be beneficial to a person, especially weed so I personally wouldn't want to limit them from attaining something which is evidently beneficial to their health or mental state.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Why shouldn't we discriminate against blacks if a larger percentage of them use drugs? I's dumb.

Let me explain this to you Chester, because this is one of the most ignorant statements I've read in awhile. First of all, what data are you basing this off of? Arrest rates? Prison incarceration rates? Some type of poll? Let's just say that any of those is where you got your information, and for the sake of argument, let's say it's accurate.

If it were from prison rates, that would be flawed because there are studies showing that Blacks are more likely to be convicted of a crime than if it were a White man. There is a bias in the law enforcement system. The same applies for arrest rates. If it were from a poll, it could simply be that inherent to their ethnicity, culture, or the way that Blacks are raised, that they tend to be more honest about drug use than do other ethnicities.

But above and beyond all of that is that Blacks are not inherently pre-disposed to using drugs. There is a major disproportion between Blacks and Whites at the poverty level, and being subject to extreme poverty is correlated highly with crime. Everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law, yet you're advocating an approach of discriminating people based on stereotypes.