Florida Requires Drug Test for Welfare

[Uncle Chester]

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.

Ok.

I never said it was inherent in their genetic makeup just as hijacking planes isn't inherent in Arabs make up but it still doesn't have any baring on the fact that MOST terrorists are Arab. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[Minnesota Connection]

You are in a corner, you have no way out, you have made a statement that is untrue. It is ok. We do not hate, we edu-mu-cate.

You've made one racially motivated comment with another racial motivated comment. We would love statistics.

Please show us the statistic that has "Terrorists" in big bold letters with a numbers comparison, maybe even a pie chart. Because you can not.

We are not implying that drug testing should not be done, but if it needs to, we are simply stating that it should be done fairly. Meaning, everyone is tested the same amount of times. The law IS constitutional, as long as it is not racially motivated. That is the only concern with the law is that threw some loop-hole, people are discriminated against.

As long as it stays fair, I am OK. : )

 

[Uncle Phatso]

Personaly I think if you have a drug problem and can't get a job it's your fault. I've had family members who were addicted to hard drugs, and it is a long road to recovery. But no one shoved the pipe or pills into your mouth and made you do it.

I think the law should be extended to every three months at random you have a piss test. After the three months are up you have a window ware the piss test is comming.

I do however believe that if they fail said piss test they shouldn't be arrested or blocked from future entry. They should be given help, be that as a number to a Recovery program, or Detox facility. Some people really do need help to get off the stuff.

 

[Minnesota Connection]

You fail to realize the implications of what that means though.

Getting them help means sending them to rehab or treatment which is an expensive bill for any uninsured person not to mention someone who's covered by government insurance.

So, in other words.

Florida taxpayers money not only goes to millions of dollars in drug tests, but millions more for drug rehab coverage.

In the long run, im not sure there would be much benefit.

 

[Mike C.]

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?

I'm not sure about the "politically correct" thing, as best I can tell the politically correct thing to say is "screw drug users!", but the correct thing is to say that we don't want to hurt children. While you're 100% right that drug dependent parents are bad, drug dependent parents that are hording nickels to buy drugs will be worse for the children. This law won't stop drug use, what it will stop is parents applying for any state assistance that goes to the children that need it the absolute most. Depending on the substance used, frequency of use, and willingness to follow through with treatment I'm for removing children from the custody of parents that are using and putting those children with clean family members or foster homes until the parent can follow through with treatment... but finding every parent that is using and saving every child from that situation is impossible at best.

So for that reason I'm against the law. The reality of the process is that it will be expensive (while perhaps not equally as expensive as giving welfare to substance using individuals it will still have its fair share of expenses), it won't curtail substance abuse because people will either not attempt to sign up or attempt to cheat the tests, and it will hurt kids that are already in a pretty shitty situation.

All that to be said I like the idea in theory, but as a cog in this child welfare system I don't really believe the idea is tenable.

 

[Mustang Sally]

....drug dependent parents that are hording nickels to buy drugs will be worse for the children.

You've made your points very well; my problem is that the cycle of dependency continues if we just keep giving the parents welfare money and allowing them to spend it on drugs.....it's what they wanted in the first place, right? The new law isn't intended as a cure-all; of course it isn't, but it's a start toward fixing this mess society has gotten itself into. When welfare first came into being, it was supposed to be a temporary vehicle to help people over rough spots in their lives; it was never intended that people go on welfare and stay there the rest of their lives.

As to the increased cost of getting these parents on the straight and narrow, remember this: When "welfare as we know it" ended on June 30, 1996, it was clearly recognized that the new policies were going to cost more money than what the government was paying out in welfare. The law said that you had to go to work, but that the government would subsidize day care for your children and pay to train you for a job. That was the theory; of course, they knew the practice would have lots of rough spots. The idea was to help society in the long run.

But the new welfare law being discussed in this thread at least addresses the problem of parents who spend their welfare money on drugs. I think the new law should say: "We'll help pay for treatment to get you off drugs, but if you keep testing dirty, you're not getting the welfare check. Fair warning."

I see your point about parents hoarding nickels to buy drugs if there's no welfare money coming and how that hurts children, but I say it helps children even more to have drug-free parents. There's got to be a starting point for this and I think the new proposed law addresses it. Continuing things as they've always been doesn't.

 

[LSN80]

You fail to realize the implications of what that means though.

Getting them help means sending them to rehab or treatment which is an expensive bill for any uninsured person not to mention someone who's covered by government insurance.

So, in other words.

Florida taxpayers money not only goes to millions of dollars in drug tests, but millions more for drug rehab coverage.

In the long run, im not sure there would be much benefit.

So you're just suggesting that we let these people die so that our tax dollars aren't used in helping people beat a drug habit? Its called addiction for a reason, there are some people who are genetically predisposed to becoming addicted. Does anyone shove pills down their throat? No. But there are a multitude of people who, say, sprain their ankle and wind up addicted to Vicodin or Percocet as a result. The first time they take the drug, they don't have a chance, and without being properly educated about their addictive properties, they don't stand a chance.

The benefit of this would be healthy, happier people. If some of my taxes go towards the beginnings of cleaning people up and getting them back on their feet, Im all for it. Welfare and rehab facilities, are generally geared towards short term solutions, with the ideal that this people will move from being dependant on a system to becoming self-dependent. Another benefit would be welfare money isnt going towards people to further their drug addictions. That's saving potentially millions of dollars of taxpayer money that would be going towards people who use drugs.

The system sucks. There's no denying that. This is at least a start towards personal accountability for people who are receiving government aid. I like knowing where my very hard earned tax dollars are going, and would happily sacrifice 5-10 dollars out of my paycheck in order to see the start of a system getting cleaned up. I have clients on welfare, many of them drug addicts. They've candidly told me of the deals they've done utilizing their access cards and the like in trade for cash to use drugs.

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.

This is an incredibly slippery slope, and one that would set us back a long ways. Ive seen people who dont have their high school diploma or GED find very good jobs, succeed for awhile, and then lose their job. Should those people be denied unemployment benefits as compared to a person with someone a diploma that lost the exact same type of job? That would be discrimination of the highest order, and would benefit noone. Its not as clear cut as you make it out to be, and many of these people are far from being "wastes".

 

[JuviJuiceIsLoose]

I'm against this law because it seems to target poor minorities. I'm also against it because Rick Scott co-founded a company where they do drug testing. He gave his shares of the company to his wife, so his household is still benefiting from that company.

If Rick Scott wants to Drug Test people on welfare because they're receiving the State's Money, than maybe he should start drug testing those who receive Farm Subsidies as well. Or maybe they should start drug testing Florida State Employees.

Also, these tests cost $10 to the person getting tested. They'll supposedly be refunded if the test comes back negative.

So, he's basically charging people to pee in a cup. So, the state will receive a lot of money.

Scott was also opposed to a database that would track narcotic prescription pills because they "violated privacy", but he has no problem with this.


He's got the lowest approval rating of every Governor in the United States for a reason. After next year or so, Floridians may not have to deal with him much longer.