Florida Law: Pass drug test to qualify for welfare

Quote:

---

By Michael Peltier
TALLAHASSEE, Florida | Tue May 31, 2011 6:06pm EDT

(Reuters) - Florida will begin testing welfare recipients for illicit drug use under a new law signed by Governor Rick Scott on Tuesday.

The measure makes Florida the only state to test all recipients of the federal program known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, according a Washington-based public policy group that says other states have chosen less obtrusive ways to monitor drug use.

The new law, a version of which was struck down by a federal court in Michigan in 2003, requires recipients to pay for the tests before qualifying for benefits and periodically after they receive them.

The law was one of Scott's campaign promises. Supporters say it will help ensure that taxpayer money is used to get families on their feet and not to fuel drug habits at state expense.

"While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Scott said in a statement released after he signed the bill during a visit to Panama City.

"This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars."

Beginning July 1, recipients who test positive for drugs would be denied benefits for a year. A second failed test would result in a three-year ban.

In two-parent households, both adults would be tested. Benefits to children could be awarded to a third-party recipient, who must also pass a drug screen.

The law will not affect the federal food stamp program.

Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and Florida Legal Services, said they will decide in coming weeks if they plan to file suit against the law on the grounds that blanket drug tests are unconstitutional.

Federal law allows states to screen for drug use under the TANF program, which provides a maximum $300 a month cash assistance to needy families. The program, which replaced traditional welfare in the mid 1990s, has a 48-month lifetime cap on benefits.

Other states have studied the issue and decided testing all recipients was not cost effective, the Washington-based Center for Legal and Social Policy said in a study released in January.

Most states have drug assessment programs that do not include urine or blood tests. Some require drug tests from recipients who have been convicted of felony drug crimes.

During debate about the law, critics pointed to a pilot testing program in Florida that was shut down in 2001 after it showed no significant difference in drug use between welfare recipients and the population at large.

"The wasteful program created by this law subjects Floridians who are impacted by the economic downturn, as well as their families, to a humiliating search of their urine and body fluids without cause or even suspicion of drug abuse," said Howard Simon, executive director of ACLU Florida, in a statement.

---

Dread Scott, huh. Seriously, how would anyone who's poor and needing assistance be able to afford the drug test in the first place....but he says this will Help families get on their feet? Looks like the FL tax payer will now be funding state attorneys to fight the ensuing law suits. Brilliant. :donkey:

Excellent idea, they should also be clean from tobacco and alcohol, although the state should probably pay for the tests.

How about if families were not drug-addled they would be able to live better and cope with less welfare.

IF this passed, then yes the State should pay for the test.

Hmm. Are blanket drug tests unconstitutional?

How many of these welfare recipients are drug addicts? Any numbers?

It's not too far a leap from DUI tests taken on the road.

Other than recipients paying for the test themselves, I don't see the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Hmm. Are blanket drug tests unconstitutional?

How many of these welfare recipients are drug addicts? Any numbers?

---

I don't see why it should be unconstitutional. You can choose not to take the test by deciding not to seek welfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I don't see why it should be unconstitutional. You can choose not to take the test by deciding not to seek welfare.

---

Bingo.

State should still pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Bingo.

State should still pay.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I don't see why it should be unconstitutional. You can choose not to take the test by deciding not to seek welfare.

---

Yes yes and you can also choose not to take the test by not losing your job etc I heard that one too. I think a bigger problem than drugs is all the kids. You should stop them from having kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Yes yes and you can also choose not to take the test by not losing your job etc I heard that one too. I think a bigger problem than drugs is all the kids. You should stop them from having kids.

---

That's absurd and you know it, so I guess you've got no better alternative and no serious rebuttal.

Why is it absurd? Do you think more people on welfare are 1. having unnecessary kids or 2. using drugs?

Stopping drug addicts from abusing drugs is a great thing. Stopping drug addicts from spending welfare money on drugs is also a great thing. Treating everyone on welfare as if they're likely to use drugs is not a great thing. You're saying the gains that can be had from stopping drug-fiends wasting welfare money outweigh the imposition on and possible humiliation of the greater majority of welfare recipients who aren't drug addicts and who are quite possibly also people who need respectful treatment from society (unless you subscribe to the notion that humiliation and hassling people is therapeutic, who knows). Honestly, if you can justify that then I'm not sure why you can't justify other impositions and insults as well. There is no end to tests we can screen them with for the greater good. It would indeed be a great way to motivate them as well as give various medical equipment companies a nice boost.

The only comfort is that people can probably spin this in such a way as to make welfare recipients really really angry at all these welfare-sucking drug-users so that peeing in cups becomes something to be really proud of.

So, on the topic of focusing on the "real issues" and on "the solution"...

#2

People may already have kids before they claim welfare, but have no more kids while on it. Doesn't solve the issue with kids.
People not taking drugs while on welfare does solve the issue with drugs.

Anyone involved in a major car crash has to give a blood sample as a matter of law to be tested for drugs and alcohol. Why should welfare not be the same? I don't care if people are embarrassed, any decent person is normally embarrassed about having to claim welfare in the first place.

If we knew that no welfare receipients were abusing drugs/alcohol/tobacco and that it was there as a safety net for those in real need, then those on it might actually get sympathy rather than stigmatised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

People may already have kids before they claim welfare, but have no more kids while on it. Doesn't solve the issue with kids.

---

Wow you're being so unimaginative here. There are so many ways. Mandatory contraception. Abstinence contracts. No money if you get another pregnancy. Regular pregnancy tests.

When a person is involved in a major car crash it's reasonable to suspect that they may have been under the influence of eg. alcohol. That's why I asked what portion of welfare recipients in the US were on drugs. I hear about a third of fatal car crashes in the US involved at least one drunk driver. Are we talking similar numbers for welfare recipients on drugs?

Quote:

---

Federal law allows states to screen for drug use under the TANF program, which provides a maximum $300 a month cash assistance to needy families. The program, which replaced traditional welfare in the mid 1990s, has a 48-month lifetime cap on benefits.

Other states have studied the issue and decided testing all recipients was not cost effective, the Washington-based Center for Legal and Social Policy said in a study released in January.

Most states have drug assessment programs that do not include urine or blood tests. Some require drug tests from recipients who have been convicted of felony drug crimes.

During debate about the law, critics pointed to a pilot testing program in Florida that was shut down in 2001 after it showed no significant difference in drug use between welfare recipients and the population at large.

---

Looks like blanket testing was deemed unconstitutional several years ago, when Michigan tried the same thing and got shot down. No idea how Scott thinks FL will fare any better.

There's no proof showing welfare applicants are poor because of drug addiction, or that drug-addled families are the majority of welfare recipients.

Also, how's that "Small non-intrusive Government" thing goin' ? :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Wow you're being so unimaginative here. There are so many ways. Mandatory contraception. Abstinence contracts. No money if you get another pregnancy. Regular pregnancy tests.

When a person is involved in a major car crash it's reasonable to suspect that they may have been under the influence of eg. alcohol. That's why I asked what portion of welfare recipients in the US were on drugs. I hear about a third of fatal car crashes in the US involved at least one drunk driver. Are we talking similar numbers for welfare recipients on drugs?

---

Those who commit fatal car crashes are not seeking to be given a regular stipend of money from the state.

Those on welfare shouldn't be able to afford illegal drugs, alcohol or tobacco without either abusing children or the taxpayer etc

It would be hilarious if it turned out to cost more than it would save even in terms of money, never mind waste of time and whatever you lose to screening a relatively unselected population. It would be funny as hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Those who commit fatal car crashes are not seeking to be given a regular stipend of money from the state.

---

So we're back to stopping them from having kids. I'd also like to check their grocery lists and pizza expenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Also, how's that "Small non-intrusive Government" thing goin' ? :donkey:

---

Well it's kinda like that metaphor used in the Moody's thread about "trying" to "save" the economy by pushing it off of a cliff. I suppose it's consistent at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Those who commit fatal car crashes are not seeking to be given a regular stipend of money from the state.

Those on welfare shouldn't be able to afford illegal drugs, alcohol or tobacco without either abusing children or the taxpayer etc

---

It's not a regular stipend, Rand. It's $300/month MAX with a 48 month LIFETIME cap. It's basically a Food Assistance program, not the kind of "welfare" in the UK you may be thinking of. The screening would also pick up things like prescription drugs for chronic pain.

Besides, I thought it was pretty much confirmed that The War on Drugs has been an utter failure. Waste of a trillion dollars, overflowing prisons for possession of weed....:bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

It would be hilarious if it turned out to cost more than it would save even in terms of money, never mind waste of time and whatever you lose to screening a relatively unselected population. It would be funny as hell.

---

This is why the welfare recipents are the ones paying. Its already expected to not catch enough offenders to be cost effective.
Its only being done because the drug testing company that will be doing the testing is our governor's old business interest. By interest I mean a company he founded, and when I say old, its because all of the stock he did own is now owned under his wife's name :down:

At least our governor is open about being a sleazy asshole. I guess thats a good thing, we know about what to expect from him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

It's not a regular stipend, Rand. It's $300/month MAX with a 48 month LIFETIME cap. It's basically a Food Assistance program, not the kind of "welfare" in the UK you may be thinking of. The screening would also pick up things like prescription drugs for chronic pain.

Besides, I thought it was pretty much confirmed that The War on Drugs has been an utter failure. Waste of a trillion dollars, overflowing prisons for possession of weed....:bulb:

---

Oh I agree we should legalise most drugs, I also think that tobacco and alcohol should be legal too. Doesn't mean I should be buying them for people who can't be bothered to work.

For each hour I get paid to work, I pay £3.48 in direct taxation. For all expenditure on legal items I make, I have to pay 20% in sales tax. I very rarely buy alcohol now as its expensive and in order to make my personal budget work, I have higher priorities. I could not imagine being able to afford a crack addict or adding tobacco to my shopping bills.

So why should I be buying illegal drugs, alcohol or tobacco for people who are not working ?

I - and I think almost every right-winger here even Lewkowski - agree with some forms of socialism. I'm happy to pay for schooling, for other necessities and yes for a safety net. We can debate about paying for universal healthcare - but you don't have that in America. What I refuse to countenance is that I should be buying illegal drugs, alcohol or tobacco for people out of work. Why do you think your nation's taxpayers should be buying some of their unemployed illegal drugs, but not legal ones through healthcare? Its aburd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Besides, I thought it was pretty much confirmed that The War on Drugs has been an utter failure. Waste of a trillion dollars, overflowing prisons for possession of weed....:bulb:

---

The global war on drugs has "failed" according to a new report by a group of politicians and former world leaders.

Quote:

---

The Global Commission on Drug Policy report calls for the legalisation of some drugs and an end to the criminalisation of drug users.

The panel includes former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the former leaders of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, and the entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson.

The US and Mexican governments have rejected the findings as misguided.

---

Rand---Because our right-wing thinks universal healthcare is SSSocialism, and un-American? Still, alcohol, tobacco, and prescription meds are legal products.

It's not uncommon for day-laborers or manual laborers to be given a 6-pack of beer or a pack of cigarettes (or a bushel of peaches, or a holiday turkey, or a few gallons of gas), in exchange for working at/or just below minimum wage. (It's very common in agriculture where I live). It's not uncommon for the unemployed or underemployed to want a little bit of pleasure like everyone else, or maybe it's self-medicating for living in a pretty crappy situation. Because, after all, they don't have the greatest healthcare either.

There's also a rather clever black market, bartering goods or services between neighbors who are short on income and cash. You're assuming these are drug-addled heroin addicts or something. :bulb:

Anyone paying below minimum wage is a criminal and should be prosecuted.

I don't see why I should pay my employees a legal and fair wage, then be undercut and unable to compete by criminals paying their employees to do below minimum wage the same job as mine. I have zero tolerance for that, same with illegal tax avoidance.

Rand, agriculture is exempted from federal minimum wage, and state minimum wage (depending on the state). So are workers in the food-service and hospitality sectors. Theory being their "tips" will bring them up to minimum wage or above. That's why we have millions working in strawberry and lettuce fields, or waiting tables in diners and bars, needing food assistance.

<<I suppose that's why our employment and economic reports focus on NON-farming sectors? Does anyone here know why, when it's not as seasonal as it used to be, because of greenhouses and a well-known migrant farmer route? :noob: >>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Excellent idea, they should also be clean from tobacco and alcohol, although the state should probably pay for the tests.

---

I agree. I also think tobacco ought to be illegal outright. Taking this further, the biggest problem that Mexico has with illegal drug traffickers is that the US is the world's biggest illegal drug market. Why not take all that money we waste on 'The War on Drugs' and implement a nationwide random drug testing program for anyone over the age of, say, 14. If you test positive for an illegal drug, you get a fine, maybe compulsory counselling, and a routine re-testing program. Fail again, more fines, more programs, and maybe jail time. That would put a real dent in the biggest drug market in the world, eh? :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

I agree. I also think tobacco ought to be illegal outright. Taking this further, the biggest problem that Mexico has with illegal drug traffickers is that the US is the world's biggest illegal drug market. Why not take all that money we waste on 'The War on Drugs' and implement a nationwide random drug testing program for anyone over the age of, say, 14. If you test positive for an illegal drug, you get a fine, maybe compulsory counselling, and a routine re-testing program. Fail again, more fines, more programs, and maybe jail time. That would put a real dent in the biggest drug market in the world, eh? :up:

---

No. Stupidest idea ever, trading one "drug war" for another. Taking this "further" is your problem, because it will be used against you. No more wine for choobs, because alcohol is by far a bigger killer of individuals and families than tobacco. Prohibition of beer and wine, even in your home bathtub, for your own good? Ignore history at your own peril. WTF :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

No. Stupidest idea ever, trading one "drug war" for another. Taking this "further" is your problem, because it will be used against you. No more wine for choobs, because alcohol is by far a bigger killer of individuals and families than tobacco. Prohibition of beer and wine, even in your home bathtub, for your own good? Ignore history at your own peril. WTF :rolleyes:

---

You're right, wine and beer and liquor ARE bad too. They should be banned for all citizens as well. And I think you have it all wrong. If the enforcement of these rules were sufficiently draconian, then eventually we would all lose our taste for drugs and alcohol adn we would all be better off for it. What do you have to hide, anyway? They can drug test me all they want and I'll do just fine. How about you?