Welfare Drug Testing Bill in Florida

What is it that you don't like about the law? 

Invasion of privacy? Waste of money? Something else?

I consider myself socially liberal but fiscally conservative.  Meaning, y'all can do what you want within reason, but I don't think I should have to pay for alot of what y'all do - in a nutshell.

The primary problem with this bill is that often doing the right thing might also mean doing the most expensive thing.  Most probably balk at that.  On top of paying for drug tests and the administration of the data for each person, you would also have to pay for any appeals process that you proposed.  That could be more expensive then just handing out welfare money.

Again, weighing doing what's right vs. what is cheap and expedient often goes to cheap and expedient.  It's a shame but it also begs the question - why should I have to police someone else's failings specifically in regards to taking illiegal drugs?

I read in one of the comments to the story that Michigan kicks people off the public welfare system after 4 years.  I haven't been able to research the veracity of that statement.  Anyone have any insights?

What many fail to realize, it is the importance of probable cause, or the differences between a private employer, and government. The applicants for assistance either qualify, or are denied benefits based on guidelines having to do with financial status. Being poor does not constitute probable cause of illegal drug use. What would you think 
of a morality test, for example? Private employers often talk to neighbors, former spouses, ex supervisors, for character references. Do you suppose this would be appropriate in determining whether a person in need can have a meal? I think this brand of politician fails to see the importance of these programs to the poorest. I feel they do
not believe the programs should exist at all. While perfectly comfortable in handing hundreds of millions of dollars to the connected wealthy, like themselves. They begrudge every bite, every medical procedure, every housing unit, and every after school program for people they consider less than significant. And I believe this is at the heart of all the drug testing. And one more thing, testing of welfare recipients has been tried many times, in other states. The requirement has been found to be unconstitutional, but more important, the drug usage denying benefits, were in the single digit percentiles, confirming my first suspicion.

It was tried in FL as well as a pilot program.  They gave up on it because more money was spent on testing and everything associated than the savings by stopping assistance to those individuals where there was a positive test. 

I have no problem with the bill.  Then again, I would be okay with getting rid of welfare altogether.   

I didn't read this to mean that people who need gov't assistance are wasting taxpayers $ but that people who are active drug users, i.e. fail a drug test, are not eligible for federal assistance.  I do not have an issue with this.  There is a provision in place to ensure that children of these parents are still provided the opportunity to receive assistance, so that is not an issue.

It's not "this brand of politicians" that are forcing "those less fortunate" to choose whether or not to consume illegal drugs.  Rather, they are forcing "those less fortunate" to be responsible for their actions and accept the consequences of those actions. 

Isn't this the same as drug testing high school athletes?  They don't test all students, only the ones who want to compete in an extracurricular sport.  So, if you want to get welfare, you need to be clean.

Just an observation...

I think folks have a misconception of cost for these tests and adminsitration.   As an example, it costs us $75 per employee.  Consider what the potential upside is of preventing tax dollars going into illegal drug trade and I am in huge favor of the law.  The #'s will be hard to justify here as I beleive those who do use won't even bother to apply and hence are never reported in the system, but remain off the state pay-roll.

I just have hard time seeing someone in need of assistance being the one to start determining the terms and conditions.  As long as requirements are not outside of what private sector does, what is the problem?  I dont see people picketing outside of IBM or Google because they were required to take a drug test.   My honest opinion is that people are nervous about what the results will look like.  Governor has not ruled out putting these folks to work or requiring volunteer hours either.   That will really earn a new thread.   

The probable cause statement comes from A federal appellate court ruling that threw out Michigan's random drug testing law in 2003, saying it violated the constitutional ban against unreasonable search and seizure. Just because you're seeking public benefits doesn't mean you don't have the same kind of protection from unreasonable searches as anybody else.

My other problem is, yes you find someone that tested positive for drugs, and you take away their assistance, and then what?  There are no steps in place to help those people with their addiction.  So when you add the administrative costs on top of this what is the purpose?  What that article fails to mention is that the chain of health clinics that the governor used to own and whose control he transferred to his wife, tend to benefit greatly from this law.

And why only focus on the needy? Let's make this a stipulation for obtaining or renewing a driver's license, we certainly don't want a bunch of "druggies" driving around,  or to anyone that applies for a tax exemption in the state of Florida. Welfare should be controlled but let's not penalize all because of a few. Let them keep some of their dignity, it is hard enough to be in that situation without having to prove that you are “worthy” of assistance. 

To top it off, a study from the Department of Health and Human Services, found that 9.6 percent of people living in households that receive government assistance used illicit drugs in the previous month, compared with a 6.8 percent rate among families who receive no assistance.

And yet DWI road blocks have been upheld repeatedly.  I do not see how this is any different.

Theoretically, I do feel it would be appropriate to determine if they are in need.

Perhpas you dont, but the federal appellate court seems to realize there is a big difference.

Who does this benefit?