I saw this today and my head almost exploded. These are the same people that object to tougher background checks on gun control. Besides that, I object to drug testing for welfare for a couple of reasons. First, the cost probably negates anything positive. Second, how will they get off drugs without any means for help? Should we deny them welfare, and create a tidal wave of addicts to hospitals....or courts and jails? The author of this post seems bitter because he's not having any fun in his life.
[Edited on 6/19/2015 by BoytonBrother]
I thought some States had adopted this policy with really bad/good results. Good meaning not that many folks were taking drugs. Personally I'd like to see Congress drug tested on a daily basis.
Scott abandons promise to drug test welfare recipients
By Amy Sherman on Tuesday, March 10th, 2015 at 4:05 p.m.
When Gov. Rick Scott first ran for office in 2010, he vowed that one way he would save taxpayers money would be to require welfare applicants to undergo tests.
"If you go apply for a job today, you are generally going to be drug tested," Scott said then. "The people that are working are paying the taxes for people on welfare. Shouldn't the welfare people be held to the same standard?"
At first, it seemed like Scott would keep that promise. The Florida Legislature embraced the idea, and Scott signed it into law on May 31, 2011. But almost four years later, Scott has given up following repeated defeats in federal courts.
"It does make you think that at least some of the motivation was probably political," said University of Central Florida political science professor Aubrey Jewitt. "From a legal constitutional standpoint, it was on shaky ground when they passed it, and I think they knew that."
PolitiFact Florida, which tracks Scott's campaign promises, rates promises based on outcomes rather than intentions. Using that metric, Scott's pledge rates Promise Broken.
The drug testing promise was among several conservative promises Scott made during his first race that have ultimately failed, such as bringing Arizona's immigration law to Florida, banning embryonic stem cell research and more stringent work standards for welfare recipients.
Florida's attempt to drug test welfare recipients started when Scott signed HB 353, which required that people who received welfare cash -- called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families -- first pass a drug test. (About 83,000 receive TANF in Florida.)
The ACLU of Florida filed suit challenging the law on behalf of Luis Lebron, a Navy veteran, college student and single father from Orlando. Lebron refused to submit to a test, arguing that requiring him to pay for and submit to one was unreasonable when there was no reason to believe he uses drugs.
In October 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Mary Scriven sided with Lebron and issued a temporary injunction blocking the law. She concluded the law could violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on illegal search and seizure.
During the few months the the law was in effect -- July to October 2011 -- about 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for drugs, the most common being marijuana. That means 108 of 4,046 tested positive.
While the law was on hold, it drew national attention when Comedy Central reporter Aasif Mandvi, who crashed a December 2011 press conference to ask Scott to pee in a cup. Scott did not comply.
As Scott continued to lose in court, he remained steadfast in support of the policy. "Welfare is taxpayer money to help people looking for jobs who have children. Drug use by anyone with children looking for a job is totally destructive," Scott said in a statement in 2013.
The state continued to argue that it warranted an exception to the Fourth Amendment to ensure TANF participants' job readiness, to meet child-welfare goals and to ensure that public funds were properly used.
But the courts rejected that argument and struck down the law. In a federal court appeals ruling in December 2014 Judge Stanley Marcus, who was first appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, concluded that "citizens do not abandon all hope of privacy by applying for government assistance."
As the state reached the deadline to file another challenge, Scott's support reached its limit.
"We chose not to appeal this case," Scott spokeswoman Jackie Schutz told PolitiFact Florida. "The governor is continuing to protect Florida children any way he can and create an environment where families can get jobs so they are able to pursue their dreams in safe communities."
The legal rulings have been watched closely, both nationally and in other states.
Georgia, for example, had passed a similar law but didn't implement it largely because of the Florida rulings, said Elizabeth Lower-Basch, an expert on welfare at CLASP, an organization that advocates for low-income people
"Overall, the evidence is that these programs do not save money, because you need to screen and test a lot of clients in order to catch a few who are using, and because TANF benefits are so low that there is relatively little savings from cutting people off," she said.
The tab for attorneys both inside and outside government reached at least $307,000, according to numbers from the Florida Department of Children and Families.
Some continue to defend the policy of drug testing.
"Florida had the best policy," said Robert Rector, an expert at the conservative Heritage foundation who helped craft the 1996 welfare reform law. "Other states have been frightened off by this."
Though Scott failed to deliver on his welfare drug testing promise in the courts, it was popular with voters.
A 2011 poll by Quinnipiac University showed that 71 percent of Floridians — including 90 percent of Republicans — supported the drug testing law, even while Scott's overall approval rating was 37 percent.
"It was always a favorable political issue for him. Welfare recipients are never popular with voters," said Florida Atlantic University political science professor Kevin Wagner.
Sources:
ACLU of Florida, Press release, March 4, 2015
CLASP, "A New years resolution: stop the push for drug testing applicants of public benefits," Dec. 19, 2014
News Service of Florida, "Scott drops welfare drug testing challenge," March 5, 2015
Associated Press, "Florida Gov. Rick Scott drops appeal in welfare drug testing fight," March 4, 2015
PolitiFact Florida, "With a second term for Rick Scott, we add promises to the Scott-O-Meter," Dec. 30, 2014
Tampa Bay Times, "Court rebuffs Scott bid," April 22, 2014
News Service of Florida, "Scott, state workers still at odds over drug testing," Dec. 17, 2015
Interview, Michelle Glady, Florida Department of Children and Families spokeswoman, March 9, 2015
Interview, Elizabeth Lower-Basch, senior policy analyst for the Center for Legal and Social Policy, March 9, 2015
Interview, Robert Rector, Heritage Foundation senior research fellow, March 9, 2015
Interview, Kevin Wagner, Florida Atlantic University political science professor, March 9, 2015
Interview, Aubrey Jewitt, University of Central Florida political science professor, March 9, 2015
Interview, Baylor Johnson, ACLU of Florida spokesman, March 10, 2015
Interview, Whitney Ray, Florida Attorney General spokesman, March 9, 2015
Interview, Jeri Bustamante, Gov. Rick Scott spokeswoman, March 10, 2015
Statement by Jackie Schutz, Gov. Rick Scott spokeswoman, March 10, 2015
I saw this today and my head almost exploded. These are the same people that object to tougher background checks on gun control. Besides that, I object to drug testing for welfare for a couple of reasons. First, the cost probably negates anything positive. Second, how will they get off drugs without any means for help? Should we deny them welfare, and create a tidal wave of addicts to hospitals....or courts and jails? The author of this post seems bitter because he's not having any fun in his life.
[Edited on 6/19/2015 by BoytonBrother]
The Constitution as far as I know declares that people in this country have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty to me means the govt. has not right to be on or in your body or personal business. The right to privacy is one of the things Rand Paul is fighting the NSA spying over. The govt. has no right being in your business, so what right do they have demanding you to submit to medical tests? (unless of course you are driving drunk, that is another thing). But for everyday life, no. The groping at the airports violates our rights. Alcohol is a drug but is not screened for during employment drug tests, so certain groups of people are being targeted but others, are not, especially those Starbucks addicts you see them everyday is okay. Caffeine is a drug also.
Why should the govt. be the one to declare what drugs are acceptable and what ones are not?
What ones should be screened for and what ones should not?
Why is your body the government's business?
The govt. needs to get out of controlling people and their lives.
I saw this today and my head almost exploded. These are the same people that object to tougher background checks on gun control. Besides that, I object to drug testing for welfare for a couple of reasons. First, the cost probably negates anything positive.
Costs? Really? It costs almost noting to process a piss test for drugs. But on the other hand, you've been passionate about psychological testing for gun ownership, which if done to any decent degree would require interviews with expensive psychologists, resulting in huge costs for ownership and subjective outcomes.
Second, how will they get off drugs without any means for help? Should we deny them welfare, and create a tidal wave of addicts to hospitals....or courts and jails?
How about we just stop aiding and abetting bad behavior and stop feeling bad about the fact that people have to face consequences for their poor life choices? I know; it's way too harsh to expect people of otherwise sound body and mind to actually not destroy their lives and become a burden on the rest of us. Sorry for even thinking that should be a reasonable expectation, or that there should be some shame attached to that.
The govt. needs to get out of controlling people and their lives.
Which includes not burdening the rest of us to pay for those who make self-destructive personal choices.
Legalize drugs, tax the hell oput of them, license and regulate them. Take half that money plus all the money you save from enforcement and incarceration and put it into education and treatment. Couldn't possibly be any more of a failure than the war on drugs.
I have no problem with this as long as the test includes tobacco and alcohol. No hypocrites stopping some from their drug vices while allowing other's drug vices.
Also is this a one time test like most employees take to get their jobs or is it random testing whenever they want? Because I know droves of people who quit smoking pot for a month or two to pass work related drug tests and then immerse themselves with weed again once they pass the test and get the job.
[Edited on 6/19/2015 by sixty8]
Legalize drugs, tax the hell oput of them, license and regulate them. Take half that money plus all the money you save from enforcement and incarceration and put it into education and treatment. Couldn't possibly be any more of a failure than the war on drugs.
A practical solution, but it will take years and more open minded individuals running gov't. to make this happen - 20 years, 50 years????????
I have no problem with this as long as the test includes tobacco and alcohol. No hypocrites stopping some from their drug vices while allowing other's drug vices.
[Edited on 6/19/2015 by sixty8]
And include members of congress and all government employees in the testing. Dirty test, no paycheck. Include the alcohol and cigarettes for them as well.
Legalize drugs, tax the hell oput of them, license and regulate them. Take half that money plus all the money you save from enforcement and incarceration and put it into education and treatment. Couldn't possibly be any more of a failure than the war on drugs.
A practical solution, but it will take years and more open minded individuals running gov't. to make this happen - 20 years, 50 years????????
At this rate maybe never.
I saw this today and my head almost exploded. These are the same people that object to tougher background checks on gun control. Besides that, I object to drug testing for welfare for a couple of reasons. First, the cost probably negates anything positive.
Costs? Really? It costs almost noting to process a piss test for drugs. But on the other hand, you've been passionate about psychological testing for gun ownership, which if done to any decent degree would require interviews with expensive psychologists, resulting in huge costs for ownership and subjective outcomes.
Second, how will they get off drugs without any means for help? Should we deny them welfare, and create a tidal wave of addicts to hospitals....or courts and jails?
How about we just stop aiding and abetting bad behavior and stop feeling bad about the fact that people have to face consequences for their poor life choices? I know; it's way too harsh to expect people of otherwise sound body and mind to actually not destroy their lives and become a burden on the rest of us. Sorry for even thinking that should be a reasonable expectation, or that there should be some shame attached to that.
Ask your county Probation Director what their annual cost for drug testing is in comparison to their total annual budget and then tell me there are minimal costs associated with random and frequent piss testing....
Depending upon the case load of recipients receiving benefits in your area, you CERTAINLY are going to incur substantial costs associated with drug testing. Testing, by the way, that is not necessarily accurate at any given time depending upon a number of factors associated with the individual tested. It's a waste of time and money piss testing people as a means to change their behavior.....Except for the lab who bills your local county for such services.
Costs? Really? It costs almost noting to process a piss test for drugs. But on the other hand, you've been passionate about psychological testing for gun ownership, which if done to any decent degree would require interviews with expensive psychologists, resulting in huge costs for ownership and subjective outcomes.
If one can prevent mass murder of innocent civilians, the costs should be directed to that one.
How about we just stop aiding and abetting bad behavior and stop feeling bad about the fact that people have to face consequences for their poor life choices?
This is irrelevant. You are addressing a whole separate issue of "why do people make bad decisions"? That should be a whole different thread. Fact is, drugs are a big part of our culture, and the issue is what to do about welfare recipients and their drug use. If you are saying to let them rot, then I believe that would be more costly for taxpayers in the end.
I know; it's way too harsh to expect people of otherwise sound body and mind to actually not destroy their lives and become a burden on the rest of us. Sorry for even thinking that should be a reasonable expectation, or that there should be some shame attached to that.
Wow, such anger towards those that have demons. Why? Can you honestly dismiss the horrors that some people face in their lives? That we all didn't start out on the same level? You are highly intelligent....surely you can see the close-mindedness in this type of thinking. You are 100% correct that it is a burden on our society, but I believe you are directing your anger in the wrong direction.
[Edited on 6/20/2015 by BoytonBrother]
Can you honestly dismiss the horrors that some people face in their lives?
"Some"?...sure. What percent do you believe "some" are responsible for? 2%?...5%?...10%?...That leaves an awfully large amount of room for people who abuse the system, surely you can see this.
I agree, get drug tested as a condition of employment, get drug tested for money coming from those who are working.
Can you honestly dismiss the horrors that some people face in their lives?
"Some"?...sure. What percent do you believe "some" are responsible for? 2%?...5%?...10%?...That leaves an awfully large amount of room for people who abuse the system, surely you can see this.
I agree, get drug tested as a condition of employment, get drug tested for money coming from those who are working.
I am conflicted about drug testing of welfare recipients. Part of me agrees with those who believe it is justified while another part hates to see government meddling in private affairs.
Maybe as a compromise if someone tests positive they must go into a program to get off drugs to receive government cheese?
As far as drug testing as a condition of employment I say hell no!!! it is not an employers business what you do in your free time as long as you can do your job.
Costs? Really? It costs almost noting to process a piss test for drugs. But on the other hand, you've been passionate about psychological testing for gun ownership, which if done to any decent degree would require interviews with expensive psychologists, resulting in huge costs for ownership and subjective outcomes.
If one can prevent mass murder of innocent civilians, the costs should be directed to that one.
How about we just stop aiding and abetting bad behavior and stop feeling bad about the fact that people have to face consequences for their poor life choices?
This is irrelevant. You are addressing a whole separate issue of "why do people make bad decisions"? That should be a whole different thread. Fact is, drugs are a big part of our culture, and the issue is what to do about welfare recipients and their drug use. If you are saying to let them rot, then I believe that would be more costly for taxpayers in the end.
I know; it's way too harsh to expect people of otherwise sound body and mind to actually not destroy their lives and become a burden on the rest of us. Sorry for even thinking that should be a reasonable expectation, or that there should be some shame attached to that.
Wow, such anger towards those that have demons. Why? Can you honestly dismiss the horrors that some people face in their lives? That we all didn't start out on the same level? You are highly intelligent....surely you can see the close-mindedness in this type of thinking. You are 100% correct that it is a burden on our society, but I believe you are directing your anger in the wrong direction.
I appreciate the well-stated and thoughtful response.
Where we differ (and I respect that we can accept those differences) is that you seem more willing than I to accept drug use while someone is dependent on the rest of us for sustenance.
I'm fine with drug use. But I believe each individual must be held to some standard of responsible use. That line is crossed when they become dependent on public assistance. Drugs may or may not be the cause of that fiscal dependency. But there is no way drug use can be helping while in that state. And there is no way we should allow even the possibility of that support being squandered on their drug habit.
Once they're off assistance, they can do as they please. While on it, higher standards should be imposed. Their demons are only fed by public policy that accepts bad choices.
[Edited on 6/21/2015 by Fujirich]
I saw this today and my head almost exploded. These are the same people that object to tougher background checks on gun control. Besides that, I object to drug testing for welfare for a couple of reasons. First, the cost probably negates anything positive.
Costs? Really? It costs almost noting to process a piss test for drugs. But on the other hand, you've been passionate about psychological testing for gun ownership, which if done to any decent degree would require interviews with expensive psychologists, resulting in huge costs for ownership and subjective outcomes.
Second, how will they get off drugs without any means for help? Should we deny them welfare, and create a tidal wave of addicts to hospitals....or courts and jails?
How about we just stop aiding and abetting bad behavior and stop feeling bad about the fact that people have to face consequences for their poor life choices? I know; it's way too harsh to expect people of otherwise sound body and mind to actually not destroy their lives and become a burden on the rest of us. Sorry for even thinking that should be a reasonable expectation, or that there should be some shame attached to that.
There are some people who would like to work, but there are too few jobs for all the people who need to work. Government and corporate Fiscal irresponsibility is not necessarily a poor life choice of a person. Here in NY there are 500 people applying for one job. The officials can claim unemployment is at 7% but that is not true, people just fall off the stats after 26 weeks and no longer count. The low paying' can't pay your mortgage or rent with that' jobs are already taken by minorities. There are not enough jobs for the amount of people who need them.
I'm sure rick was well meaning in his idea, right???
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/business/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicio/nLq8f/
I remember back in the 90's, in New York they started requiring finger imaging of welfare recipients for the sole purpose of combatting fraud. Needless to say this led to a major federal civil rights laws suit under section 1983. Fortunately it was eventually dismissed. It's stuff like that that made me begin to turn away from the left where I had spent my whole youth. The problem with entitlements is that too many people think they can have rights and no responsibilities.
I am against ANY drug testing, whether it be for a job or for welfare. Let me tell you about what I had to endure last week. Some here know, I'm a Respiratory Therapist in California. I work for a contract agency, not directly for any hospital.
Early this month, I sent my employer my Doctor's recommendation for medical marijuana via snail mail. Not something I want to land in a fax machine. My employer has been going with my Doctor's recommendation for several years and allowing me to work despite testing positive for marijuana every year for my annual test.
The following week one of the office employees at my company called me and said that they just realized that my annual drug test was overdue. Obviously this was in response to my Doctor's recommendation; that caused them to look at my file. THEY WERE NOT DOING THEIR JOB CORRECTLY They weren't properly monitoring their files; it shouldn't have taken me mailing that Doctor's recommendation to alert them that my annual drug test was overdue. I figured, hell, no big deal; I'll take the test, be positive for marijuana as always, and the Doctor's recommendation will cover me again. WRONG.
Fortunately I didn't run out and get the test done right away. That same week, on Friday, 6/12, one of the "higher-ups" at my company, Dave, who I rarely deal, with called me. I've only spoked to him once before. I knew we had merged with another staffing agency. He told me, "We have a different policy now. By the way, I have checked the law. The Supreme Court ruled that an employer can require a clean drug test regardless of what the laws are in that State. You've been a good employee for a long time. It takes 21 - 28 days to get it out of your system so I'll give you some time, but we require a clean drug test."
Despite the remark about being a good employee, his attitude and tone of voice was VERY demeaning. At one point he made a comment to the tune of, "If you want to smoke DOPE, go ahead." I wanted to punch the assh*le if I could have reached through the phone line but I kept my cool was very polite. He could have said "smoke marijuana" or "smoke pot". The word "dope" has obvious negative implications for me personally.
As it so happened, I had already abstained for two days prior to this phone call. I went to the local head shop only one mile down the road and bought a cleansing drink. I know they work because I've used them before. This particular one tells you to abstain from smoking for 48 hours before the test. Instead I increased my abstinence to five days and went in on Monday 6/15 and took the piss test. It worked, I passed. I wish I could have seen the look on Dave's face when he found out I had passed a drug test only three days after he had called me.
The following day I applied for another respiratory therapy job in San Francisco through another agency. They require a clean test as well. So on Friday 6/19, I had to buy another cleansing drink ($47 including tax both times, $94 total) and do the entire process all over again. I haven't heard anything from this second company, but because I used the same drink and abstained this time for three days, I assume I'll be negative again. They should have the results today, and I haven't heard anything yet, but no news is good news in this case.
This entire ordeal REALLY pisses me off. I'd like to tell Dave, "Are you drug testing your office employees? They're not doing their job." I really doubt they are testing them, after all, these people are sitting in an office, I'm out seeing patients. I'd also like to tell Dave, "Are you a certified Neonatal Resuscitation Provider?" Of course he's not, neither is anyone else who works in an office. I just had to renew that certification three months ago, it's due every two years. Trust me, it's a HARD fing class. It's how to resuscitate a newborn which cannot breath. And the marijuana smoker passed it just like he's been doing for 20 years. The office employees including Dave of course, do not even have to take it. Advanced Cardiac Life Support is another one I am required to have, another bucketload of information. It's how to resuscitate an adult, including medications, recognizing heart rhythms and when to defibrillate or do a cardioversion. That one's due in December.
Look, man. I admit I use marijuana for pleasure. SO FING WHAT?? It makes me happy. I also use it for very legitimate medical reasons. I have an abnormal heart rhythm and it calms it down. It relieves my hip and back pain. It enables me to relax after a grueling 12 hour shift working in a hospital, dealing with the sick and dying in stressful situations. It helps me sleep at night. I helps me deal with mental stress.
What they are basically telling me is that they are going to take away my right to be healthy and happy. I could be doing a bucketload of prescription drugs or a fifth of Jack Daniels every single night, and they wouldn't care.
LOOK: They can see my mental state at work. They can look at the quantity and quality of my work. They know if they're getting any complaints about me. They can see if I'm able to pass these stressful certification classes. THAT and that alone should be the criteria to judge me as an employee, NOT whether or not I smoke marijuana.
If I get on with this second company, I really cannot wait to put it in Dave's face. They contract with the same hospital that my current employer almost always sends me to. If I go there via another agency, my employer is losing around $25 for every hour that I work. If they ask me why I quit, I will tell them, "I didn't like Dave's attitude on the phone. The other company is requiring a clean test as well, but they didn't give me the attitude thrown in with it." And that's true.
If you allow this welfare drug testing, you're perpetuating this invasion of privacy. You want to check up on welfare recipients? Have them give proof of work search results. I mean, really have to prove that they are applying for jobs. Stay out of their personal lives They might have back problems, mental stress, or insomnia, too.
[Edited on 6/24/2015 by robslob]
If you allow this welfare drug testing, you're perpetuating this invasion of privacy.
With all respect; what about the property rights of those whose earnings are forced from them to support these people? I understand the privacy concern, but as important as it is, it doesn't hold a candle to someone's property being taken and used to "assist" others who can't control their behavior and personal choices while they are receiving public assistance.
How does one improve their chances of become self-sufficient and getting off the public dole while continuing their use of marijuana? How is it fair to those paying the way to have any portion of their contributions used to buy someone marijuana?
I'm perfectly fine with people using all they want, and overall I think it should be legal. But if you are otherwise able-bodied and able-minded, public money should not be used for such purposes. How is someone's privacy violated by having a govt worker examine the results of a test whose results remain in govt's files? They already know a 1,000x more than that about everything you do, so in the scheme of things, how does this matter?
If you allow this welfare drug testing, you're perpetuating this invasion of privacy.
With all respect; what about the property rights of those whose earnings are forced from them to support these people? I understand the privacy concern, but as important as it is, it doesn't hold a candle to someone's property being taken and used to "assist" others who can't control their behavior and personal choices while they are receiving public assistance.How does one improve their chances of become self-sufficient and getting off the public dole while continuing their use of marijuana? How is it fair to those paying the way to have any portion of their contributions used to buy someone marijuana?
I'm perfectly fine with people using all they want, and overall I think it should be legal. But if you are otherwise able-bodied and able-minded, public money should not be used for such purposes. How is someone's privacy violated by having a govt worker examine the results of a test whose results remain in govt's files? They already know a 1,000x more than that about everything you do, so in the scheme of things, how does this matter?
What if they're using it for legitimate medical reasons?
[Edited on 6/25/2015 by robslob]
For the life of me I do not understand why anyone would be against this.
For that matter, why anyone would be against having to show your drivers license or official id to vote.
Makes no sense whatsoever.
quote:
If you allow this welfare drug testing, you're perpetuating this invasion of privacy.
With all respect; what about the property rights of those whose earnings are forced from them to support these people? I understand the privacy concern, but as important as it is, it doesn't hold a candle to someone's property being taken and used to "assist" others who can't control their behavior and personal choices while they are receiving public assistance.How does one improve their chances of become self-sufficient and getting off the public dole while continuing their use of marijuana? How is it fair to those paying the way to have any portion of their contributions used to buy someone marijuana?
I'm perfectly fine with people using all they want, and overall I think it should be legal. But if you are otherwise able-bodied and able-minded, public money should not be used for such purposes. How is someone's privacy violated by having a govt worker examine the results of a test whose results remain in govt's files? They already know a 1,000x more than that about everything you do, so in the scheme of things, how does this matter?
What if they're using it for legitimate medical reasons?
Then they would disclose that and it wouldn't affect anything no?
For the life of me I do not understand why anyone would be against this.
For that matter, why anyone would be against having to show your drivers license or official id to vote.
Makes no sense whatsoever.
Because the cost of such programs exceeds any amount actually saved by preventing the misuse of public assistance dollars.
The positive test rate is usually around 10%, which is the same as the positive test rate for pre-employment, etc.
Mandating 10 tests on 10 people to isolate one of them isn't very cost-effective, and it's quite a hoot that the folks that cheer on these programs the most are always the ones carrying on about government waste.
