Florida Republican Rick Scott (who just in the six months he has been in office has managed to approach The Twenty-Seven Percent Solution(tm) on his approval numbers) has now put into place one of his more odious laws, random drug testing for all public assistance recipients (because they have to be criminals.)
Under the law, which went into effect on Friday, 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.
Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.
So why bother with this additional government regulation? Money, of course. Let’s recall Scott is in fact a Medicare fraudster of the highest order.
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. He subsequently sold his majority stake in the company, local media reported.
On May 18, the Florida Ethics Commission ruled that two conflict-of-interest complaints against Scott were legally insufficient to warrant investigation, and adopted an opinion that no “prohibited conflict of interest” existed.
No conflict of interest here, nope. But all Scott’s friends in the Florida medical services industry? Well, they just added a couple million drug tests a year to their balance sheets, and it’s a guaranteed revenue “stream” (if you’ll excuse the pun.) And even if 99% of the people they test are clean because they’re scared straight, the taxpayer gets to foot 99% of the bill. Lovely, huh? The more “effective” the program is, the greater the cost to taxpayers. I love it. LexCorp has nothing on this guy. Does it matter that a Michigan law that warranted the same testing was struck down in 2006 under fourth amendment issues? That was then. These days? Who knows?
But let’s stick it to the young bucks and the Cadillac Queens.
[UPDATE] And Mr. 29% here is already talking about how great his second term will be.
gnomedad
“Governor LexCorp” has a nice ring to it.
Amanda in the South Bay
Yay! The party of limited government into people’s personal lives strikes again!
Constance
This seems to be the year that we voters get everything we deserve and more. Thank you Fox propaganda and fairy-tale dreaming. The mind boggles.
c u n d gulag
@gnomedad,
“Governor Lex Luther” is more like it.
Phyllis
A number of my friends and family heve indicated they ‘like’ this on Facebook. Bet they’d be shocked if their circumstances became such that they would have to apply for assistance and have this rule applied to…them. Because if they were to apply, it’s because they really need it, dontchaknow.
gravie
Went to Wikipedia to try and find out how long this odious man has actually lived in Florida but I couldn’t tell. Whatever, it’s clear he doesn’t actually give a damn about the state or its people — it’s just a sweet moneymaking machine for him.
Maude
I think Gov. Christie of NJ is stiff competition for Lex.
I’d hate to see the portrait in his attic.
Xenos
Having worked as a welfare caseworker in Florida, let me assure you, poor people in Florida are often really poor. We are talking about deep, remote, hungry poverty. People will starve to death as a result of this policy, including children.
Valdivia
so this is extra money that the govt has to pay to a company that belongs to him but at the same time he is cutting programs that are needed with the excuse that there is no money in the State?
head.hits.desk.
Xenos
Christy’s portrait gets slimmer, more athletic, healthier and more beautiful the longer he lives.
Xenos
Christy’s portrait gets slimmer, more athletic, healthier and more beautiful the longer he lives.
JGabriel
Zandar @ Top:
One of these days, some conservative legal genius will assert in court — without any hint of irony — that poverty constitutes a probable cause for drug use.
.
rob!
I have to think this Legion of Doom-esque parade of batshit insane governors (Scott, Kasich, Walker, Christie, LePage, Corbett) is really going to help pave the way for Obama to be re-elected and maybe even the Dems to take back the house.
People are getting to see, up close, how fucking awful these Republicans are, and if the voters can’t vote them out directly, that anger will inspire them to vote against all Republicans.
At least, that’s what I hope.
Linda Featheringill
And how much do these drug tests cost? By the time most people get down to applying for TANF benefits, they have very little in cash.
Solantic charges 35.00.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html
And what’s this “recoup the cost in their assistance” nonsense? Is the first check going to include something extra to cover drug testing? Or did somebody actually think you might have a little left over from welfare benefits?
Idiots.
Southern Beale
Being poor is not a crime. Seeking help is not a crime.
I really fail to see how this law can survive a court challenge. Is anyone suing?
Linda Featheringill
Southern Beale #14
But being too poor to pay for drug testing might become a capital crime.
Southern Beale
And speaking of governors with a conflict of interest, Tennessee’s governor, whose family business is the country’s largest privately held chain of trust stops, travel centers & gas stations, has joined 14 other governors in asking the EPA to halt implementation of the new higher CAFE standards. Shocker!
Interestingly, the governor’s shares in Pilot Oil were left out of his blind trust. Nope, nothing to see here … move along …
(I blogwhored this downthread, sorry).
boss bitch
So if you fail the drug test you can assign someone else to accept the money for your children? hmmmm. Does that person also have to take a drug test?
Ben Cisco
@ rob!: THIS.
__
Just hope the number of people who get pissed off outnumber the ones who get off on this.
Southern Beale
Also in awful governors: Hugh Hewitt interviews Gov. Kasich of Ohio where he brags about how awesome all the damage he’s done to Ohio is.
JGabriel
Southern Beale:
I strongly suspect that for anyone who can afford to sue, Scott / Florida will assert that they don’t have standing — since they’re not drug users who were turned down for welfare. And they’ll demand to know who’s paying for lawyers to defend welfare for drug addicts.
Scott and his lawyers will play this ugly, very ugly.
.
Maude
Xenos, Thank you.
I read the line item veto that Christie did on the state budget.
It seems that poor people are guilty until proven innocent.
I have never seen anything like this.
It’s beyond cruelty.
He is removing $15 from cash assistance. The regular cash assistance is $140. The disabled cash assistance is $210, except if you get housing, they take out 65% of the cash from the disabled. That %15 will leave those disabled people with $59 per month. You pay utilities out of that, plus other day to day items.
The high point is that in order to get Any cash assistance if you are disabled, you must have been disabled for 6 months.
Someone who has no money and is applying for Social Security Disability, which usually takes over 2 years, is up a creek. You can’t buy toilet paper.
There are other provisions that are awful.
This really upset me and I don’t think I can handle this type of ideology.
I see no solution in NJ.
Edit, hit wrong key.
jimmraybob
At the very least there will be a standard failure rate for the test itself. Some people will receive false positives and be forever stained.
jrg
I hate drug tests as much as anyone. I think they should be illegal for everyone.
…but how is this any different than the state drug testing a state employee? Why should someone who’s not working for a paycheck have more rights than someone who is?
danimal
Forcing TANF applicants to pay for the test (even if they get reimbursed) will never pass the courts, so this requirement won’t live long. I work in the welfare system, and I’m convinced that the GOP just wants to make life as miserable as possible for poor people. They get joy out of it, somehow.
Bastards.
gocart mozart
That is true JGabriel @#20. This is a job for the ACLU. Lets all hope they take it on and I bet they will.
[How come everyone gets a reply button ‘cept me? FYWP!]
JGabriel
Southern Beale:
What’s a trust stop? Is this a typo for truck stop, or some new service/store I’ve never heard of ’cause I live in a city and don’t drive?
Please respond. I ask in true perplexity.
.
Southern Beale
Because government assistance to buy food & shelter is not “a paycheck.” You don’t HAVE to work for the state. You can get another job.
People who need food stamps shouldn’t be treated like criminals.
Idiot.
Southern Beale
@JGabriel –
TRUCK stop. Sorry. I’ve got a goddamn sinus infection. Sorry for the typo.
jrg
Really? It’s free?
You could say the EXACT same thing about welfare recipients. That’s my point.
Neither should employees. That’s also my fucking point.
For someone who can’t formulate a reasonable counter-argument, you sure talk a lot of trash.
Linda Featheringill
Southern Beale #27
Sinus infection broke my typewriter.
:-)
Scott
Southern Beale:
I’m kinda betting that if the ACLU sues, they’ll be next on the right-wing target list for elimination, if they’re not already. They can’t cut off federal funding, but some enterprising wingnut governor will have his minions make membership illegal, and the Supreme Court will smile and shrug and say they can’t see anything wrong with that…
WereBear
I, too, ran across Facebook folks who think this is a great thing. I don’t jump into such frays on Facebook because the linking would spread my thoughts across a network that includes my employment, touchy relatives (who know where I stand) and just about anyone with a Facebook account.
But I have privately pointed out the Governor’s vested interest in having taxpayers pay for such; and they look at it differently, then.
Those without such Facebook contraints, feel free to link the abundant, and local, sources who point this out; apparently to no avail.
harlana
Well, you can’t just go and outright murder the poor and unemployed in broad daylight! We prefer elimination by degrees because we want the suffering to last for a long time before they die. You’re welcome.
The Republican Party
Judas Escargot
@rob!
You’re assuming the votes will get counted.
Linda Featheringill
jrg #28
If I grant that testing of employees might well be unfair and indefensible, will you listen to me a moment?
When people reach the point of applying for TANF, they have already gone through most of their options. Yes, they are desperate. No, they frequently don’t have other legal options.
Can you agree to that?
Quarks
@Linda Featheringill – In theory, Florida will send you a reiumbursement check if you pass the drug test. That assumes, of course, that you or someone you know can come up with the money for the drug test in the first place.
Now, if the rule is, the drug test is free, but if you fail it, you’ll need to pay whatever, that might be a bit different – although I have no idea how that would get enforced, and I’d think that losing benefits if you fail a drug test would be enough of a financial punishment right there.
cathyx
@32. harlana-
No, what they want them to do is move to another state.
Southern Beale
LOL. No, just made me too lazy to fix typos. I’ve always been a lousy typist.
WereBear
Got it in one. Even as a child, growing up there, I noticed that the people who run Florida would prefer it as a land full of tourists, ridiculously expensive houses, and only enough downtrodden actual residents to clean the first two.
It’s still like that. And it’s not even considered the Old South.
JGabriel
Linda Featheringill:
Don’t mock. It’s mean. If Southern Beale has to type with his/her nose, it must mean he/she’s a double hand amputee. It’s not nice to make fun of that. I can’t even imagine how uncomfortable and messy nose-typing must be with a sinus infection. Well okay, I can, but I don’t want to. I mean, the keyboard … eww.
.
Judas Escargot
@jrg
Hopefully they’ll starve to death now, so as not to offend anyone’s tender feelings in the future.
BTW, I suspect the Founders would have been horrified at the notion of your employer being able to demand your urine or hair-clippings at will. I’m sure Rand Paul and the other Teabagger Originalists will be making their condemnation speeches any day now.
gelfling545
Every time I saw a picture of Scott I it reminded me of someone I just could not quite place. Watching a movie with my granddaughter last night, I placed it. He looks like Lord Voldemort!
jrg
Linda:
For the most part, but not entirely. I’ve done some volunteer work with a family that left me with the impression that some people have other options, but are working the system.
Sometimes other options are available, but I don’t think that unemployment would reach 0% if everyone went aggressively looking for a job… So, it certainly true that some people lack any other legal recourse.
I really do think drug tests should be illegal across the board. I’m playing devil’s advocate here. Partly because I want to see what people will say, but also because I wonder what would happen if Florida somehow made welfare recipients employees of the state to get around any problems that might arise.
Mark S.
I would like to think that even a couple members of the Roberts Five might think this was unconstitutional, but they’ll probably use this case to declare all welfare programs violate the Tenth Amendment or some bullshit.
Linda Featheringill
jrg #42
Hmm. That idea is new to me. It might be worth thinking about.
Linda Featheringill
jgabriel #39
Hee-hee. You’re so bad!
Mudge
Why am I cynical enough to think that there will be far more failed tests than anyone would guess and that the person who “failed” will have no recourse to an inexpensive appeal. I believe this will be used unethically as a way to lower cost. We will see that the total cost of the testing for those who pass will be greatly exceeded by the savings generated due to he much lower number receiving aid.
Dennis SGMM
@jrg
Seems to me that your question might lead to “My paycheck is way bigger than yours so I have more rights than you do.” While that door has already been opened by the Supremes it doesn’t seem wise to further the notion that wealth=worth.
Zandar
You know, I’d like to see state drug testing required for any contractor that receives state money for privatization of a state service. You know, like the people who are running these state drug tests.
Including the CEOs.
Only fair. We don’t want taxpayer money going to drug use.
Southern Beale
@jrg:
Oh yes, little known fact: ONLY POOR WELFARE RECIPIENTS EVER GAME THE SYSTEM! Certainly wealthy Wall Street capitalists and Governors responsible for the largest Medicare fraud case in U.S. history — so big that the company had to actually CHANGE ITS NAME to get past the stink — are never, EVER trying to game the system.
I’m sorry, but you’re still an idiot.
jrg
Southern Beale, you’re a moron. Either address my argument, or fuck off. I never said there aren’t parasites on Wall Street.
Edit: I like Zandar’s proposal. That makes sense to me.
rob!
@Judas Escargot:
Well, I know there’s going to be a certain amount of voter chichanery on the part of the Republicans; that’s a given. I just hope the numbers are so big (like 2008) that no amount of Voting While Black or Voting While Poor shit they pull will stop the Dems from winning again.
Mnemosyne
Yes, because if a few people are working the system, that means that everyone in the system must be treated as though they’re guilty of it.
I can’t even picture how Florida would be able to make that legal. Crappy though their labor laws are, there are labor laws in Florida, and they would have a very, very hard time making the case that a 6-year-old on food stamps is a state employee.
ETA: Though Republicans are trying to eliminate child labor laws, so who knows? Maybe someday that 6-year-old will be helping you at the DMV to pay back their food stamps.
ETA #2: And if they were employees, wouldn’t they have to receive minimum wage by federal law? How would you calculate their hours?
Lojasmo
@jrg #22
It isn’t much different. As you yourself assert, it should be illegal for everybody.
Now that I am done feeding the troll, I shall toddle along.
Edit: anecdotes, which lead to “impressions” are not data, and do not reflect fact. They usually just enforce bias.
PurpleGirl
Referencing gocart mozart @ #24: Has the Reply button returned?
I don’t have them. Is it a Flash function — I have Flash blocker on.
WereBear
@Southern Beale: Exactly.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the person is being a “devil’s advocate” I think they are being a troll: since they brought up a conservative favorite: Better a hundred children die of malnutrition lest one parent game the system!
Southern Beale
@jrg –
I am addressing your argument, which has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. You’re just too stupid to get it.
You’re making the typical wingnut straw man argument, basing your agument on a flawed premise. People on public assistance are not the same as employees. You can conceivably get another job. If you need government assistance for food and shelter which are the necessities of life, then you really don’t have other options. I already explained that earlier.
To everyone else: we in Nashville are very familiar with Rick Scott.
jrg
You could say that. Or you could read the article, which states:
“Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.”
Southern Beale
Keep in mind, I’m making the legal argument here, why drug testing government employees might pass the legal test but drug testing those on public assistance would not. Personally I don’t think anyone should be drug tested but we lost that debate long ago.
Here’s an idea, let’s just have a check station at the Florida state line and drug test everyone. That should make Rick Scott happy. Of course, former Gov. Jeb Bush’s kids might not pass …
Mnemosyne
Also, too, I see that jrg is fully embracing the “crabs in a bucket” method of social change: if it sucks that state employes have to get drug tests, let’s not try to get that changed, let’s just make sure that everyone else who gets state money has to get one, too!
Because nothing solves a problem faster than making it affect people with zero political power.
Southern Beale
No, at least, I don’t have it ….
jrg
I’m glad we agree on something. It’s absurd and deeply offensive to me that my employer thinks they have the right to tell me what I can and can’t do when I’m not working.
If I do my job, I do it well, and I show up on time, whether or not I smoke a joint when I get home is not their concern, particularly when I’ve noticed far more trouble with heavy drinkers than anyone else.
My problem with the argument that people on government assistance not get drug tested is the double standard it implies.
ruemara
oh Southern Beale this is fucking America. Being poor has always been a crime. Even when America was just an outgrowth of Europe. We just stopped prosecuting it because everyone realized they weren’t actually rich. Now, we’re all just millionaires in waiting and the poor are gonna pay for fucking things up for us.
Southern Beale
@jrg
Yes but we’ve already established that you’re an idiot. There is no double standard. You made it up. You think because something is paid for out of MAH TAX DOLLAHS that somehow this changes things. It’s not where the money comes from that’s the issue. For that matter, let’s drug test everyone at a company that contracts with the government, since it’s MAH TAX DOLLAHS paying for that contract. I mean jesus, get over it.
Southern Beale
And now I’m going to take my sinus infection and crawl back to bed and await more in-laws for another glorious day.
This has been the worst holiday weekend ever.
jrg
Beale, maybe I am an idiot, but I’m not so stupid as to waste the remainder of my day making the same points to you over, and over, and over again.
Enjoy your weekend.
Edit: sorry to hear you’re not feeling well. I hope you get better soon.
FLRealist
Governor Voldemort has done his level best to destroy Florida in the short time he’s been in office. What I find amusing is no one around me, including the die-hard Republicans I work with, will admit they voted for him now. They hem and haw around the question.
He ran on a “jobs” platform yet he’s cost the state good paying jobs (high speed rail) and the few jobs that have been created are low paying service jobs no one can live on. I’ve lived in Central Florida for 28 years and I’ve never seen it so bad here.
I can’t wait for 2014 when we can get rid of this idiot.
Villago Delenda Est
Do not overlook the very likely outcome that everyone who is submitted to this test will fail.
Scott’s company has zero integrity. Like Scott.
Kyle
The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening
Just to make it more odious.
“Piss in this cup or you get nothing. If you pass we’re taking $40 off your paltry benefits to pay for it.”
RSA
The end of the linked article has this from Scott:
Oddly enough, I think he has a reasonable argument, in the sense that it’s hard to see anything he’s done as not having been predictable. Maybe he didn’t say explicitly that he’d destroy Florida the way he’s doing, but it’s only the scope, not the direction, that’s at all surprising.
Linda Featheringill
Gaming the system:
A book was published several years ago, “Making Ends Meet,” about single welfare mothers and what they did to exist.
As it happened all the moms but one managed some other source of income [honorable endeavors but illegal]. One mother lived off of what she got in welfare and when that ran out, she are her kids did without. In the last chapter of the book, we learn that the “legal” mother was having her kids taken away from her because she wasn’t providing for their basic needs.
Would you do something illegal to take care of your children? I have stolen in order to feed my child. Didn’t like it but there are you.
What would you do?
licensed to kill time
@gocart mozart
Only those Balloon Juicers who have paid for and passed the mandatory drug test decreed by Governor Cole will receive a reply button in the mail.
Thus it was written.
Cacti
I must disagree with Rick Scott as the country’s worst governor.
Compared to Jan Brewer, he’s Marcus Aurelius.
Beauzeaux
On gaming the system:
I’ve had personal experience of being very poor. I promise you that if you DON’T game the system in some way, you will perish. The numbers are clear, you’re expected to live on less money than it would take to keep a gerbil alive. If you don’t do some “off the books” work or some other minor hustle, you will not eat.
The Spy Who Loved Me
I don’t really have an objection to the drug test, I just object to the state requiring the applicant to pay for it. If the state paid for the testing, I think it would be fairly reasonable. After all, if you need state aid to feed your children, you really shouldn’t be blowing whatever money you do have on drugs.
WereBear
@Linda Featheringill: That is so sad.
I apologize to jrg for false accusations, if so: my upsettedness is that you are arguing from a misplaced standpoint. If the system is screwed up, then people can comply with the spirit of the law (we don’t want people to starve) rather than its letter. And that is the fault of the system, which doesn’t need this stupid punitive expensive proviso tacked onto it.
Beeb
Actually, Scott signed an executive order that required all state employees to submit to random drug testing. He suspended it when the ACLU sued.
As for drug testing by private employers, I agree that it’s an invasion of privacy. But it isn’t unconstitutional because there’s no state action. Private employers can do a whole bunch of stuff that governments can’t. Is that a double standard? It may seem that way, but the Constitution was designed to protect citizens again government, not private actors. That’s why it took legislation to forbid employment discrimination in the private sector.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
i think the race to be the worst governor, and worst gop governor is wide open. its a large field and i don’t see much separation.
Hal
I’m confused. I was under the impression it was illegal to perform random drug screening on public employees because it violates the 4th Amendment, which is also why it’s illegal to require drug tests for people on public assistance.
http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-12-3-24.html
Hal
PS…I find it hilarious how all of these GOP superstar Governors are falling flat so quickly. Especially the pompous blowhard Christie, who was heralded as the savior of the GOP. But hey, this is what the people wanted. Big Government bad, poor people bad, taxes on the wealthy bad. Let’s hope enough people wake up for the 2012 elections.
Cacti
Unless your governor was willing to let 6 organ transplant recipients die in the name of $1.4 million in austerity cuts, your horse is vying for second place.
Between that, SB-1070, and “headless bodies in the desert” Jan Brewer is the Secretariat of today’s bad governors.
Southern Beale
@RSA:
Agree, though the “I ran on this, this is what I was elected to do” argument we’re hearing from GOP governors like Rick Scott and Wisconsin’s Walker is totally beside the point. For one thing, he was barely elected. The election was razor thin. When Republicans win they always seem to have this attitude that they’re leader of the people who voted for them, not the leader of everyone. We saw this with Bush and that’s basically what the “this is what I ran on” argument is saying. It’s a “losers weepers” attitude that Democrats can NEVER get away with.
Imagine if Obama and the Dems had said, “hey tough shit if you don’t like healthcare reform YOU LOST THE FUCKING ELECTION”? Non stop screaming about how he’s the president of ALL the people, not just the people who voted for him. But, IOKIYAR.
Anyway, I’m over Florida. It was a close election, it’s Florida which means the election was probably rigged in a bunch of precincts, same old story. But he’s taking his marbles and going “nyah nyah nyah” because he can. Fuck ’em I haven’t been in that state in 8 years and I don’t plan to go any time soon. They need to wake the fuck up and maybe having Gov. Lex Luthor is what the doctor ordered.
Citizen_X
Scott. Brewer. Christie. What the hell, people, can’t Rick Perry get any love? I mean, come on, SECESSION! PRAY FOR RAIN! Let’s everybody get together and PRAY AWAY THE GAY!
OK, it is all a bunch of arm-waving and posturing, so he’s not as actively bad as, say, Brewer, but that’s the Texas Governorship: you don’t really get to do a lot.
(Besides, the GOP also has Walker and Kasich. Their abysmal-Governor bench is deep, dude.)
Cacti
I hold no hope that the toxic, overtly racist, political environment here in Arizona is going to change any time in the next decade. I’m also old enough to know that lil ol’ me isn’t going to make it change. I’m also not a native so I don’t feel compelled to stay here and swim against the tide.
My plan is to leave as soon as a good opportunity presents itself.
adolphus
@66 FLRealist: It could very well be that few of your coworkers actually voted for Rick. The victory margin was only 1.6% with neither candidate winning a majority of votes. And while turnout was up, it was still in the low 40’s of registered voters, which puts it in the 30’s or lower for all eligible Florida voters. So in actuality very few Floridians actually voted for Scott.
The story here is who showed up at the polls and who did not. Obama supporters from 2008 did not. Tea Partiers did. Your co-workers embarrassment could be based on the fact that they did not in fact vote (which couldn’t be easier in Florida with absentee ballots and early voting) and they allowed Governor Voldemort to gain power through sheer laziness.
And considering the new voter suppression legislation that is how the Republicans here in Florida like, want it, and are working to make sure it happens. This is historically how politics in Florida has always worked; through systemic disenfranchisement.
Felonious Wench
I have been thanking God for this since the man took office.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
@80 cacti
i would say, changing “fuck the schools” into “fuck the poor”, while preserving the tax-free, liability free environment on the fracking of our natural resources, so that we can compete with non-existent competition, gets that horse out of the gate and a great spot on the inside rail.
BR
Of course the only easily detectable drug is Cannabis, which is less harmful than Alcohol. Meanwhile Scott has no interest in shutting down the prescription farms in Florida that are giving out opiates like candy and fueling an opiate epidemic across the East:
The oxycontin express
Cassidy
This also counts for people like me, who will most likely spend a little bit of time on unemployment as we transition to a new career. I think I’l have to go in wearing my Class A’s (every time) and make people as uncomfortable as possible.
Caz
Someone explain to me why we shouldn’t be concerned if people receiving free money from the govt (which ultimately comes directly from us, the working folks who pay taxes) are using that money to support their addiction.
Should be help subsidize unemployed drug addicts with taxpayer money? If we were forcing them to take the money, then yeah, it would be a privacy issue. But since they aren’t forced to take it, and are actually requesting free handouts, why shouldn’t we test them to ensure that the money isn’t going to be misused for drugs?
I don’t understand why liberals are ok with people taking taxpayers’ money and using it to buy drugs. Can anyone help me understand you’re thinking on this one?
And I’m not trying to be sarcastic or polemic – I’m asking a serious question. So for a change, I will keep this thread minimized so I can check back on responses to my question. It seems like an issue that everyone, R’s and D’s would agree on. But clearly that is not the case and I don’t understand why.
JenJen
@Caz: I’ll take a stab at this.
A positive drug test isn’t conclusive proof that the person who failed the test is a drug addict. In the case of certain drugs (marijuana especially), a positive drug test isn’t even proof that the person is currently using.
It also can’t be proven that public assistance is going directly to the purchase of drugs. A full-blown opiate addict, for example, is going to need a helluva lot more money a day than any kind of public assistance can provide.
And, if the law also provides for a designated appointee to receive the assistance instead of the applicant who failed the drug test, there’s no reason to believe that the money won’t eventually go toward the purchase of drugs, right? Drug test or no, the end result is the same.
Oh, and what about booze? Just sayin’.
In the simplest terms, this law is dumb because it is ineffective and unnecessary, and it disproportionately punishes the poor while enriching companies that administer these useless drug tests.
The Spy Who Loved Me
@JenJen:
It doesn’t matter whether the person requesting assistance is an addict or not. Even casual pot use requires money to purchase it. Caz’s point seems to be that you shouldn’t be taking taxpayer money to feed your family when you seem to have money to purchase drugs. Which is more important, getting high or feeding your hungry children? It’s all a matter of priorities.
As long as the person requesting assistance doesn’t have to pay for the drug test themselves, I don’t have a problem with it. Since it’s a state requirement, the state should pay for the testing. And, if people know that they won’t get the money if they fail a drug test, don’t you think that such a law might help to discourage drug use?
sparky
here are some more responses to the question.
briefly, your question assumes a fantasy world where if one tree is imperfect the forest should be chopped down.
the program is to support people in need. that is, it is a grant to people who, for reasons that are considered valid within the program constraints, will receive public funds. that, and not drug testing, is its purpose. consequently, there has to be a reason to add this requirement of drug testing. by this i mean only that that it will be effective, for if not, why institute it? for the program to be effective, one of these must be true: either (1) a majority of public assistance recipients are drug abusers OR (2) that it is more important for all (including the taxpayers) that the recipients be drug free than that they receive money. let’s assume you are speaking in good faith, and since there is no evidence for (1), let’s look at #2. here is a short, partial list of reasons that #2 is an error in both logic and experience.
a. as noted above, since most people receiving grants are not drug users, this program seeks to catch SOME abusive types by penalizing ALL people. since we already know that there is no reason to assume that a majority, much less all aid recipients are drug abusers, there is no logic behind testing all so as to discover some fraction. if it were otherwise, all people in the US could be tested so as to discover who the addicts are amongst the general population, as every resident of the country benefits from taxes.
b. it also assumes that the cost of forcing all recipients is worth it so as to “catch” the drug users. but how does anyone know that is so? suppose it turns out that it costs more to administer the tests than it does to simply let some people slip through the system, so to speak. is that a useful way to spend tax dollars? to answer yes, then you must believe that it is more important to catch cheaters than to help people because the money spent on punitive measures will come out of the same program and as a result fewer people will be helped. at that point, you have turned a helping program into a punitive one.
c. the question also assumes that someone who is a drug addict is, ipso facto, not in need of food and shelter. being an addict does not magically remove human wants. in other words, even if the person is an addict they may still need help. taking the money away does not take away the need.
d. if they are truly addicts, all that testing will do is ensure that they don’t take the test. it is a fantasy to think that somehow, magically, a person who is addicted to drugs will stop because they are faced with a drug test.
thus, as a practical matter, the only people helped by such a measure are the people who profit from the testing.
as a philosophical issue, the ultimate thrust of all these points is straightforward: the question presupposes a world of stark good and bad, where it is always possible to know whether someone is good or bad, that bad people deserve to die, and that it is more important to deny aid to all because one may err. that, sir, is at bottom, nothing more than, to paraphrase Mencken, the fear that someone, somewhere, may be getting away with something.
Shaw also mocked this kind of thinking:
What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything.
Pygmalion, Act II.
TG Chicago
Sorry if this was already covered, but Zandar refers to “random drug testing” while the quoted article refers to “required drug testing”. I thought the drug testing was indeed required for all applicants, and thus even more expensive than random drug testing would be. No?
Also, more info on all the reasons this is a bad idea:
http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility
bago
Someone should simply introduce a bill that requires the executives and board of directors for every company doing business with the state of Florida should also undergo drug tests. The rhetoric would be something along the lines of :
“Unlike food stamp recipients, whose decisions are generally limited to the flavor of ramen they want, Executives have a lot of power over jobs creation, the state of the economy, and political expenditures. Give how important these functions are, it is vital that the State of Florida ensure that they are of sound mind, it is in the interest of state to ensure that they are drug free.”
JenJen
@The Spy Who Loved Me: Maybe you wouldn’t have a problem with drug tests for assistance applicants program so long as the state paid for the tests instead of the applicant. Personally, I’d find that program just as useless, ineffective and wasteful. But that’s not the program we’re talking about here.
AAA Bonds
This was passed to provoke a publicity-heavy court battle since it will certainly be overturned.
More wasting of taxpayer dollars for the purposes of political campaigning.
Stan of the Sawgrass
Hey, what can you expect when you give somebody like Scott his very first government job, and it’s Guberner of a pretty major state? He’s just the worst of a crop of incompetents who were swept into office (over VERY competent opponents) due to “Obama Fatigue.” One member of the (outnumbered) state Dem. caucus says he gets up thinking, “Well, who are we going to screw today?”
For more recent fiscal stupidity/corruption, read this, from today’s Miami Herald:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/02/2296976/scott-cuts-money-for-vets-kids.html
‘Scott cuts money for vets, kids, but not lobbyist.’
jon
So how much does it cost for a rural, homebound, disabled person to get an approved drug-testing agency to come to their shack and collect some urine? And suppose they do get medicine? What happens when the drug test comes back with the information that they’re on… what they’re prescribed? I don’t want to speculate on the false positives that come up with all the drug tests that cost a fraction of what accurate tests would cost, but I wonder who is going to be in charge of the government database that holds all the information regarding all the medicine all those welfare recipients are getting? Can anyone imagine the HIPAA violations that will be happening? This has graft, illegality, legal clusterfuck, venal, evil, and stupid written all over it.
And that’s before I look at it from a Constitutional perspective.
Also, too: I’m a state employee. Got tested when I accepted the job and once when I got a promotion. They don’t want to know, but they also don’t want to pay to find out.
Smedley the uncertain
Reply hasn’t worked for me in over a week even though your gazillion java scripts are enabled.
Doses save the energy of entering the fray though.
S