Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

radarmonkey

Let's go Brandon
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
2,839
Reaction score
2,521
Location
Edmond, Ok
I'm sure there will be multiple legal challenges to this new law down in Florida, but as much as I hate to admit it, I'm glad they are trying this.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/01/florida.welfare.drug.testing/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) -- Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.

"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."

Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, 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.

Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state's congressional delegation issued a joint statement attacking the legislation, one calling it "downright unconstitutional."

"Governor Scott's new drug testing law is not only an affront to families in need and detrimental to our nation's ongoing economic recovery, it is downright unconstitutional," said Rep. Alcee Hastings. "If Governor Scott wants to drug test recipients of TANF benefits, where does he draw the line? Are families receiving Medicaid, state emergency relief, or educational grants and loans next?"

Rep. Corrine Brown said the tests "represent an extreme and illegal invasion of personal privacy."

"Indeed, investigating people when there is probable cause to suspect they are abusing drugs is one thing," Brown said in the joint statement. "But these tests amount to strip searching our state's most vulnerable residents merely because they rely on the government for financial support during these difficult economic times."

Joining in the statement denouncing the measure were Democratic Reps. Kathy Castor, Ted Deutch and Frederica Wilson.

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.

Also on Tuesday, Scott also signed a measure outlawing hallucinogenic designer drugs known as "bath salts."

"The chemical substances found in 'bath salts' constitute a significant threat to health and public safety," the governor's office said in a statement. "Poison control centers in Florida have reported 61 calls of 'bath salts' abuse, making Florida the state with the second-highest volume of calls."

The drugs "are readily available at convenience stores, discount tobacco outlets, gas stations, pawnshops, tattoo parlors, and truck stops, among other locations," the governor's office said.
 

LightningCrash

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,886
Reaction score
105
Location
OKC
Google avoiding tens of billions in taxes: *yawn*


Poor people might be on drugs and welfare: Stick it to them! Gotta save the taxpayer money! Freedom! USA! USA!
 

inactive

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,158
Reaction score
903
Location
I.T.
Ok I'll bite.

I don't like it

It supports prohibition and encourages the government to continue it's nonsensical War On Drugs™. IMHO it's really more an attempt to fuel to that fire than it is some halfhearted attempt to save money (or people, for that matter). That war wastes FAR more money than this joke of legislation will save.

I would rather strip the benefits down, or beef the needs qualification up, rather than start some state-required drug testing program.
 

inactive

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,158
Reaction score
903
Location
I.T.
Sounds good to me. It's the same as taking a drug test for a normal job, IMHO.

I don't buy into that either. Someone's work performance can be entirely independent of their off-work habits. If it isn't, I have fired many a screw-up junkie because of their performance, not specifically because I confirmed they used.
 

Biggsly

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
11,470
Reaction score
1,327
Location
West OKC

ripnbst

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
46
Location
Spring, TX
I think its a good thing. People who are on drugs don't need to be getting tax dollars. If you can perform sex acts or barter for drugs you can perform sex acts or barter for a can of corn.
 

grizzly97

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
0
Location
Tulsa
I don't buy into that either. Someone's work performance can be entirely independent of their off-work habits. If it isn't, I have fired many a screw-up junkie because of their performance, not specifically because I confirmed they used.

I see your viewpoint. How about this angle then...To get welfare, you do not have to provide a service (like you do to get a check from a job). So, if they are getting money for free, why not have some strings attached. What I'm trying to say is, if you want money for free, then you have to show proof you aren't doing something illegal with it.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom