Florida Legislation Requires Drug Tests for Welfare Benefits - Polidicks

[QUOTE=CNN](CNN) -- Florida Gov. Rick Scott on Sunday defended recent legislation that requires adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screenings, saying the law provides "personal accountability." "It's not right for taxpayer money to be paying for somebody's drug addiction," Scott told CNN's T.J. Holmes on Sunday. "On top of that, this is going to increase personal responsibility, personal accountability. We shouldn't be subsidizing people's addiction." But the ACLU of Florida, which has already filed suit against Scott over a measure requiring government employees to undergo random drug testing, disagrees, and may sue over the welfare law as well. "What (Scott) is doing is giving ugly legitimacy to an unfortunate stereotype that has been in this country for a couple of decades -- that all welfare recipients are a bunch of drug abusers," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida. Scott told CNN he wants to ensure that welfare funds go to their primary target -- to disadvantaged children -- and provide people with an incentive not to use drugs. He signed the measure on June 1, calling it "the right thing for taxpayers." 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, and do not receive a refund for the test. 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?" "I work for the ACLU, and it's our job to prevent trampling on the constitutional rights of people," Simon said. The Constitution mandates that searches cannot be conducted without probable cause, he said. 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. Asked about the company Sunday, Scott said he is in the process of selling his family's interest in the company and "it will be sold in a couple of weeks." There is no conflict of interest, he said. 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. On the measure requiring public employees to undergo drug testing, Simon noted that public employees -- workers in city, county, state and federal government -- are protected by the Constitution and should not undergo "intrusive" drug testing without probable cause to believe a person is using drugs.[/QUOTE] Source and Video: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/05/florida.welfare.drug.testing/index.html?hpt=hp_t1[/url] Please let this catch on elsewhere. This should have been a part of the welfare process from the very start. The only negative I see to this is to children of addicts, but the addition of this helps: [QUOTE]Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children[/QUOTE]

About time this happened.

I've seen this before, seems like a good idea to me, but I've also heard that doing this might result in drug-users resorting to crime/violence to get money for their fix. Sounds plausible. I'd also just like to bring up that this guy owns a drug-screening firm of his own. ( or at least his wife does now). Shady if you ask me [url]http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html[/url]

Republicans finally do something I agree with. I don't see what's wrong with peeing in a cup to make sure my tax money is being used to help you mooch off the system. Drug tests take like a week tops to process too so it's not like these people have to wait a few more months for free money.

My favorite excuse to this, and why someone thought it was a bad idea. "It makes Welfare recipients look like potential criminals." By that logic, my first job thought I was a potential criminal. By that logic, the Air Force thought I was a potential criminal. There's honestly nothing wrong with this. It's a bigger invasion of privacy to have to do it at a military processing center while twenty guys stare at you.

Seems like a way to demonise drug addicts. Simply imposing mandatory drug testings for the addicted won't help, they have to help them get rid of their addictions, otherwise the addicts will suffer from mental illness due to their addiction not being satisfied.

I'd just like to bring up that this guy owns a drug-screening firm of his own. ( or at least his wife does now). Shady if you ask me [url]http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html[/url]

Great!

I can't really see this saving any money. I can see it making some people homeless.

If someones addicted to a substance like heroin, and government programs are their only legitimate source of income all this is going to do is make them resort to criminal alternatives.

I think this is a great idea.

what exactly is the purpose of this? to continue the war on drugs?

[QUOTE=Pepin;30272676]I can't really see this saving any money. I can see it making some people homeless.[/QUOTE] My uncle had a drug problem, and yet he was able to continue collecting welfare. It lasted for almost ten years until he OD'd last Christmas and died from it. If anything, it will help save more people from drug addictions.

[QUOTE=thisispain;30272715]what exactly is the purpose of this? to continue the war on drugs?[/QUOTE] To keep people from using taxpayer money on drugs? To literally provide a monetary incentive to stay away from drugs? It all seems brutally obvious, to be honest

If it's enough to satisfy the assholes who want to get rid of welfare, and enough to stop the assholes who abuse it, then this is good.

[QUOTE=Canesfan;30272756]To keep people from using taxpayer money on drugs? To literally provide a monetary incentive to stay away from drugs? It all seems brutally obvious, to be honest[/QUOTE] there's plenty of incentives to stay away from drugs if the idea really is letting people stay off of drugs, then why doesn't the government fund rehab centers and decriminalize drugs?

[QUOTE=thisispain;30272715]what exactly is the purpose of this? to continue the war on drugs?[/QUOTE] to keep people from welfare from spending it all on drugs instead of actual living expenses, which is what welfare is for [QUOTE=Biotoxsin;30272678]If someones addicted to a substance like heroin, and government programs are their only legitimate source of income all this is going to do is make them resort to criminal alternatives.[/QUOTE] as if hardcore drug addicts are 100% peaceful, law abiding citizens otherwise

[QUOTE=thisispain;30272793]there's plenty of incentives to stay away from drugs if the idea really is letting people stay off of drugs, then why doesn't the government fund rehab centers and decriminalize drugs?[/QUOTE] I'm sorry i'm not sure I follow how decriminalizing drugs gets people off of drugs. And are you implying they aren't already funding rehab centers? I agree they should use at least a good chunk of any money saved on expanding rehab programs.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;30272766]If it's enough to satisfy the assholes who want to get rid of welfare, and enough to stop the assholes who abuse it, then this is good.[/QUOTE] It really isn't, what ends up happening is that those people who were previously 'abusing' the system end up going out and resorting to criminal alternatives for acquiring money for buying their drugs. Those people do things like steal metal from AC units, copper wiring, etc. In the end, the tax-payer gets hurt more than benefited. All this is going to do is raise crime rates, damages to public and private property, and put people on the street.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;30272814]...as if hardcore drug addicts are 100% peaceful, law abiding citizens otherwise[/QUOTE] Addicts just want access to drugs as easily as possible - removing legitimate means of them getting money will mean that they will then seek other methods: crime, prostitution, etc...

[QUOTE=Kopimi;30272814]to keep people from welfare from spending it all on drugs instead of actual living expenses, which is what welfare is for[/QUOTE] i'd like to see the data supporting this assertion that people on welfare spend money on drugs

[QUOTE=Kopimi;30272814]to keep people from welfare from spending it all on drugs instead of actual living expenses, which is what welfare is for as if hardcore drug addicts are 100% peaceful, law abiding citizens otherwise[/QUOTE] The first statement you made is so stupid it doesn't even merit a response. (Wait, might have misinterpreted what you were saying. Read it as though you were saying that the intent of welfare was for providing people with money for drugs.) Generally drug addicts only resort to crime when they can't afford to buy what they're addicted to. (Eventually everything else they have to buy as well, like food.)

[QUOTE=Canesfan;30272849]I'm sorry i'm not sure I follow how decriminalizing drugs gets people off of drugs. [/QUOTE] instead of sending people to prison and doing nothing about their drug addictions, remove the stigma and danger of admitting you have a drug problem and allow users to get clean these programs work very well in europe

[QUOTE=Canesfan;30272849]I'm sorry i'm not sure I follow how decriminalizing drugs gets people off of drugs. And are you implying they aren't already funding rehab centers? I agree they should use at least a good chunk of any money saved on expanding rehab programs.[/QUOTE] Decriminalization drugs lowers the costs from maintaining law enforcement and prisons dramatically (Look at the percentage of people who are in prison for possession or sales of illegal substances.), you lower the number of people who become infected with HIV every year (Read up on Portugal's successful decriminalization of drugs), a lot of things really. It saves money on taxes that can otherwise be spent on education and treatment. On Portugal, the aforementioned article. - [url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization[/url] [quote]In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections. Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank. "Now instead of being put into prison, addicts are going to treatment centers and they're learning how to control their drug usage or getting off drugs entirely," report author Glenn Greenwald, a former New York State constitutional litigator, said during a press briefing at Cato last week. Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law. Each three-person commission includes at least one lawyer or judge and one health care or social services worker. The panel has the option of recommending treatment, a small fine, or no sanction. Peter Reuter, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, College Park, says he's skeptical decriminalization was the sole reason drug use slid in Portugal, noting that another factor, especially among teens, was a global decline in marijuana use. By the same token, he notes that critics were wrong in their warnings that decriminalizing drugs would make Lisbon a drug mecca. "Drug decriminalization did reach its primary goal in Portugal," of reducing the health consequences of drug use, he says, "and did not lead to Lisbon becoming a drug tourist destination." Walter Kemp, a spokesperson for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, says decriminalization in Portugal "appears to be working." He adds that his office is putting more emphasis on improving health outcomes, such as reducing needle-borne infections, but that it does not explicitly support decriminalization, "because it smacks of legalization." Drug legalization removes all criminal penalties for producing, selling and using drugs; no country has tried it. In contrast, decriminalization, as practiced in Portugal, eliminates jail time for drug users but maintains criminal penalties for dealers. Spain and Italy have also decriminalized personal use of drugs and Mexico's president has proposed doing the same. . A spokesperson for the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy declined to comment, citing the pending Senate confirmation of the office's new director, former Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs also declined to comment on the report.[/quote]

[QUOTE=thisispain;30272864]i'd like to see the data supporting this assertion that people on welfare spend money on drugs[/QUOTE] if someone fails their drug test and is on welfare, would it not be logical to assert that they spent money from their welfare check on the drugs? i'm all for the decriminalization of drugs, but i don't think taxpayer money should go to funding an addiction i'd rather that our taxes went toward a government run rehab center rather than paying for someone's addiction, but i doubt that will ever happen here :sigh:

[QUOTE=thisispain;30272864]i'd like to see the data supporting this assertion that people on welfare spend money on drugs[/QUOTE] Are you really suggesting that there are literally no people that spend welfare money on drugs? And if you're gonna start throwing statistics into the mix for common sense stuff, let's see some figures on how "these programs work very well in europe." And drug addictions are just that-addictions. An addiction being stigmatized or not is not going to make someone not be addicted. They can seek help just as easily now than if it was legalized. Besides the fact that there is literally no way the stigma behind some harder drugs is going to be removed any time soon. The amount of people who aren't seeking help because of the "stigma" is probably far from significant. [editline]5th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Biotoxsin;30272934]Decriminalization drugs lowers the costs from maintaining law enforcement and prisons dramatically (Look at the percentage of people who are in prison for possession or sales of illegal substances.), you lower the number of people who become infected with HIV every year (Read up on Portugal's successful decriminalization of drugs), a lot of things really. It saves money on taxes that can otherwise be spent on education and treatment. On Portugal, the aforementioned article. - [url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization[/url][/QUOTE] I agree, it obviously does save money, that's never been up for debate. But that doesn't mean we should go for it just because it saves money. I imagine lowering maximum sentences for rapists would keep them out of prison for such long times, therefore saving money, but I wouldn't suggest doing that either. Obviously that's an extreme example but ultimately it comes down to a personal view, and I personally don't like the idea of addictive, dangerous drugs being legal, let alone acceptable behavior.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;30272961]if someone fails their drug test and is on welfare, would it not be logical to assert that they spent money from their welfare check on the drugs?[/QUOTE] no because if they fail their drug test they might be taking medication

[QUOTE=thisispain;30273000]no because if they fail their drug test they might be taking medication[/QUOTE] That's a very rare occurrence. And even if they are, they should have no problem explaining exactly what type of medication they just used, or have some type of proof to show they did indeed take medication from their doctor.

[QUOTE=thisispain;30273000]no because if they fail their drug test they might be taking medication[/QUOTE] i'm kind of working on the assumption that there are precautions in place to make sure the tests are accurate if you're on medication and there's absolutely NO WAY to differentiate between that medication and an illegal drug, look up medical records and see if they have a prescription

[QUOTE=Canesfan;30272964]Are you really suggesting that there are literally no people that spend welfare money on drugs? And if you're gonna start throwing statistics into the mix for common sense stuff, let's see some figures on how "these programs work very well in europe." And drug addictions are just that-addictions. An addiction being stigmatized or not is not going to make someone not be addicted. They can seek help just as easily now than if it was legalized. Besides the fact that there is literally no way the stigma behind some harder drugs is going to be removed any time soon. The amount of people who aren't seeking help because of the "stigma" is probably far from significant.[/QUOTE] I. He's asking for statistical evidence stating that a reasonable portion of welfare money is spent on drugs. II. See Portugal article I posted above. III. People are afraid to come out in the open about their substance abuse problems, and if you feel as though you might relapse you're going to realize that theres an increased likelihood of being detained if more people know about it.