Welfare recipients to be drug tested

Start of a new era?

If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free.

Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill on Tuesday that requires benefit recipients to undergo drug testing.

Applicants for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment.

Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving the funds for three years.

"While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Scott said. "This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars."

If welfare candidates pass the drug screening, they'll be reimbursed for the test.

The legislation instantly came under a barrage of criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union and several of the Sunshine State's Democrats. They argued the bill is an invasion of privacy.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ipients_to_take_drug_test_.html#ixzz1O5CN0aDj

 

And who is going to pay for all these tests?

 

Great news! Now if we can just make drug-testing mandatory for ALL elected officials, we'll definitely be on the right track!

 

If welfare candidates pass the drug screening, they'll be reimbursed for the test.

 

aka the State?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if enough failed that it would pay for itself.

 

The money saved by not paying out benefits to people on drugs will pay for a lot of other drug tests.

Even if it does end up costing more, at least this way taxpayers aren't being forced to buy illegal drugs.

 

Why not legalize drugs and tax them as forms of Commerce among the several States of the Union?

What if it could be claimed, that testing for drugs is a form of religous test, simply because those who advocate it usually claim religious moral values?

Why not simply eliminate a natural unemployment rate through unemployment compensation by bearing true witness to our own laws? It should be less expensive than our current and wasteful War on Drugs which has already been in progress for over thirty years.

Is there anyone who would like to cite campaign contributions for those elected representatives who advocate bearing false witness to our own federal Constitution by denying and disparaging individual liberty without any just Cause or rational philosophy or excuse?

Why does it seem that the repubilcans, who have no market based solutions to fix our current job market, are always prepared to create more government jobs instead of market based jobs to deal with those problems?

 

What if we req'd drug tests before anybody could post on this thread.

Here... pee in this cup, Dan.

 

Precisely, Florida is complaining that they are broke. So this is just adding more to their costs. Simply brilliant on their part.

Furthermore, the ACLU and Florida Democrats are correct in that it is an invasion of privacy; I think it'll make an excellent test case before SCOTUS if it goes that far.

Florida is slowly turning in to a police state. Civil rights appear to mean nothing down there.

 

If you are asking for money from the government, they have every right to make sure you aren't spending it on drugs. That's far from a police state.

 

This will likely be deemed unconstitutional, anyway.

 

I couldn't agree more. If they're clean, they have nothing to worry about. If they're not clean, taxpayers have no business supporting their drug habit.

 

What about a hypocrisy test? We could even petition a Pope for a contingent of Templars and Dominicans to hold an inquisition into such moral claims.

 

The constitution went out the window when we started giving out cash handouts.

 

Should we demand every senior on Medicare submit to drug tests? Should we demand drug tests from everyone who rides public transportation?

 

Those aren't cash handouts. You can't use your bus ride to buy drugs.

 

I didn't know you could buy it with food stamps and Medicaid.

 

Unless there's evidence to support that drug abuse is the direct cause for unemployment, I don't really understand the purpose other than to demonize those who use drugs and to give the state an excuse to not pay.

 

How fiscally responsible is it to create more government bureaucracy which does not solve our war on poverty, rather than simply regulate Commerce among the several States and bearing true witness to our Ninth Amendment, or ts State equivalents, a federal doctrine, and State at-will employment laws?

I thought republicans claimed to have a republican doctrine. Where is the specific enumeration of any delegated power for a War on Drugs?

How is denying and disparaging individual liberty via arbitrary command economics which do not even attempt to actually solve any socioeconomic problems compatible with the preamble of our federal Constitution?

 

That's moot. If the state ejects those on drugs, it saves a lot more than would be spent on the tests.

I am all for this.

 

I love how you're for the subjugation of others, but not yourself.

 

I'm sure you're aware that selling food stamps is very common.

I wasn't aware this applied to medicaid. If it does, still no argument from me, why should the taxpayer pay to take care of someone who chooses to ruin their health with drugs.

 

I'm not sure what this applies to; but Medicaid is a 'hand-out'.

And then should we punish those who are obese? Eat unhealthily? Live stressful lives?

Seriously, this is what you said about Obamacare... Same argument... "where does it end"...

 

Oh yes, we are just being mean to the druggies. I think it's common knowledge that people who are high are less productive.