Florida passes first welfare/drug test law in the country

[FloridaValkRyder]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but I think it is GREAT!   
Only 49 more states to go!!!!!!!
Hooray for Florida!

I-95 and I-75 will be jammed for the next month or so with druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida, because this is the first state in the union to require drug testing to receive welfare! In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free". Applicants must pay for the drug test, but are reimbursed if they test drug-free. Applicants 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 will be banned from receiving funds for three years!
Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's a requirement that persons applying for a lot of jobs have to pass a drug test in order to get the job, (all State workers do) why not those who receive welfare?  Let's get welfare back to the ones who NEED it, not to those who WON'T get a JOB.   
 

[musclehead]

well that's just racist! ( normally what they say right?)

too bad, comply or move on.  this is a common sense measure so it's sure to be criticized from the enablers of the world.

[BF]

I knew I voted for the right person.  Way to go Gov.   

[musclehead]

I knew I voted for the right person.  Way to go Gov.   

me too, gotta check out all the rude fake facebook pages they have up in his 'honor'. 

[flamingobabe #44]

I hope Texas follows Florida...way to go....

[YoungPUP]

Hell Yeah!!! Its about time the government did something the right Way!!! I have no problem helping those that need it, but it irritates me to work 50+ a week, and see someone on the gov.cheese buying nicer, driving better, dressing more expensive than I do.

[Jess from VA]

Hell Yeah!!! Its about time the government did something the right Way!!! I have no problem helping those that need it, but it irritates me to work 50+ a week, and see someone on the gov.cheese buying nicer, driving better, dressing more expensive than I do.

.......And doing better drugs than me.     LOL

 (Common sense program........ how'd that happen?)

[old2soon]

I'm ALL for it. Sounds like a nobrainer. Some bleeding heart liberal can and will find a way to shoot this down. All 49  other states REALLY need to do this. RIDE SAFE.

[alph]

great, now we're going to get a bunch of floridians moving up here!!

[Jess from VA]

great, now we're going to get a bunch of floridians moving up here!!

Just the druggies.   

[The Anvil]

great, now we're going to get a bunch of floridians moving up here!!

Just the druggies.   

Again, we're going to get a bunch of Floridians moving up here!

[jcoukos]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but I think it is GREAT!   
Only 49 more states to go!!!!!!!
Hooray for Florida!

I-95 and I-75 will be jammed for the next month or so with druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida, because this is the first state in the union to require drug testing to receive welfare! In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free". Applicants must pay for the drug test, but are reimbursed if they test drug-free. Applicants 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 will be banned from receiving funds for three years!
Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's a requirement that persons applying for a lot of jobs have to pass a drug test in order to get the job, (all State workers do) why not those who receive welfare?  Let's get welfare back to the ones who NEED it, not to those who WON'T get a JOB.   
 

You know a judge will denounce this as "unconstitutional"

[Gear Jammer]

Way to go Florida 

[Jess from VA]

You know a judge will denounce this as "unconstitutional"

OK, I'll bite, on what basis?

Govt assistance (free money) is not a right; it's a benefit having many preconditions/qualifications to receive it (based on need, supposedly).  One lawful precondition is you not be an unlawful drug user (and esp not be using free money to buy drugs). Parolees, probationers, govt employees, military, security clearances, Hazmat, many private sector jobs are all required to pee in the bottle as a condition of employment (I did).  Refuse and you're fired (court martialed in the military).  Free money is just like a government job, in this respect.  And free money, like all the above jobs is open to all races, colors, and creeds.  While a disparate number of recipients of free money (in cities only) may be minorities, peeing in the bottle is color blind so long as it is applied to everyone, or to truly random test samples (like the military).

Federal form 4473 (at 11e), to buy any firearm from a licensed FFL holder, requires you swear or affirm you are not a drug user.  There's no urine test, but if you are later proven to have been a drug user who swore falsely, that is a felony.  (forfeiting all your gun rights)  And owning a firearm is constitutionally protected, unlike free money.

This is not an unconstitutional law...... it can be applied unconstitutionally, but hopefully they can avoid doing that.

And free money is not free, it is taxpayer money, and we have a strong interest in it not being spent on drugs... or liquor, tobacco, or lap dances for that matter.  

[Serk]

Sadly, this is old news from last year, and the ACLU already sued, and a federal judge already stopped it from being enforced...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/24/2470519/florida-welfare-drug-testing-halted.html

[..]

Sadly, this is old news from last year, and the ACLU already sued, and a federal judge already stopped it from being enforced...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/24/2470519/florida-welfare-drug-testing-halted.html

You beat me to it. 

I'll delete my post.

[Oss]

like a poll tax its dead on arrival

If THE GOVMT  paid for the drug test it woulda flew thru the judges ass like crap thru a goose

Ya cant made someone pay who is supposed to be indigent

Now if they fail, you can screw them any way you want

Cheap bastages shoulda thought that out   How much is the cost of test vs the welfare?

[Jess from VA]

I've read that, and disagree.  The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Requiring some form of probable cause before proceeding with a search of an individual.  

So you make everyone consent (sign on paper) (a waiver of your 4th amend rights) to urine testing as a precondition to receive the free money, or they are ineligible to receive it.  Just like govt, military, private jobs requiring urine testing as a condition of employment (none of those urine tests are preceded by a probable cause hearing).  There is no constitutional right to a job orfree money, and it is not unconstitutional to require consent to test as a precondition for free money.  IMHO

So a guy accepts parole from prison (for robbery, not drugs) to get out 5 years early, and to do so must consent to random urinalysis.  This has been done forever, and is not unconstitutional.  I am not comparing parolees to welfare recipients, negatively, just as another example of lawfully requiring someone to waive his 4th amendment rights to gain a government benefit.  It's each person's choice, in either case.  

In many States, to gain a drivers license, you must agree to take a breath test on request (you waive your 4th amend rights).  If you refuse this provision, you will not be issued a license.  You can refuse the test anyway, but you loose your license (for a period).

As for the costs of the test, the State should just deduct those costs from the overall fund for welfare, and pay for it themselves.  (They did offer to repay all who passed, I think)   


Oh, and I'm sure we can expect Eric Holder to jump in to help Florida with this one.  

[Oss]

but big daddy made it a right to get welfare   A license is not a right as you know although
our kids seem to think lots of things are rights

thats why I dont believe the waiver would pass the test

whats a test cost  10 bux?  what is the cost of ONE welfare check

[Jess from VA]

but big daddy made it a right to get welfare


You know better than that.


whats a test cost 10 bux?

Probably more than that.  You'd have to have a certified lab, if you are going to kick people off welfare for pissing positive.  (I went thru quite a bit of work in the USAF with urine testing and Brooks Lab - worldwide testing)  (a whole passel of convictions were thrown out after it was discovered the lab techs were cooking tacos in the lab equipment, and had chain of custody all screwed up)  Though these tests had to stand up to 4th amendment scrutiny for criminal convictions, not for benefit denial.

The cost per test would be greatly reduced by sheer numbers required.  Labs would be falling over themselves trying to get the contracts, or the State could run it's own lab.  And they don't have to test everyone, just do a large number of random samples like the military.  If the program was found to cost significantly more than the savings in druggie benefit terminations, cancel it.    

[Gangman036]

I work at a State Prison and we regularly drug test a percentage of the population. Any positive results , the offender pays for the test kit............no lab required because the results are on the collection bottle. Price of a kit .......$4.00. If it is positive for illegal drugs, it is sent to a lab to determine presents of the drug without a doubt for disciplinary action.

I sent a similar request (drug testing those on public assistance for an extended period)  to both sides of the isle and was rejected by both.

[Jess from VA]

So a cheap preliminary test to screen all the negatives from positive, then a certified lab for disciplinary action only on the positives.  Even better (and cheaper).  In USAF, every test was supposed to be trial ready.


I sent a similar request (drug testing those on public assistance for an extended period) to both sides of the isle and was rejected by both.

Well bless you for that.  You know, you have to ask yourself, are these politicians against if for truly moral or legal grounds, or are they just worried about votes? 

[fubar606]

 

[Bob E.]

You all do realize that the stated intent of the law was to save money, right?  You know...because most welfare people are on drugs, right?  As it turns out, this program is costing the state alot of money rather than saving because, it turns out, that less than 2% of welfare recipients are failing...compared to the nearly 9% of the population who uses drugs.  So since nearly everyone is passing, the state has to cover the costs...and I could be wrong, but I thought I saw that the test was actually around $125 each.

And you do know that Rick Scott (who has already been found to have defrauded Medicare/Medicaid) has personal interests in the company that provides the tests, right?  No conflicts of interest there! 

[R J]

In my old job, we were subject to peeing in the bottle..

We were called in, handed a bottle and led to the Bathroom, upon exit from the BR, the bottle was confiscated, and taken to the lab..........

Fail the test and you turned in your Badge.

Simple as that, and de firkin ACLU did not have a say in it, even thought they tried years ago.

We also could not drink even if off duty.   We were on 24/7 call, and you couldn't make a call due to being intoxicated, turn in your Badge.

Smoking we could do, outside, and not in any vehicle.

[Varmintmist]

Not a violation of the 4th because welfare is not a right.

Even if you look at the article about halting the testing, the person who brought the suit, admits that he had to "meet critera" Well guess what, the new critera says pee in a bottle.

The reason that it isnt a violation of his rights is that he has the choice to NOT take welfare. No one is forcing him to take SEM (someone elses money) so he has options no different than getting a job. The payer makes a decision that you are worth what he is going to put into you. Everywhere I have worked, you went through a screening proccess, starting with a resume and mostly fininshing when your whiz quiz results came back. If I dodn't meet the critera, they didn't put any money into me.
To say that it was 2% that failed is a hard spin on the truth. out of 7K tested there were only 32 positive, however 1600 refused to test. Even if 1/2 of those are leeches with principles, the rest are going to test positive.

[Novavalker]

Who pays for their treatment when they fail the drug test?

[fudgie]

Looks like it may pass in Wyoming.