Florida of all places....

...gets it right. This has been step one in my plan for reducing welfare cost and gov't dependency for a while. Hopefully the race-pimps and ACLU can't shut it down. Drug testing for welfare recipients:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/01/2245011/welfare-drug-testing-signed-into.html

By Michael C. Bender The Miami Herald TALLAHASSEE -- Floridians must submit urine, blood or hair samples for drug testing before receiving cash benefits from the state under a bill Gov. Rick Scott signed into law Tuesday. “The goal of this is to make sure we don’t waste taxpayers’ money,” Scott said. “And hopefully more people will focus on not using illegal drugs.” The new law fulfills a campaign pledge from Scott, but has raised legal questions. The ACLU of Florida has signaled it might sue over the law. “Once again, this governor has demonstrated his dismissal of both the law and the right of Floridians to personal privacy by signing into law a bill that treats those who have lost their jobs like suspected criminals,” said ACLU of Florida director Howard Simon. The law, which goes into effect on July 1, will mean about 4,400 drug tests per month, according to the Department of Children & Families. Taxpayers will reimburse welfare applicants for negative drug tests, which can cost between $10 and $25. Positive tests will carry an immediate six-month ban on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. A second positive test will result in a three-year ban on state assistance. Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/01/2245011/welfare-drug-testing-signed-into.html#ixzz1O1zjuR1r

Yes! That is a great freaking law! It's about time!!

I fully support this!

“Once again, this governor has demonstrated his dismissal of both the law and the right of Floridians to personal privacy by signing into law a bill that treats those who have lost their jobs like suspected criminals,” said ACLU of Florida director Howard Simon.

really? then why is it that in order to board a commercial airline, i get treated like a terrorist?

How is that an invasion of privacy?

I had to take a drug test to get a job? I have to be able to pass a random drug test to keep my job? I'm the one paying a ton of taxes to support these people, what about MY RIGHT to privacy?

I also want to change it to "Workfare." It doesn't take 40hours a week to look for a job. So you get to pick-up trash, serve food at a soup kitche, clean up graffiti.

There are tons of jobs that could be given to "temps."

We get work done and get people off their ass and motivated.

One big question though- will it really save money?

How much does each of the drug tests cost vs. how many people do not recieve benefits?

Regardless of the morality of taking drugs and taking money- there is a cost related to this. Drug testing is not free. In a state where money is really tight, you have to take off enough benefits to offset the drug testing, or this become more expensive. What happens if everybody passes the drug test? Will the law be reciended, then, to save money?

Do they have that many people on welfare and drugs?

alfadriver wrote: One big question though- will it really save money? How much does each of the drug tests cost vs. how many people do not recieve benefits? Regardless of the morality of taking drugs and taking money- there is a cost related to this. Drug testing is not free. In a state where money is really tight, you have to take off enough benefits to offset the drug testing, or this become more expensive. What happens if everybody passes the drug test? Will the law be reciended, then, to save money?

i think the idea is to clear out those people making income via a cash "business", street corner pharmacists and the like, but collect welfare checks to pay the bills, then live high(er) on the hog with their unreported income.

How much does each of the drug tests cost vs. how many people do not recieve benefits?

Having lived in Florida for a long time before it got as bad as it is now, my guess is "not much at all" vs. "a metric berkeley ton."

Apparently, RETAIL for a weed test kit is $1.95 (though I'm sure the gov't will still find a way to make them cost $10 a pop.) Edit: Duh. Went back and read the article - sure enough, $10-$25 each. If you fail, you pay. Here's the $1.95 kit:

http://www.drugalcoholtest.com/Marijuana-Drug-Testing-Cards-p-16133.html

I tried to find the average welfare recipient's monthly take but gave up. I need to get back to work. Them benefits ain't gonna pay themselves!

alfadriver wrote: One big question though- will it really save money? How much does each of the drug tests cost vs. how many people do not recieve benefits? Regardless of the morality of taking drugs and taking money- there is a cost related to this. Drug testing is not free. In a state where money is really tight, you have to take off enough benefits to offset the drug testing, or this become more expensive. What happens if everybody passes the drug test? Will the law be reciended, then, to save money?

A $20 drug test vs hundreds or thousands in benefits?

If everyone would pass a drug test, why do you think they would sign it into law?

DoctorBlade wrote: Do they have that many people on welfare and drugs?

Have you seen the news that comes out of Florida? They should be drug testing everyone. I don't see the problem with a law like this. My check comes from the govt and if I fail a drug test they stop giving them to me.

z31maniac wrote:

alfadriver wrote: One big question though- will it really save money? How much does each of the drug tests cost vs. how many people do not recieve benefits? Regardless of the morality of taking drugs and taking money- there is a cost related to this. Drug testing is not free. In a state where money is really tight, you have to take off enough benefits to offset the drug testing, or this become more expensive. What happens if everybody passes the drug test? Will the law be reciended, then, to save money?

A $20 drug test vs hundreds or thousands in benefits? If everyone would pass a drug test, why do you think they would sign it into law?

Yes, i do think they would sign it. They are trying to "show" being tough on drug users. May or may not actually save money.

Do you really think a drug test cost $20? How many people handle the sample? How many people have to then process the information to determine if benefits need to be given or not?

there's more cost to the law than a simple kit.

Many of you are assuming a lot- that HUGE % of people getting benefits are using drugs ilegally. While I agree that the rate of drug use may be higher for poor folk vs. others, I still assumg that there are people who don't use any.

You can debate the morality all day long, since that's what it seems to be. The cost... well, one thing to remember, many of the benefits that are given to the poor are Federal, and not state. It would be interesting to know the average payout to by the state that is being debated here.

Better deal would be to just eliminate welfare. You then can not argue over it.

I just had to pay out of pocket for a piss test and background check to get into nursing school, $175. Even if the gov't paid double that, it would be a billion dollar cost SAVINGS, as you get rid of the ones sucking off the systems' tit.

Lemme draw a parallel, public schools have some sort of "means" testing to get their gov't dollars, why shouldn't everyone else?

Ok, did some maths. Taking an average of the qouted test re-imbursement costs, numbers of families on welfare in fl in 2005x1.5 to conservatively account for the recession, and the national average family welfare benefit, reimbursement will cost less than a quarter of a percent of the total welfare payout each month.

If you assume that 1 in 10 fails, you end up saving almost 4 mil a month in payouts for that ten percent. So over a year, about 46.5 mil saved for adding less than a mil. In expenditure.

Numbers taken from this thread and here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-17-welfare-reform-cover_x.htm

alfadriver wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

alfadriver wrote: One big question though- will it really save money? How much does each of the drug tests cost vs. how many people do not recieve benefits? Regardless of the morality of taking drugs and taking money- there is a cost related to this. Drug testing is not free. In a state where money is really tight, you have to take off enough benefits to offset the drug testing, or this become more expensive. What happens if everybody passes the drug test? Will the law be reciended, then, to save money?

A $20 drug test vs hundreds or thousands in benefits? If everyone would pass a drug test, why do you think they would sign it into law?

Yes, i do think they would sign it. They are trying to "show" being tough on drug users. May or may not actually save money. Do you *really* think a drug test cost $20? How many people handle the sample? How many people have to then process the information to determine if benefits need to be given or not? there's more cost to the law than a simple kit. Many of you are assuming a lot- that HUGE % of people getting benefits are using drugs ilegally. While I agree that the rate of drug use may be higher for poor folk vs. others, I still assumg that there are people who don't use any. You can debate the morality all day long, since that's what it seems to be. The cost... well, one thing to remember, many of the benefits that are given to the poor are Federal, and not state. It would be interesting to know the average payout to by the state that is being debated here.

Yes. I REALLY think a drug test costs $20. I'm pretty sure I could go get a drug test right now, and it would cost around $20. "How many people handle the sample?" Are you serious? There's me, the guy filling the cup, and the person who takes the cup, sticks the little strip in, and checks the "+" or "-".

But since you're really desperate to argue an invalid point, let's say the drug test costs $200. Judging from people who I've known who have received STATE and FEDERAL benefits, that's less than what the state would pay out on average every MONTH. Yes. It would save money.

I will also say, honestly, that EVERYONE I have EVER known who has collected welfare smoked pot and/or drank. Every single one of them. EVERY one of them also had a cell phone, cable or sattelite, internet access, and a car. This is where Phase II of my plan would come in. Phase III would be Norplant. I digress.

Wally hit the nail on the head. If I, or anyone else, has to pass a drug test to MAKE the money that's stolen out of my check every week, why the berkeley shouldn't the leech who the money goes to?

Edit: OR - math.

PPS: I do see this as a "drugs rrr bad, mmkay?" issue. I believe you should be able to put whatever the berkeley you want into your body, as long as you're not endangering anyone else by doing so. I do not believe that I should have to supplement your drug/booze habit, or pay for your iPhone.

poopshovel wrote: I will also say, honestly, that EVERYONE I have EVER known who has collected welfare smoked pot and/or drank.

So do many doctors, lawyers, members of congress, presidents current and former as well as a good portion of the military. It does not appear to be an impediment to people with a work ethic. Perhaps we should just test for "Lazy".

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

poopshovel wrote: I will also say, honestly, that EVERYONE I have EVER known who has collected welfare smoked pot and/or drank.

So do many doctors, lawyers, members of congress, presidents current and former as well as a good portion of the military. It does not appear to be an impediment to people with a work ethic. Perhaps we should just test for "Lazy".

See PPS above. I think the ability to afford drugs and alcohol should be an incentive to work.

another perspective: many if not most of the jobs that people on welfare are looking for require drug testing. Why give them money because they can't get a job when they make a choice to do something that prevents them from getting said job?

Strizzo wrote: “Once again, this governor has demonstrated his dismissal of both the law and the right of Floridians to personal privacy by signing into law a bill that treats those who have lost their jobs like suspected criminals,” said ACLU of Florida director Howard Simon. really? then why is it that in order to board a commercial airline, i get treated like a terrorist?

Well, the quote was form the ACLU. And they would agree with you re: airlines. So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.

I can go to Walgreens right now and buy a test kit for $20 that takes 10mins to process.

But as has been said, I'm sure the gov't will ignore common sense, and find a way for it to cost hundreds.

alfadriver wrote: One big question though- will it really save money? How much does each of the drug tests cost vs. how many people do not recieve benefits? Regardless of the morality of taking drugs and taking money- there is a cost related to this. Drug testing is not free. In a state where money is really tight, you have to take off enough benefits to offset the drug testing, or this become more expensive. What happens if everybody passes the drug test? Will the law be reciended, then, to save money?

It says the welfare recipients have to pay the $35 for the drug test and if they pass it they get paid back. So $35 would save a great deal of money from all the people who don't pass.

But how can you be sure they are actually the one that took the drug test? Are there pretty near foolproof provisions in place at the testing facilities. As you can see I've never had to take a drug test.

DoctorBlade wrote: Do they have that many people on welfare and drugs?

DUH! They all sell drugs to supplement their welfare income. I watch TV so I know.

Perhaps we should just test for "Lazy".

Ahhh if only there were such a test.

We also need a test for Stoopid!

There is a big problem people are missing here: the children!

I know it sounds corny but the program that is affected by this is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families... ie EVERYBODY affected by this will by definition have dependent children.

So if daddy smokes a joint, there is no money for junior to get baby formula for six months.

Maybe I'm missing some details, but if it is enforced the way it is described in this article there are going to be a lot of innocent kids punished for the actions of their parents.

EDIT: Apparently parents can name designees to collect money for their kids. Still though, the designees also have to pass a drug test and I assume since the parent isn't getting benefits there is still less money overall for the family.

The same cash would still end up with the parents after it's collected by their buddy/family member, there would just be less of it. It's not like you can just pay the kid's portion of the rent or the electric bill.

This is AWESOME