Florida of all places....

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

They do work, they work the system to be sure than any money they make isn't reported so that they can keep the free welfare money. I began life in a welfare mentality and they ALL do it. By now you've got people who are 5th, 6th and 7th generation welfare babies and they don't know anyone who has a real job. It doesn't compute to actually go out a get a job that would kick you off the welfare.

I'm also for getting workfare vs. welfare. Say what you will about the changes that came into place during the Roosevelt era the Civilian Conservation Corp took people, gave them a skill, made the work to get money and then cut them loose with the ability to earn a living afterwards. Present day welfare just breeds more welfare.

carguy123 wrote: 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.

Typically, the facility has a bathroom that does not have internal running water, it is all controlled outside of the room itself, and the bowl water gets tinted. First phase of the test is temperature, color, and sample amount. Too low or too high a temp, not enough sample, or not clear to yellow in color, you are forced to retake or fail, depending on the rules. Second phase is actually testing the urine for opiates, benzoates, and other like minded substances. Even with the test, you have to supply information of current medications that might interfere with the test results. Even with that supplied information, they can see the amount in the urine and over a certain level, you fail or submit to a blood draw, depending on rules again.

I have done way too many drug tests to keep track over the years. At one point, I didn't have to do the routine testing for my DOT card for nearly 5 yrs.

Brian

Second point people are missing:

Everybody seems to agree that welfare recipients should not spend their money on drugs and alcohol but this bill only tests for drugs.

It'll just drive people to consume more alcohol.

Furthermore, I would argue that people doing coke and meth aren't going to switch to alcohol since they can't. Those are extremely powerful addictions. So you'll be left with pot smokers who will instead start drinking more.

Doesn't seem like a big improvement to me.

carguy123 wrote:

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

They do work, they work the system to be sure than any money they make isn't reported so that they can keep the free welfare money. I began life in a welfare mentality and they ALL do it. By now you've got people who are 5th, 6th and 7th generation welfare babies and they don't know anyone who has a real job. It doesn't compute to actually go out a get a job that would kick you off the welfare. I'm also for getting workfare vs. welfare. Say what you will about the changes that came into place during the Roosevelt era the Civilian Conservation Corp took people, gave them a skill, made the work to get money and then cut them loose with the ability to earn a living afterwards. Present day welfare just breeds more welfare.

100% agreed. In the meantime, though, I think this is a step in the right direction. Rome wasn't built in a day. To your point, also, I know people who were NEVER of the welfare mentality, who are now continuing to collect unemployment benefits even though they could get a job, because after taxes, gas to and from work, daycare for the kids, etc., it pays more to sit at home on your ass than it does to go to work.

madpanda wrote: 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.

You'd be amazed what people are capable of when their feet are held to the fire. The same people would be amazed and proud of their own ability too. Handouts don't do any favors for the parents or the children. Wonder why ghettos are filthy, disgusting places? It's because when you don't pay for your own E36 M3, it means absolutely nothing to you. I've seen, first hand, those FEMA trailers that you and I paid $30,000 - $40,000 for. BRAND NEW trailers that were absolutely, deliberately trashed by the people they were loaned to. That's because these people have been on welfare all their lives. Everyone else's property belongs to them, and it's worth nothing.

poopshovel wrote: 100% agreed. In the meantime, though, I think this is a step in the right direction. Rome wasn't built in a day. To your point, also, I know people who were NEVER of the welfare mentality, who are now continuing to collect unemployment benefits even though they could get a job, because after taxes, gas to and from work, daycare for the kids, etc., it pays more to sit at home on your ass than it does to go to work.

I'm one of those people. What I was making "extra" on UI goes straight into the gas tank to goto work. And no, my current job isn't minimum wage either.

Brian

In reply to madpanda:

You're also ignoring if those people quit smoking and buy alcohol, they are contributing to the tax base vs the illegal underground economy. /sarcasm

As to the children, that's called being responsible. If you are bad enough off that you need welfare to support your family, but choose to do drugs, well, maybe you don't need to be a parent.

I don't think I like it.

I've collected unemployment for all of two weeks in my life. I really don't like the idea of having to prove that I'm innocent of a crime in order to collect benefits from a system I've paid into.

Finding myself essentially on parole in addition to all the stress and depression of jobhunting sounds absolutely wretched.

I think the concern is reasonable, and abuses of the system are real and significant. I'm much less sure that this is a step I want to take.

z31maniac wrote: In reply to madpanda: As to the children, that's called being responsible. If you are bad enough off that you need welfare to support your family, but choose to do drugs, well, maybe you don't need to be a parent.

I agree, but practically, what are you going to do with the kids: let them live in poverty? Put them all in foster care? How much is that going to cost?

Of course the ACLU will sue.

I remember a Clark Gable movie from when I was a kid. He lines up all the hired hands and announces someone stole from him. (guilty guy lines up at the end)

The plan is to take this red hot machete that's been in the fire a while and touch it on the tongue of each man. Guilty people are nervous, they tremble, throat is dry, your tongue will burn. Innocent people will have enough saliva to pass the test according to Clark.

Before he can touch one guy with the machete, someone near the end bolts.

Guilty.

With the threat of this over your head, do you think a percentage of welfare stealers might fold and not apply?

Dan

With the threat of this over your head, do you think a percentage of welfare stealers might fold and not apply?

Nope. I KNOW what they will do. These poor, poor, people, who just didn't "win life's lottery" like the rest of us, will go out and spend $100 on some magic "piss clean" stuff.

poopshovel wrote:

With the threat of this over your head, do you think a percentage of welfare stealers might fold and not apply?

Nope. I KNOW what they will do. These poor, poor, people, who just didn't "win life's lottery" like the rest of us, will go out and spend $100 on some magic "piss clean" stuff.

It's usually only about $40. Easily paid for by the last welfare check, but it will cut into drug money though.

keethrax wrote:

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 know the quote was from the ACLU, it says right there in the quote " ...said ACLU of Florida director Howard Simon"

my point was they aren't fighting for the people getting fondled everyday so they can go and make money that goes to taxes that pays for people to collect welfare and sit around stoned all day.

Ugh, DICK scott is on a fast track for recall. This is nothing more than politics and will cost more than it saves, I promise.

SupraWes wrote: Ugh, DICK scott is on a fast track for recall. This is nothing more than politics and will cost more than it saves, I promise.

I honestly don't care if it costs more than it saves. I have to pass a drug test to get hired and keep my job paying taxes so welfare recipients can sit around all day. They can take a drug test, too.

I'm all for Workfare as well.

I think some of you would be shocked at the number of people who bilk the system. Most of the chronics I deal with are on SSI, TANF, and Unemployment at the same time. They will fake a resume and get hired in construction, get "hurt" the first week and then land Worker's Comp, too.

SupraWes wrote: Ugh, DICK scott is on a fast track for recall. This is nothing more than politics and will cost more than it saves, I promise.

Why do you think it will cost more than it saves?

carguy123 wrote: 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.

They are quite serious up north here... if you were able to smuggle fake urine/somebody elses in I would be surprised as they do a pat down!

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.

So, the irresponsible parents who do drugs and require welfare will spend that money on their kids? Riiiiiighhhhhhhhhht.

It'll just drive people to consume more alcohol.

No, it really won't. People do drugs for relatively specific reasons, I have never met someone that just does everything (well, there are a few party animals, but I digress). I also put this under you giving these people WAAAY to much credit; you honestly think somebody using X will switch to Y simply because of testing?

HiTempguy wrote:

carguy123 wrote: 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.

They are quite serious up north here... if you were able to smuggle fake urine/somebody elses in I would be surprised as they do a pat down!

It happens: (03-03) 14:27 PST Pittsburgh (AP) -- A man and woman were cited Friday in connection with a bizarre incident that resulted in a fake p@nis being microwaved at a convenience store last week. Leslye Creighton, 41, of Wilkinsburg, and Vincent Bostic, 31, of Pittsburgh, were both cited for criminal mischief and disorderly conduct in the Feb. 23 incident at the Get Go! gasoline and convenience store in McKeesport, about 10 miles east of Pittsburgh. Each charge carries a possible sentence of up to 90 days in jail and up to a $300 fine. Bostic had filled a fake p@nis with his urine that Creighton, a friend, planned to use to pass a drug test she was taking to get a job, Police Chief Joseph Pero said.Creighton asked a store clerk to microwave the device so the urine inside would be body-temperature and fool those giving the drug test, Pero said. Police still aren't sure why or how Creighton chose to use a device that mimics the male sex organ to pass her drug test. Creighton didn't immediately return a call to her home on Friday. Defense attorney William Difenderfer didn't dispute the police account, but said there's no proof his clients had any criminal intent to damage the microwave — the basis for the criminal mischief charge. "I certainly understand the ramifications and I'm certainly not saying it wasn't a stupid thing to do," Difenderfer said. "But there's a lot of bizarre stuff that we don't always have a remedy for in the crimes code." Difenderfer said his clients want to settle the case, in part, by reimbursing the store for a new microwave oven. Pero said the store got rid of the old oven because it couldn't be used for food once bodily fluids were cooked inside it. Neither Difenderfer nor Pero know what kind of job the woman applied for, or whether she was hired.

All of you have to consider the source of this legislation. Rick Scott spent $16,000,000.00 of his own money to get elected governor of Florida. He was CEO of HCA Hospitals when they were sited by the feds for gross overcharges to Medicaid and Medicare. His policies have been 100% in favor of big business. Here in Broward county, because of his budget cuts, 1900 teachers are being laid off. This drug test thing is ONLY designed to get him positive press. He is currently rated the most unpopular governor in the US. Consider the source.

I just want to put this out there, but Rick Scott's wife owns the company that will likely end up processing a great number of these tests. He's padding his pocket on the taxpayer's dime.

I do feel that you should need to be able to pass a drug test to collect welfare. At the same time, I don't think it's going to really change anything, except make a rich man richer and make the government poorer. There are many "magic pills" out there to make you pee clean, so this really feels like someone that doesn't understand that people can and will cheat the system thinking he's going to make a good bit of money on something while looking like a hero.

[edit]Ann doesn't own it outright, but she has a $62,000,000 stake in the company. Rick Scott transferred his shares of the company to his wife when he was elected.[/edit]

In reply to Derick Freese:

Solantic will benefit, but so will pretty much any other testing agency in the state. If that makes you mad, open a testing agency. Rick Scott makes lots of people who work for the state mad, but he is truly trying to give business back to business people and take the government out of managing your personal pocketbook. If your personal pocketbook is funded by a state job you might suffer, but budget cuts have to hit government employees too, just like they hit the private sector years ago. FYI, about 50% of my family is employed by the state so we are feeling the cuts, that doesn't mean they are a bad idea.

It doesn't make me mad, but it does make me curious. No problems at all with the drug testing, but I feel it's a dubious attempt at gaining some points at best. I'd rather see limits to the amount of time you can collect before we see a drug testing law. Kinda reminds me of that scene in "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" where this happens.

What I'm getting at is I would rather see real reform than something that WILL get skirted.

So you like the result but not the motivation, geeez.

As far as magic pills and drinks, go read up on them, its hardly a miracle fix. It all works under the principle of dilution and vitamins making your over-hydrated pee look yellow, and experienced drug testing centers are starting to pick this up.

Or we could continue to make stuff up for the sake of argument.

cwh wrote: All of you have to consider the source of this legislation. Rick Scott spent $16,000,000.00 of his own money to get elected governor of Florida. He was CEO of HCA Hospitals when they were sited by the feds for gross overcharges to Medicaid and Medicare. His policies have been 100% in favor of big business. Here in Broward county, because of his budget cuts, 1900 teachers are being laid off. This drug test thing is ONLY designed to get him positive press. He is currently rated the most unpopular governor in the US. Consider the source.

Is his budget the result of reduced tax revenues?

Maybe if there were drug testing to deny benefits for people who don't deserve them, he could have kept some of those teachers.

When are all of us going to get real about the situation and shared pain instead of continuing to toe the party line.

I'm getting tired of the attitude that says "if ain't perfect its not better then the current broken system. "

polotics aside... I still think food stamps should be limited on what you can get... I know that when our kids where on WIC we where very limited on what we could buy... I regularly see what these welfare moms buy on foodstamp day... a buggy full of chips and soda... mac n cheese and anything else that is easy to cook (or doesn't need to cook) and has a million preservatives... never anything that could even be mistaken as healthy...