Remember Florida drug testing welfare recipients? Yeah...about that...

Only 2.6% of those tested were positive.

Welfare Drug Tests Cost Florida $46K.

Read the article at the link you hoser.

EDIT: I'm the hoser! I forgot the link!

Florida's welfare drug tests cost more money than it saves data shows.

Odds are the people doing the testing where not using there own piss. sad thing is that it is real easy to use some else piss for those test. if the person conducting the test does not do this right, the test subject can easily pass with using some one else piss.

There was considerable backlash when the public learned that Florida governer Rick Scott co-founded Solantic, a chain of health clinics that offered drug screenings.

There is no link?

Also, I don't think anyone implied it would save money. The fact was, they didn't want to be paying druggies, simple as that.

Instead we're paying Rick Scott - I don't know if I'd rather see my tax dollars thrown at some druggies or into the greedy pockets of our governor; it's a Catch 22.

HiTempguy wrote: There is no link? Also, I don't think anyone implied it would save money. The fact was, they didn't want to be paying druggies, simple as that.

so it was a feel good law... that cost florida money they didn't really have to spend

This law is almost a bigger waste of time than fantasy sports games.

Public drug testing. Out in the open. At the welfare office. Problem solved. Gonna be hard to fake pissin' in a cup in the middle of the room.

Yeah, because the poor are pretty much animals, right? Might as well treat them as such!

I don't see the problem with the law if it wasn't funneling money into the governor's pocket.

Mitchell wrote: Yeah, because the poor are pretty much animals, right? Might as well treat them as such!

No, no they are not. But I have a problem with a lot of how welfare is managed. I tend to get extreme when I start talking about it. I'll be quiet now.

a link would be nice- maybe it would answer my questions..

i guess i could google it, but i'm not the one trying to make the point here, so i'll leave that to the OP.

what is the total amount of welfare that is paid out to the people that were tested, and how does the money saved by not paying 2.6% of the people compare to the money spent to do the testing? also, how many people knew that they wouldn't pass, so they decided to not even bother trying and decided to go out and get a job or find another way to get by?

novaderrik wrote: a link would be nice- maybe it would answer my questions.. i guess i could google it, but i'm not the one trying to make the point here, so i'll leave that to the OP. what is the total amount of welfare that is paid out to the people that were tested, and how does the money saved by not paying 2.6% of the people compare to the money spent to do the testing? also, how many people knew that they wouldn't pass, so they decided to not even bother trying and decided to go out and get a job or find another way to get by?

A job? More than likely a drug addict will just start stealing and robbing. Call me nuts, but I'd rather see them get their drug money off the government than breaking into my house.

Mitchell wrote: Yeah, because the poor are pretty much animals, right? Might as well treat them as such!

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udS-OcNtSWo

Not that I am saying they are, but damn it makes me shake my head some days.

And I'm sure they haven't all been tested yet, plus what are the odds they can continue to test negative. I have very little faith in the welfare system or recipients and that comes from personal experience not a baseless prejudice.

All other states > Florida > California > Texas > Jersey.

It's science.

Sorry for all the Florida people (and GRM) for the state wasting your money, though.

To have little faith in everyone on welfare is presumptuous and isn't right. A huge percentage of middle class and upper class youth smoke weed, if they had to take a drug test would you then have a similar disposition towards them? Marijuana is commonplace, for better or worse, but to have a negative opinion on welfare because some people are toking up (and be honest it is the most common drug, but yes crack and meth is a problem too) is just plain wrong. The neighborhood kid down the street from you probably smokes up at least once a week. If you are addicted to crack or heroine thats a different matter, and I believe the state or federal government should try and provide help for these people through rehab or something else.

Just seems like I am getting the vibe, if you test positive for drugs you don't deserve any help at all. But addiction is something else and by definition you don't have much control, and weed, if you got kids, they have probably done it...

But I think drugs are bad mkay, and I also don't have a solution to welfare, and honestly dont know too much about it. I just think drug tests to determine if someone is worthy is a little sketchy, whether for a job or welfare. I have had a drug tests when I was hired, if I had done weed on the weekend I might not have been hired, but thats not to say I would have been less capable at my job, as long as people arent high on the job, I don't necessarily see a problem.

Eric,

You are arguing for the legalization of marijuana. I bet that most people in this thread would agree that it probably should be legalized. But the fact is that it is not currently legal, and it can cause me not to get hired or to lose a job.

Every legitimate job (not caddying) that I have had or applied to has had a drug test or has said that I could be randomly drug tested at any random time. If I test positive, I either don't get the job or I get fired. This happened for the government jobs I applied for as well. The point here is that if I have to pass a drug test to get a job, then those collecting welfare need to pass the drug test as well--especially because it might be stopping them from getting a job. I expect the folks getting welfare to be held to the same standard as employed people as far as drugs; especially because (and right or wrong doesn't matter) the drugs in question are illegal.

To an extent I agree. However, something doesn't sit right with me in that if you take a $5 hit, you are no longer eligible for help to get food, heat, clothing etc. At the same time , you bear the responsibility of your decisions. Also not providing aid doesn't exactly solve the problem either, and I don't think those people should be written off. And then how do you tell from a drug test whether its addiction or not...if you are addicted to drugs, its in the best interests of everyone to get that person help.
But I am also not exactly for legalization of marijuana, but maybe it should be. Suffice to say I do not know what is the correct route. This certainly is not a black and white issue, and I don't think this law was the best solution. Problematic to say the least

And what of the kids? If a parent tests positive, does that mean no food for the kids? Seems like its not their fault but are victims.

Aeromoto wrote:

novaderrik wrote: a link would be nice- maybe it would answer my questions.. i guess i could google it, but i'm not the one trying to make the point here, so i'll leave that to the OP. what is the total amount of welfare that is paid out to the people that were tested, and how does the money saved by not paying 2.6% of the people compare to the money spent to do the testing? also, how many people knew that they wouldn't pass, so they decided to not even bother trying and decided to go out and get a job or find another way to get by?

A job? More than likely a drug addict will just start stealing and robbing. Call me nuts, but I'd rather see them get their drug money off the government than breaking into my house.

see, i'd rather not have the government take the money that i work hard to earn and give it to someone that's going to use it to get chemically altered instead of becoming productive members of society. i have no problem with people putting whatever they want into their bodies as long as they do the work to earn the means to buy the stuff to put into their bodies..

and if they are going to turn to a life of crime to feed their addictions, then they will probably eventually try to steal from someone that is an avid exerciser of their 2nd Amendment rights and the problem takes care of itself.

While it may not have saved any money according to the calculations in the article, anything that the government does that only costs us $46k is basically free. This governor gets hate for vetoing feel good projects with multi million dollar price tags. $46k is a small drop in the bucket. Don't get me wrong, I don't even want to waste $46k, but $46k is small in budget terms.

Lol-Mitchel-I had to drug test when I got my job at Winn Dixie, didn't you?

Edited to try to be a little less snippy.

fritzsch wrote: If you take a $5 hit, you are no longer eligible for work to get food, heat, clothing etc. You bear the responsibility of your decisions. And what of the kids? If a parent tests positive, does that mean no food for the kids? Seems like its not their fault but are victims of their parents irresponsibility.

cleaned up your first sentence.

adjusted the second one too but it's more of a fair point. My question there is at what point do you stop feeding that cycle?

I'd like to see actual numbers here as well. I want to know what the overall welfare payout was before and after (like was also alluded to in a post above), not just what the payment not given to those who tested positive was vs testing cost overall.

Volksrodden wrote: Odds are the people doing the testing where not using there own piss. sad thing is that it is real easy to use some else piss for those test. if the person conducting the test does not do this right, the test subject can easily pass with using some one else piss.

I've had to do random piss tests for work - your comment is laughable.

Drug test the Fla. legislature before they get paid with gov. money.

pres589 wrote: Drug test the Fla. legislature before they get paid with gov. money.

THIS, a million times. If they think it's degrading that they should have to piss in a cup to get their check, they shouldn't be treating their fellow citizens this way.

Also consider that part of the PROBLEM is the prevalence of drug testing as a requirement to employment. Drug testing is commonly required for low skill low paying jobs, but is almost non-existent in higher paying professional employment. Middle class educated guy smokes weed once in a while, no harm done. Nobody checks, nobody cares. Probably 75% of my classmates in architecture school smoked at least once a week. I bet half of them still do. None of them ever went to jail or lost their jobs for it AFAIK. But a guy mopping floors at the piggly wiggly smokes weed once in a while, maybe he gets fired for it, and then can't find another job because of that on his record. You want to tell him he can't get food stamps to feed his kids on top of that?

Yeah, I know all the BS about how he deserves it because he knew it was illegal when he toked up blah blah self righteous blah. The truth is that rules and laws are only as good as their enforcement, and if you consistently decide to look the other way while one category of people break a law but selectively come down hard on others, you no longer have a law. You have a tool that is being used to punish people for the crime of being in the wrong category.