Florida Passes Drug Testing Law....

[ElaySmith]

http://articles.nydailynews.com/201..._1_aclu-objects-welfare-recipients-rick-scott

Personally I like this. I think its a great concept and I hope that other states do this as well. However I am drug free and have honestly never even tried any sort of drug so I guess I really can only look at this from my POV. I am not against people that use drugs as long as they can afford there extra curricular activity and it doesnt effect there day to day lives. Opinions...Thoughts?

 

[Sevrin]

Not living in Florida, I'm glad that I don't have to worry about even more drug-addled homeless people killing and stealing to stay alive and feed their drug habits in my neighbourhood or pay to incarcerate them after they kill or steal, for that matter. To each his or her own.

 

[JickyJuly]

I am in Florida and support this idea. I hope it's a step in the right direction and away from rewarding people for poor decision making. In the city I grew up in, many people saw using Government assistance as a career plan (and adding more mouths to feed was a way to get a pay raise). So, I may be jaded. The entitlement that some people feel amazes me.

 

[ElaySmith]

Not living in Florida, I'm glad that I don't have to worry about even more drug-addled homeless people killing and stealing to stay alive and feed their drug habits in my neighbourhood or pay to incarcerate them after they kill or steal, for that matter. To each his or her own.

Many people that work are required to take drug testing. There are many jobs that have 0 tolerance against drug use and if you were to have drugs in your system would be fired on the spot. Why should the non-working class be any different?

Let me state again I am not against drug use.....I am against the people that spend there last $1 on drugs and are then begging to borrow money because they are about to be evicted from there homes or cant pay for food etc. If you can afford it and dont let it take over your life by all means enjoy.

 

[Bocefish]

Not living in Florida, I'm glad that I don't have to worry about even more drug-addled homeless people killing and stealing to stay alive and feed their drug habits in my neighbourhood or pay to incarcerate them after they kill or steal, for that matter. To each his or her own.

Not sure I totally understand what you're saying, please expound.

Public assistance is for those that truly need it, not to further facilitate somebody's drug habit.

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.

Sounds reasonably fair to me. :thumbleft:

 

[AshleyMarks]

Oklahoma is in the process of passing a similar law. I think that if a person can afford to spend 100's of dollars on drugs every month, but they want public assistance, they should have to do drug tests in order to receive benefits. It is unfair to the people who bust their balls and barely get by, but are drug free, and do not qualify for assistance. Hell, I used to know someone who made $12 too much to be eligible for any type of help. I choose not to receive assistance, because i do not want to take away from those who really do need it. So, GO FLORIDA!!!!!!

 

[ElaySmith]

I am in Florida and support this idea. I hope it's a step in the right direction and away from rewarding people for poor decision making. In the city I grew up in, many people saw using Government assistance as a career plan (and adding more mouths to feed was a way to get a pay raise). So, I may be jaded. The entitlement that some people feel amazes me.

THIS!

I have worked in grocery store myself and if makes me sad to see the people that come in using food stamps or other means of assistance that can afford to buy cigarettes and beer but cant afford to buy there child the cereal he wants. Its really heart breaking how some people live and treat there children....I know this is kinda off topic but I totally understand and agree with where she is coming from.

 

[LacieLaPlante]

The only people who would be screwed over by this are pot smokers!! All other drugs are out of your system in 2-3 days. That is why I do NOT (fully) support anything like this. My best friend worked at a drug testing facility and gave me a chart with how long each drug gets out of your system. Pot for an everyday smoker is out in 30 days. Heroin, cocaine and meth can be out in 3!

I don't want people doing drugs, but it sucks that smoking pot once in 2 weeks can fuck you over more than doing heroin :[

 

[Teagz]

I'm so stoked they passed this. Now all the pieces of shit that can buy drugs but can't buy anything else can't live off of our money anymore! woooo! And, yes, I live in Florida.

 

[Lord_Latex]

...Heroin, cocaine and meth can be out in 3!

True, but how many heroin, cocaine and meth users can quit cold turkey for three days every month in order to pass a drug test?

 

[Bocefish]

The only people who would be screwed over by this are pot smokers!! All other drugs are out of your system in 2-3 days. That is why I do NOT (fully) support anything like this. My best friend worked at a drug testing facility and gave me a chart with how long each drug gets out of your system. Pot for an everyday smoker is out in 30 days. Heroin, cocaine and meth can be out in 3!

I don't want people doing drugs, but it sucks that smoking pot once in 2 weeks can fuck you over more than doing heroin :[

If you need/want a government handout, not smoking weed for a whole month is a small price to pay. If that's too damn inconvenient, then they don't need the money that bad. :twocents-02cents:

 

[JickyJuly]

The only people who would be screwed over by this are pot smokers!! All other drugs are out of your system in 2-3 days. That is why I do NOT (fully) support anything like this. My best friend worked at a drug testing facility and gave me a chart with how long each drug gets out of your system. Pot for an everyday smoker is out in 30 days. Heroin, cocaine and meth can be out in 3!

I don't want people doing drugs, but it sucks that smoking pot once in 2 weeks can fuck you over more than doing heroin :[

I love my occasional herb, but it is a luxury. If I can afford to buy pot, I can afford to pay for my own munchies.

 

[Lydia_Deetz]

What I find ironic about this is everyone is so happy to know that drug addicts wont be getting food, or healthcare on their dime, but who do you think will be paying for millions of drug tests for these people?

 

[Keithy]

What I find ironic about this is everyone is so happy to know that drug addicts wont be getting food, or healthcare on their dime, but who do you think will be paying for millions of drug tests for these people?

$42 dollars vs $673 dollars.
(average cost of a drug test vs average food stamp assistance per household)

 

[JickyJuly]

What I find ironic about this is everyone is so happy to know that drug addicts wont be getting food, or healthcare on their dime, but who do you think will be paying for millions of drug tests for these people?

That was one of my 1st thoughts too, but if they fail, they pay. If they pass it comes out of their food monies. Also, if they have kids, their kids can still get food money, but another adult needs to be appointed to be responsible for the card.

 

[LacieLaPlante]

The only people who would be screwed over by this are pot smokers!! All other drugs are out of your system in 2-3 days. That is why I do NOT (fully) support anything like this. My best friend worked at a drug testing facility and gave me a chart with how long each drug gets out of your system. Pot for an everyday smoker is out in 30 days. Heroin, cocaine and meth can be out in 3!

I don't want people doing drugs, but it sucks that smoking pot once in 2 weeks can fuck you over more than doing heroin :[

If you need/want a government handout, not smoking weed for a whole month is a small price to pay. If that's too damn inconvenient, then they don't need the money that bad. :twocents-02cents:

I am only trying to say that heroin, meth and coke users can get past this more easily than the more harmless pot smokers.

 

[Lydia_Deetz]

What I find ironic about this is everyone is so happy to know that drug addicts wont be getting food, or healthcare on their dime, but who do you think will be paying for millions of drug tests for these people?

That was one of my 1st thoughts too, but if they fail, they pay. If they pass it comes out of their food monies. Also, if they have kids, their kids can still get food money, but another adult needs to be appointed to be responsible for the card.

Actually this makes sense, and is the best way of fixing that problem that I have heard so far.

 

[MadisonLeigh]

Not living in Florida, I'm glad that I don't have to worry about even more drug-addled homeless people killing and stealing to stay alive and feed their drug habits in my neighbourhood or pay to incarcerate them after they kill or steal, for that matter. To each his or her own.

I agree with this. I'm concerned that this will increase theft - they're going to have to get that money somewhere. I certainly don't think it will reduce drug use. It sounds like a sensible idea in theory but I have my doubts about how it will work out in practice.

 

[Bocefish]

Not living in Florida, I'm glad that I don't have to worry about even more drug-addled homeless people killing and stealing to stay alive and feed their drug habits in my neighbourhood or pay to incarcerate them after they kill or steal, for that matter. To each his or her own.

I agree with this. I'm concerned that this will increase theft - they're going to have to get that money somewhere. I certainly don't think it will reduce drug use. It sounds like a sensible idea in theory but I have my doubts about how it will work out in practice.

The way you are thinking is far too to prevalent in society today. It's as if you are all ready claiming victim status by intimidation and virtually being afraid of standing up to do the right thing. What you're saying is tantamount to if we don't give the druggies their money, they will come rob us. Would you pay protection money to a thug that says if you don't pay him, he will make your life hell? Fuck that! If they break into my house it will be the last thing they ever do above ground! It's about damn time for generational crack-addicted families to get off the government's tit.

 

[morment]

I don't think the basic idea is a bad one, but the fact that Rick Scott is heavily involved with a company that sells and distributes drug testing kits makes the whole thing seem rather sketchy to me.
http://deceiver.com/2011/06/07/gov-rick ... ine-state/

 

[Bocefish]

I don't think the basic idea is a bad one, but the fact that Rick Scott is heavily involved with a company that sells and distributes drug testing kits makes the whole thing seem rather sketchy to me.
http://deceiver.com/2011/06/07/gov-rick ... ine-state/

It's truly disgusting what some politicians will do to make a buck. That being said, if the drug testing is legitimately run... I see no reason to fault anybody for trying to make a profit while simultaneously helping people.

 

[MrRodry]

I don't know how the health program works in Florida but, if the state is going to keep/save money with this law, why not expand their recovery/rehab network. Why not start one? I believe that would prevent this law if and when the people challenge it.

The crackhead, the one that actually spend all his welfare on drugs, will not vanish in thin air because he can't score no more. If you really want results in this war on drugs go against the whole chain.

Junkies are just the visible results of an complex, and sometimes, invisible net of people, money and interests.

Sometimes you can apply the same sentence for any kind of goverment, just change junkies for people and people for power.

 

[Lydia_Deetz]

Lets go ahead and clear up a misconception right now. Foodstamps/EBT and medicaid can not be "spent on drugs."

You can only buy food products with foodstamps, and receive medical care ( that is limited) on medicaid.

I know most people know this, but I felt it needed to be clarified for those who don't understand how it works. Obviously if you have "other" money for drugs you should not receive these benefits.

Obviously this does not include, disability/SSI, and TANF benefits which are given to those who do not receive their court ordered child support.

 

[Keithy]

Lets go ahead and clear up a misconception right now. Foodstamps/EBT and medicaid can not be "spent on drugs."

You can only buy food products with foodstamps, and receive medical care ( that is limited) on medicaid.

I know most people know this, but I felt it needed to be clarified for those who don't understand how it works. Obviously if you have "other" money for drugs you should not receive these benefits.

Obviously this does not include, disability/SSI, and TANF benefits which are given to those who do not receive their court ordered child support.

Although, at the same time one should point out that when you can buy soda and other items with a deposit on them, there are people that dump out the soda and return the cans for money to buy drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. There have also been issues of people direct selling their EBT benefits so they can buy drugs. Sure it's already illegal (twice even!) but a mandated test will prevent this from happening in the first place (and makes it easier to catch).

 

[Lydia_Deetz]

Lets go ahead and clear up a misconception right now. Foodstamps/EBT and medicaid can not be "spent on drugs."

You can only buy food products with foodstamps, and receive medical care ( that is limited) on medicaid.

I know most people know this, but I felt it needed to be clarified for those who don't understand how it works. Obviously if you have "other" money for drugs you should not receive these benefits.

Obviously this does not include, disability/SSI, and TANF benefits which are given to those who do not receive their court ordered child support.

Although, at the same time one should point out that when you can buy soda and other items with a deposit on them, there are people that dump out the soda and return the cans for money to buy drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. There have also been issues of people direct selling their EBT benefits so they can buy drugs. Sure it's already illegal (twice even!) but a mandated test will prevent this from happening in the first place (and makes it easier to catch).

Totally agree! I have even seen these things firsthand. I just wanted to clarify to those that think people on assistance get a lump sum of cash to spend wherever they please.

 

[ElaySmith]

blah..I was gonna write something but for some reason it all disappeared...ill be back to write it out again later.... :angry4:

 

[dasEkonomist]

Among experts in the relevant fields of sociology, economics, and medicine there isn't really any debate to be had here. Mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients is ineffective and costs more than it saves. Losers includes ALL tax payers, the few pot smokers who are too slow to circumvent the easily circumvented ineffective tests, and the even fewer who are too sick due to their DIRE and DEADLY mental illness to circumvent the easily circumvented ineffective tests. Winners include producers of cheap ineffective drug tests and those employed in bloated government bureaucracy/administration. I can't resist poking fun at Florida voters for getting duped into this after the spectacular failure of an all but identical pilot program in Jacksonville of all places 10ish years ago.

If saving your precious tax money is on your mind, attention should be directed elsewhere. If saving sick poor people from drugs are bad mkay is on your mind, attention should be directed elsewhere. The opportunity costs of this scheme in terms achieving of those desired outcomes alone is enough to rule it out entirely. If you're willing to admit that you're motivated by vested interest in the drug testing industry or macabre hatred of diseased poor people, then by all means...

 

[Bocefish]

If saving your precious tax money is on your mind, attention should be directed elsewhere. If saving sick poor people from drugs are bad mkay is on your mind, attention should be directed elsewhere. The opportunity costs of this scheme in terms achieving of those desired outcomes alone is enough to rule it out entirely. If you're willing to admit that you're motivated by vested interest in the drug testing industry or macabre hatred of diseased poor people, then by all means...

Where is this elsewhere?

 

[dasEkonomist]

Given that the policy in question has a long sad history of hemorrhaging money and doing fuckall for addicts, doing nothing at all would be a better choice than mandatory drug testing. Cutting the pay of any given government employee by one dollar would be more effective.

 

[schlmoe]

Given that the policy in question has a long sad history of hemorrhaging money and doing fuckall for addicts, doing nothing at all would be a better choice than mandatory drug testing. Cutting the pay of any given government employee by one dollar would be more effective.

Since this "policy in question" has recently been signed into law in Florida and just went in to effect July 1...where is this long and sad history you speak of?

On top of that, according to the news story, "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." So, these unfortunates do have a choice. As far as I can tell, they won't be dumped into the streets unless they choose that course.

Among experts in the relevant fields of sociology, economics, and medicine there isn't really any debate to be had here

Since you have obviously polled the great minds in the "relevant fields", I'm curious to hear your suggestions on this matter. Are these forthcoming...pray tell.

I don't know what the answers are. The remedies that have been tried in the past (Methadone, rehab, 12-step, incarceration/cold turkey) have had little or no success. As a taxpayer, I'm open to any suggestions. As a taxpayer, I'd rather see these folks get govt. assistance (with limits) vs. the alternative (incarceration), primarily due to the total cost (monetary and non-monetary) on society. I also know that doing nothing and maintaining the status quo is not a solution.

Since I orbit in the periphery of the bourgeoisie, I wait for your solutions with abated breath. Heck, I'll even make you a gift by titling it for you "Ekonomist Manifesto".

One last thought: it's very easy to sit and take potshots without adding anything constructive, and it might be helpful to remember the old saying "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."