Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

[Parkbandit]

Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.

"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."

Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.

Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state's congressional delegation issued a joint statement attacking the legislation, one calling it "downright unconstitutional."

"Governor Scott's new drug testing law is not only an affront to families in need and detrimental to our nation's ongoing economic recovery, it is downright unconstitutional," said Rep. Alcee Hastings. "If Governor Scott wants to drug test recipients of TANF benefits, where does he draw the line? Are families receiving Medicaid, state emergency relief, or educational grants and loans next?"

Rep. Corrine Brown said the tests "represent an extreme and illegal invasion of personal privacy."

"Indeed, investigating people when there is probable cause to suspect they are abusing drugs is one thing," Brown said in the joint statement. "But these tests amount to strip searching our state's most vulnerable residents merely because they rely on the government for financial support during these difficult economic times."

Controversy over the measure was heightened by Scott's past association with a company he co-founded that operates walk-in urgent care clinics in Florida and counts drug screening among the services it provides.

In April, Scott, who had transferred his ownership interest in Solantic Corp. to a trust in his wife's name, said the company would not contract for state business, according to local media reports. He subsequently sold his majority stake in the company, local media reported.

On May 18, the Florida Ethics Commission ruled that two conflict-of-interest complaints against Scott were legally insufficient to warrant investigation, and adopted an opinion that no "prohibited conflict of interest" existed.

Also on Tuesday, Scott also signed a measure outlawing hallucinogenic designer drugs known as "bath salts."

"The chemical substances found in 'bath salts' constitute a significant threat to health and public safety," the governor's office said in a statement. "Poison control centers in Florida have reported 61 calls of 'bath salts' abuse, making Florida the state with the second-highest volume of calls."

The drugs "are readily available at convenience stores, discount tobacco outlets, gas stations, pawnshops, tattoo parlors, and truck stops, among other locations," the governor's office said

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/01/florida.welfare.drug.testing/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I hope it takes off for federal handout programs.

[NocturnalRob]

Are families receiving Medicaid, state emergency relief, or educational grants and loans next?
I absolutely hope so.

[Xorai]

I was in a Kroger(grocery store) the other day and they let some lady take money off her welfare card and she bought lottery tickets with it...I'm all for the drug testing!

[Parkbandit]

I was in a Kroger(grocery store) the other day and they let some lady take money off her welfare card and she bought lottery tickets with it...I'm all for the drug testing!

Yea, this will by no way take out all the fraud associated with the current Welfare program. Heck, even in the bill itself it says if an applicant fails a drug test, they can designate someone else to get the money.

But hopefully, it will stop some of the abuse...

[Fallen]

It will likely cut down on applicants, both on and off drugs, who for whatever reason will not submit to screening. I guess that is a good thing, it all depends on whether you think the government should look out for those not capable of doing so for themselves.

[Parkbandit]

It will likely cut down on applicants, both on and off drugs, who for whatever reason will not submit to screening. I guess that is a good thing, it all depends on whether you think the government should look out for those not capable of doing so for themselves.

Why would someone, who has never done any drugs, not submit to screening... especially with the reward of free money if you pass the drug test?

It probably won't even cut down that much on applicants on drugs.... for whatever reason, they believe they will pass the test.

[Xorai]

Yea, this will by no way take out all the fraud associated with the current Welfare program. Heck, even in the bill itself it says if an applicant fails a drug test, they can designate someone else to get the money.

But hopefully, it will stop some of the abuse...

I don't understand the purpose of it all if they can designate someone else to get the money. Wouldn't that just be more of a waste of the tax money to do the actual testing?

[Fallen]

Why would someone, who has never done any drugs, not submit to screening... especially with the reward of free money if you pass the drug test?

Inaccessability, laziness, fear, perceived indignity, etc. I could be wrong, but "stage fright" is no joke, speaking from experience. Any hurdle put in the way of a process will trip up some from completing it. Again, i'm not trying to get into an argument with the "rights and wrongs" of it, i'm simply stating that the number of applicants receiving money will go down if this measure is actually implemented. The question will be if that amount of money will off-set the expense of inacting this new program. Or... whether the amount of money saved is immaterial to the effort of stopping (some) people from using government money to buy drugs.

[Inspire]

I think it's a good idea.

[CrystalTears]

Shouldn't they make an effort to help these needy people with a drug problem? So they're going to get screened and still have no aid AND a drug problem?

[Warriorbird]

I like it. Then again, I favored weight control measures RE: broader healthcare coverage.

[NocturnalRob]

Shouldn't they make an effort to help these needy people with a drug problem? So they're going to get screened and still have no aid AND a drug problem?
Yeah, they're called free clinics. Go to one. Either way you're feeding over the government teat.

[Xorai]

Shouldn't they make an effort to help these needy people with a drug problem? So they're going to get screened and still have no aid AND a drug problem?

Seriously?

I'm not implying that you are stupid, for the record. There are programs already in place for drug addiction/abuse and I believe that people who want help get help.

[Fallen]

I don't think the results of the drug tests are immediate. They would likely send you a letter informing you of the screening failure, along with numbers/information for free clinics, as Rob mentioned, or ways to dispute the claim, etc.

[Inspire]

I bet there are more people on government assistance with drug problems than anyone realizes. I think you should include certain prescription medicines too though. They're the new drugs.


(I do think marijuana should be legalized and sold for profit. -- Less harmful than alcohol)

[CrystalTears]

Seriously?Yes.


I don't think the results of the drug tests are immediate. They would likely send you a letter informing you of the screening failure, along with numbers/information for free clinics, as Rob mentioned, or ways to dispute the claim, etc.
That makes sense.

I'm not against the premise of refusing aid to those with a drug problem. I was just curious if they were being helped in some way, even if it means referring them to help.

[WRoss]

Your local Tequila Party member speaking up here. Do not submit to screening. It's just another way for the government to track you! Next, they'll make you show a US Passport to buy corn tortillas.

/sarcasm

[Tgo01]

I don't understand the purpose of it all if they can designate someone else to get the money. Wouldn't that just be more of a waste of the tax money to do the actual testing?

From the way it's worded I think it's only people with children (although I've never heard of someone being on welfare who didn't have children but I'm sure it happens.) I think the idea behind it is the person they designate will use it to help the children, of course this is silly reasoning because it doesn't take someone using drugs to be an asshole. Also I hope the 'designated' person has to be drug tested too, although the article doesn't mention that.

[Showal]

I agree with drug testing for welfare payments. Yeah, it sucks for sure. It sucks having to urinate in a cup. It sucks that some people ruin it for everyone else. You can throw in a lot of "It sucks..." statements about this.

I need to pass a drug screen in order to get a legitimate job to actually work for money. If someone's receiving money from the government, I don't see why they should get to bypass that step or why it's any more of an invasion of their privacy.

[Liagala]

I don't understand the purpose of it all if they can designate someone else to get the money. Wouldn't that just be more of a waste of the tax money to do the actual testing?
The assumption here is that the designee would then have to pass a drug test. If a non-addict is getting the money, the chances of it being spent on the kids instead of drugs go way up.

Also, I agree with Rob. Medicaid, educational loans, and any other aid program you can think of should be drug screened as well.

[Parkbandit]

(I do think marijuana should be legalized and sold for profit. -- Less harmful than alcohol)

I don't have a problem really with pot being sold legally... but there is zero evidence that it is less harmful long term than alcohol.

[Parkbandit]

Also, I agree with Rob. Medicaid, educational loans, and any other aid program you can think of should be drug screened as well.

Same here. You have your hand out... expect there to be hoops to jump through.

[Rinualdo]

Another article on the same thing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110531/us_nm/us_florida_welfare_drugs

I particularly like this bit:


Other states have studied the issue and decided testing all recipients was not cost effective, the Washington-based Center for Legal and Social Policy said in a study released in January.


During debate about the law, critics pointed to a pilot testing program in Florida that was shut down in 2001 after it showed no significant difference in drug use between welfare recipients and the population at large.

[Parkbandit]

Another article on the same thing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110531/us_nm/us_florida_welfare_drugs

I particularly like this bit:

I am S-H-O-C-K-E-D that CLASP (who's tagline is "Policy solutions for low-income people) determined that this isn't a good policy. SHOCKED!!!

And I have no problem with the result of some study saying that drug use for welfare recipients is not bigger than the rest of the population. Great. But the rest of the population isn't standing around looking for a handout.. so they can do whatever they want imo. If you have your hand out, expect a hoop to jump through to get it.

[Rinualdo]

I am S-H-O-C-K-E-D that CLASP (who's tagline is "Policy solutions for low-income people) determined that this isn't a good policy. SHOCKED!!!

And I have no problem with the result of some study saying that drug use for welfare recipients is not bigger than the rest of the population. Great. But the rest of the population isn't standing around looking for a handout.. so they can do whatever they want imo. If you have your hand out, expect a hoop to jump through to get it.

Fundamentally I do not disagree, at least not on a social level. I think the greater emphasis is on the study showing it not to be cost effective. This grows government, does it not? More people to process paperwork, etc?
Also to keep in mind, this is a very paltry sum. 10$/day. I'm all for hoops, but the hoops should be commensurate with the payout. Otherwise, abolish the program and move on.

I wonder if a similar measure has been utilized/studied for unemployment.

I'm curious PB and others, how would you feel about a similar measure before medicare/medicaid benefits are paid out? VA?

[Inspire]

Another thing to point out: People who are taking a drug test will just get their clean buddy to give them piss. You're going to have to do better testing like hair folicle(sp) because they'll cheat the system.

[Parkbandit]

Fundamentally I do not disagree, at least not on a social level. I think the greater emphasis is on the study showing it not to be cost effective. This grows government, does it not? More people to process paperwork, etc?

But the "study" was from a very biased source.. CLASP. Do you have a more accurate study from a group who this will not affect?



Also to keep in mind, this is a very paltry sum. 10$/day. I'm all for hoops, but the hoops should be commensurate with the payout. Otherwise, abolish the program and move on.

There is a segment of our population who we do have a responsibility in helping. Abolishing welfare would be wrong.



I wonder if a similar measure has been utilized/studied for unemployment.

I'm curious PB and others, how would you feel about a similar measure before medicare/medicaid benefits are paid out? VA?

I'm all for this measure taking place for all handout programs. The VA isn't the same thing.. given their service to this country.

[Makkah]

I had to pull down my pants, lift my shirt, and do a 360 when pissing in a cup for the NCAA. Can't cheat that system.

[Showal]

I have luckily never received unemployment but if I did, getting drug tested would be so low on the list of my worries. Feeding myself and paying my mortgage would probably top the list. So would finding a new job, which would likely drug test me as well.

[Rinualdo]

But the "study" was from a very biased source.. CLASP. Do you have a more accurate study from a group who this will not affect?


I think you misread. or I misread. I took the statement to mean that other states have done the study and found it not cost effective. Then CLSP reported on a combination of the states' reports.


Other states have studied the issue and decided testing all recipients was not cost effective, the Washington-based Center for Legal and Social Policy said in a study released in January.



There is a segment of our population who we do have a responsibility in helping. Abolishing welfare would be wrong.



I'm all for this measure taking place for all handout programs. The VA isn't the same thing.. given their service to this country.

I agree with this. I am concerned about the logistics of this for disabled/mentally handicapped people, however.

[Bobmuhthol]

Another thing to point out: People who are taking a drug test will just get their clean buddy to give them piss. You're going to have to do better testing like hair folicle(sp) because they'll cheat the system.

Have you ever taken a drug test administered by a person who gave a shit about the results? It's nearly impossible to circumvent. Athletes at certain levels have to piss in front of the person giving the test -- not that the government could get away with this particular practice, but it happens.

[Rinualdo]

WTF kind of drug test are you taking that allows you to bring in your own sample?!

[Fallen]

I've taken many drug tests. In the Army, the Drill Sergeants/NCO's all but stared at your junk as you took a piss. It would be next to impossible to cheat via urine swapping in that instance. You're told the morning of the test, and not allowed to leave the waiting area until you have it. Pretty iron clad.

For work, we are taken into a bathroom where the person waits outside. You can enter in plain clothes, and are not monitored. You could definitely urine swap. You're told the day of, and they're pretty "eh" on when you get there. You could definitely take flushers. That's always a risk, though, as they likely test for tampering.

My guess is Gov. tests would definitely be towards the latter.

[Ysamine]

It's not as easy to cheat as you might think. Watching someone pee in a cup was always as uncomfortable for me as being the cup donor. Fortunately, there are other ways to know. Temperature is a good indication of how fresh urine is. Even through gloves.

[Fallen]

It's not as easy to cheat as you might think. Watching someone pee in a cup was always as uncomfortable for me as being the cup donor. Fortunately, there are other ways to know. Temperature is a good indication of how fresh urine is. Even through gloves.

I've known people to buy devices which keep the piss at the proper temperature. You'd be amazed how far people will go to beat a test rather than just not doing drugs.

[Latrinsorm]

But the rest of the population isn't standing around looking for a handout.. so they can do whatever they want imo. If you have your hand out, expect a hoop to jump through to get it.Do you believe that if a person is on welfare, it is their fault in some way?

I take it from your statements that you would protest if the government demanded that you (specific) be drug tested before renewing your driver's license. If so, can you articulate your reasoning for this reaction?

[Cephalopod]

WTF kind of drug test are you taking that allows you to bring in your own sample?!

Movies.

[NocturnalRob]

Movies.
I base all my urine sample experience on what I've seen of Lattimer in The Program.

[Cephalopod]

Also, relevant to the thread... I pretty much agree with this. I agree with others that if you're taking federal (or state) money for something, you should be subjected to drug testing.

As I wrote that last sentence, I had this giddy giggle imagining the Exxon chairman having to take a government-administered drug test to receive their generous subsidies and tax breaks.

[Tolwynn]

Do you believe that if a person is on welfare, it is their fault in some way?

If they can't work or won't work because they're on drugs, all signs point to yes.

[Archigeek]

Also, relevant to the thread... I pretty much agree with this. I agree with others that if you're taking federal (or state) money for something, you should be subjected to drug testing.

As I wrote that last sentence, I had this giddy giggle imagining the Exxon chairman having to take a government-administered drug test to receive their generous subsidies and tax breaks.

There in lies the rub. I've had a number of Fortune 500 clients, and they have all gotten millions in government handouts. In the case of Target, they got a 60m handout on their corporate HQ. So who at the corporation do you test? Officers, employees, or shareholders who are the ultimate welfare recipients in the case of corporate welfare?

[Parkbandit]

Do you believe that if a person is on welfare, it is their fault in some way?

I don't believe in absolutes... but I would say a majority of people on welfare are on welfare due to their own decisions and/or by their own choosing.



I take it from your statements that you would protest if the government demanded that you (specific) be drug tested before renewing your driver's license. If so, can you articulate your reasoning for this reaction?

Apples and oranges. When you are asking for help because you can't manage to feed yourself without help, then you should be forced through hoops to ensure you are not using that help in an illegal way.

Do you have a better comparison.. or was that all you could manage?

[Jayvn]

IF you can afford drugs THEN you can afford food THEREFOR you do not need government assistance.

and they already have a similar condition for federal financial aid for school. If you have ever been convicted of a drug charge then you are permanently disqualified for the Pell grant.

[Parkbandit]

As I wrote that last sentence, I had this giddy giggle imagining the Exxon chairman having to take a government-administered drug test to receive their generous subsidies and tax breaks.

I don't think it would be plausable to force a CEO to have a drug test to accept millions/billions in handouts... that's just stupid.

But, I do believe that the Government should have complete access to all their financial records to determine what went wrong and to force the company to make specific changes with the way they conduct business. You don't like it as a CEO? Tough shit, don't come looking for a bailout.

[Nieninque]

All this from the bloke who was forced to resign as Chief Executive of Columbia/HCA in 1997 amid a scandal over the company's business and Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29) billing practices; the company ultimately admitted to fourteen felonies and agreed to pay the federal government over $600 million (From wiki). Worried about people defrauding the state? Bless.

I imagine that the only people who will benefit from this bill should it be passed will be the drug testing companies (which is why I looked him up on Wiki, to see if he was connected to a drug testing company). It costs a fortune to do drug testing to an accuracy suitable for Court. As they are likely to experience legal challenges, should they try and stop someone's benefits, I assume they will be working on that premise.
What an utter waste of money for no apparent gain.

[g++]

I don't think it would be plausable to force a CEO to have a drug test to accept millions/billions in handouts... that's just stupid.


Why? My guess is goldman sachs spends more on blow and hookers than the welfare recipients in Miami.

[Warriorbird]

Why? My guess is goldman sachs spends more on blow and hookers than the welfare recipients in Miami.

/thread

[Rinualdo]

All this from the bloke who was forced to resign as Chief Executive of Columbia/HCA in 1997 amid a scandal over the company's business and Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29) billing practices; the company ultimately admitted to fourteen felonies and agreed to pay the federal government over $600 million (From wiki). Worried about people defrauding the state? Bless.

I imagine that the only people who will benefit from this bill should it be passed will be the drug testing companies (which is why I looked him up on Wiki, to see if he was connected to a drug testing company). It costs a fortune to do drug testing to an accuracy suitable for Court. As they are likely to experience legal challenges, should they try and stop someone's benefits, I assume they will be working on that premise.
What an utter waste of money for no apparent gain.

In semi-related news, there was an article today about the DOJ going after the COEs and heads of health care corporations personally for crimes committed. Apparently they are frustrated with the fines, which get passed off to consumers anyway, and companies not changing policies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43223962/ns/business-us_business/

[Latrinsorm]

I don't believe in absolutes... but I would say a majority of people on welfare are on welfare due to their own decisions and/or by their own choosing.I see. With that in mind, would you say that the minority are being unfairly imposed upon? Please feel free to define unfairly as you see fit.
Apples and oranges. When you are asking for help because you can't manage to feed yourself without help, then you should be forced through hoops to ensure you are not using that help in an illegal way.

Do you have a better comparison.. or was that all you could manage?I understand why you think people on welfare should be tested. I do not understand why you think people not on welfare shouldn't be tested. For instance, why shouldn't people be tested to ensure they are not using a car in a way that is both illegal and dangerous to everyone around them? Certainly a person driving a car on crack is worse than a person fraudulently obtaining crack.

[Parkbandit]

All this from the bloke who was forced to resign as Chief Executive of Columbia/HCA in 1997 amid a scandal over the company's business and Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29) billing practices; the company ultimately admitted to fourteen felonies and agreed to pay the federal government over $600 million (From wiki). Worried about people defrauding the state? Bless.

I imagine that the only people who will benefit from this bill should it be passed will be the drug testing companies (which is why I looked him up on Wiki, to see if he was connected to a drug testing company). It costs a fortune to do drug testing to an accuracy suitable for Court. As they are likely to experience legal challenges, should they try and stop someone's benefits, I assume they will be working on that premise.
What an utter waste of money for no apparent gain.

1) He signed it into law already. It starts this July.
2) I was paying $22 a drug test 5 years ago.. it shouldn't be that much more now, given the bulk discount we should demand. Hardly a "fortune".

[Rinualdo]

1)
2) I was paying $22 a drug test 5 years ago.. it shouldn't be that much more now, given the bulk discount we should demand. Hardly a "fortune".

When you are talking about a 300$ entitlement, 1/15 of that isn't an insignificant amount of money.

[Warriorbird]

2) I was paying $22 a drug test 5 years ago.. it shouldn't be that much more now, given the bulk discount we should demand. Hardly a "fortune".

WAYYY different set of standards.

[Alfster]

1) He signed it into law already. It starts this July.
2) I was paying $22 a drug test 5 years ago.. it shouldn't be that much more now, given the bulk discount we should demand. Hardly a "fortune".

As for number 2, we pay considerably more than that per test. Just over 100 per test.

[NocturnalRob]

Why? My guess is goldman sachs spends more on blow and hookers than the welfare recipients in Miami.
Pay more in taxes too.

[Parkbandit]

I see. With that in mind, would you say that the minority are being unfairly imposed upon? Please feel free to define unfairly as you see fit.

OMG TEH LAW R RACIST!!!!!

Thankfully, there are 0 white people who collect welfare in Florida......


I understand why you think people on welfare should be tested. I do not understand why you think people not on welfare shouldn't be tested. For instance, why shouldn't people be tested to ensure they are not using a car in a way that is both illegal and dangerous to everyone around them? Certainly a person driving a car on crack is worse than a person fraudulently obtaining crack.

You came up with a very bad comparison.. and yet you still attempt (albeit poorly) to cling to it.

Come up with a better comparison. The topic is handouts... not licensing.

[Parkbandit]

When you are talking about a 300$ entitlement, 1/15 of that isn't an insignificant amount of money.

People on welfare only receive $300 over their lifetime? Source?

[TheEschaton]

Are they only tested once? Cause then your post would make sense.

[Rinualdo]

People on welfare only receive $300 over their lifetime? Source?

Its a 300$ a month entitlement where you have to pay for the test and then "periodically" after receiving them. It is obviously hard to create a number with impact without the cost of test and frequency of retesting. I was using your small example of 20$ per test. If we take the other example of 100$ per test and assume someone has to test twice in a year, 200/3000$ still gives us the same proportion, no?

That also doesn't count the government overhead to administer and paperwork.

Which leads me back to the same point- I question the effectiveness from a monetary standpoint. If the overall point is more one of morality/ethics, so be it, but then apply the test to all areas of government in a similar vein to Lantrin's points.

[Parkbandit]

As for number 2, we pay considerably more than that per test. Just over 100 per test.

A quick google search produces the following:

http://www.employmentdrugtesting.com/services.html $48 per

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility $42 per

http://www.managementinfoservices.com/individualdrugtesting.htm?gclid=CK7N__OzlakCFQ0J2g odPHgAfw $55 per

These are without the bulk discounts screening.

[Warriorbird]

A quick google search produces the following:

http://www.employmentdrugtesting.com/services.html $48 per

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility $42 per

http://www.managementinfoservices.com/individualdrugtesting.htm?gclid=CK7N__OzlakCFQ0J2g odPHgAfw $55 per

These are without the bulk discounts screening.

Presumably they'd be going for a different standard if they have to take them to court.

[Tgo01]

Welfare only gives 300 dollars a month? Are there factors that can incease this amount? Because I have known people on welfare and they received a lot more than that.

[Rinualdo]

I'm curious why no one has mentioned the section of this law that requires state employees to be drug tested yet.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-01/florida-governor-sued-by-aclu-for-drug-testing-of-state-employees.html

[Rinualdo]

Welfare only gives 300 dollars a month? Are there factors that can incease this amount? Because I have known people on welfare and they received a lot more than that.

There are many types of welfare, but this law refers to TANF, which provides a maximum of 300$ a month to a family.

[Rinualdo]

I didn't see this in the original article, but apparently if you pass the test, you get reimbursed for the cost. Perhaps this is an additional reason why it may not be a cost effective program and why the idea was abandoned by other states.

If welfare candidates pass the drug screening, they'll be reimbursed for the test.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/01/2011-06-01_florida_gov_rick_scott_signs_law_requiring_welf are_recipients_to_take_drug_test_.html#ixzz1O3ONQj p4

Also, if they fail, they are banned for 1 year or until they get treatment.

[Latrinsorm]

OMG TEH LAW R RACIST!!!!!

Thankfully, there are 0 white people who collect welfare in Florida......Minority in this context means those people who are on welfare through no fault of their own, in contrast to what you feel is the majority who are "on welfare due to their own decisions and/or by their own choosing".
You came up with a very bad comparison.. and yet you still attempt (albeit poorly) to cling to it.

Come up with a better comparison. The topic is handouts... not licensing.I understand that you feel that the comparison is not relevant, but I am still interested in getting your take on the proposed situation. Should people be drug tested when getting a driver's license, and if not, why not?

[CrystalTears]

I didn't see this in the original article, but apparently if you pass the test, you get reimbursed for the cost. Perhaps this is an additional reason why it may not be a cost effective program and why the idea was abandoned by other states.

If welfare candidates pass the drug screening, they'll be reimbursed for the test.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/01/2011-06-01_florida_gov_rick_scott_signs_law_requiring_welf are_recipients_to_take_drug_test_.html#ixzz1O3ONQj p4

Also, if they fail, they are banned for 1 year or until they get treatment.
It was mentioned...

The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify.

[CrystalTears]

Thankfully, there are 0 white people who collect welfare in Florida......Haha, yeah right.

[Rinualdo]

Haha, yeah right.

I believe that was sarcasm based off PB incorrectly understanding that minority wasn't referring to race, but the number of welfare recipients compared to the actual population.

[CrystalTears]

It's still a funny thing to say.

[Archigeek]

If testing your pee without probable cause isn't an unreasonable search, what is?

[CrystalTears]

If testing your pee without probable cause isn't an unreasonable search, what is?
Why is it okay for people getting a job to earn money, but not for people to get unearned money?

[Tgo01]

If testing your pee without probable cause isn't an unreasonable search, what is?

That would be a great point if someone was forced to do a drug test without probable cause.

[Parkbandit]

Minority in this context means those people who are on welfare through no fault of their own, in contrast to what you feel is the majority who are "on welfare due to their own decisions and/or by their own choosing".

Welfare is still available to them.. since they made the correct decision to not spend money on drugs and would therefore pass any drug test.



I understand that you feel that the comparison is not relevant, but I am still interested in getting your take on the proposed situation. Should people be drug tested when getting a driver's license, and if not, why not?

The only place this is proposed is in your head.. which is a very confused little space.

Come up with a better analogy if you want to actually have a point.

[Archigeek]

It's not OK for just any job is it? I thought there were limitations.

And the argument that no one is being forced to do it won't withstand 5 minutes in court, as the alternative (not participating, not getting on the bus, etc), just solidifies how unreasonable the search is.

[Tgo01]

Some Walmarts require employees to do drug tests just to push carts.

[Rinualdo]

I'd actually like to hear PBs answer on driver's license and subsequent rationale.

[ThatDamnTep]

It's not OK for just any job is it? I thought there were limitations.

And the argument that no one is being forced to do it won't withstand 5 minutes in court, as the alternative (not participating, not getting on the bus, etc), just solidifies how unreasonable the search is.

Eh, random drug tests are a part of my job. If I refuse to take it or fail, I hit the road. For clarification, I work in retail.

[CrystalTears]

It's not OK for just any job is it? I thought there were limitations.

And the argument that no one is being forced to do it won't withstand 5 minutes in court, as the alternative (not participating, not getting on the bus, etc), just solidifies how unreasonable the search is.
Did it state that screenings were going to be random or voluntary?

[diethx]

They drug test to work in supermarkets...

[Parkbandit]

I'd actually like to hear PBs answer on driver's license and subsequent rationale.

I feel like a rockstar.. and you are just waiting so patiently for my autograph.

Come up with a suitable analogy and I'll see if the rest of the band wants to come out for an encore.

[g++]

I think they should drug test for social security. And kill everyone over 50 for fucking the country up. One or the other.

[TheEschaton]

I think the difference Archi is pointing out is the difference between gov't making you take a piss test, versus a private company.

And to answer Archi, unreasonable search is limited to criminal cases - as long as people who fail their piss tests aren't being turned over to the police, you can't really say anything about it under the 4th. Lots of government jobs already piss test, and in this country, neither government employment nor government aid is a right that could be unreasonably be infringed upon.

[Archigeek]

I think the difference Archi is pointing out is the difference between gov't making you take a piss test, versus a private company.

And to answer Archi, unreasonable search is limited to criminal cases - as long as people who fail their piss tests aren't being turned over to the police, you can't really say anything about it under the 4th. Lots of government jobs already piss test, and in this country, neither government employment nor government aid is a right that could be unreasonably be infringed upon.

Is not unreasonable search law an extension of the right to privacy? And if what you do in your own home is protected, should not the contents of your own body be equally protected?

Is there not case law that restricts drug testing in the workplace to certain jobs such as those where there are life safety concerns? And yes, I know this isn't a job application so employment law doesn't directly apply, but those are the examples people are giving.

[diethx]

Is not unreasonable search law an extension of the right to privacy? And if what you do in your own home is protected, should not the contents of your own body be equally protected?

Is there not case law that restricts drug testing in the workplace to certain jobs such as those where there are life safety concerns? And yes, I know this isn't a job application so employment law doesn't directly apply, but those are the examples people are giving.

Obviously not, otherwise they wouldn't be able to drug test for a cashier position at a grocery store or a cart-pusher at Walmart. Unless there are life safety concerns with those jobs that I'm unaware of?

[Bobmuhthol]

Is there not case law that restricts drug testing in the workplace to certain jobs such as those where there are life safety concerns?

Working in the private sector is not a right. Employers are free to hire whoever the fuck they want and decide not to hire the same crowd, barring protected classes (drug users not being a protected class).

[Latrinsorm]

Welfare is still available to them.. since they made the correct decision to not spend money on drugs and would therefore pass any drug test.Certainly, but I did not ask whether welfare would be available to them. I asked whether you felt they would be unfairly imposed upon.
The only place this is proposed is in your head.. which is a very confused little space.

Come up with a better analogy if you want to actually have a point.That's what a thought experiment is. We consider a hypothetical situation, which is to say a situation that exists only in thought. I'm really not sure why you are so reticent to comment on it. Oh well.

[TheEschaton]

The right to be free from unreasonable searches is different from the right to privacy. The right to privacy is an extrapolation of constitutional law, the right to be free from unreasonable search is explicit in the Bill of Rights.

In any case, the freedom of privacy in re: the government has been limited (so far) to things people have a "right" to already. IE, non-discrimination (w/ privacy, you're not allowed to ask race), free religion (not allowed to ask religion), etc. Like Bob said, drug use isn't considered a right and thus someone who uses drugs has no right to privacy regarding that drug use.

[Parkbandit]

Certainly, but I did not ask whether welfare would be available to them. I asked whether you felt they would be unfairly imposed upon.

Like I posted from the onset of this discussion, if you have your handout, expect to be forced to jump through a hoop or two. If you feel you are being unfairly imposed upon, then perhaps you should take some responsibility for yourself and get a job. Oh wait, that would be unfair too! :(


That's what a thought experiment is. We consider a hypothetical situation, which is to say a situation that exists only in thought. I'm really not sure why you are so reticent to comment on it. Oh well.

In order for this to be considered a "thought experiment" some thought has to have been used to formulate an appropriate question. That step never took place.

There are no dumb answers, just really dumb questions... something you illustrated perfectly.

[~Rocktar~]

Working in the private sector is not a right. Employers are free to hire whoever the fuck they want and decide not to hire the same crowd, barring protected classes (drug users not being a protected class).

Unless you want to locate an airplane plant in South Carolina.

[Archigeek]

The right to be free from unreasonable searches is different from the right to privacy. The right to privacy is an extrapolation of constitutional law, the right to be free from unreasonable search is explicit in the Bill of Rights.

In any case, the freedom of privacy in re: the government has been limited (so far) to things people have a "right" to already. IE, non-discrimination (w/ privacy, you're not allowed to ask race), free religion (not allowed to ask religion), etc. Like Bob said, drug use isn't considered a right and thus someone who uses drugs has no right to privacy regarding that drug use.

Who said anything about drug users being a class that needs a special right to privacy? I'm presuming that those being tested aren't drug users. Why should there not be a presumption of innocence here?

The problem with drug testing that I have is that to me it's an invasion of privacy that forces a person to prove innocence, and thus presumes guilt.

Doing a quick search, it looks like the case law is fairly murky. Hopefully a case will go to the Supreme Court and they can clarify when drug testing is an invasion of privacy and when it isn't.

[Rinualdo]

Unless you want to locate an airplane plant in South Carolina.

Way to completely misinterpret what that is about.

[Tgo01]

Who said anything about drug users being a class that needs a special right to privacy? I'm presuming that those being tested aren't drug users. Why should there not be a presumption of innocence here?

The problem with drug testing that I have is that to me it's an invasion of privacy that forces a person to prove innocence, and thus presumes guilt.

Where does this line of thinking end? Are employers not allowed to run a criminal check on someone because it's presumed that they have never committed a crime? Are employers and landlords not allowed to run a credit check on people because it should be assumed that they have perfect credit? Should employers not be allowed to ask for proof of citizenship because everyone applying for a job in the US is legally allowed to do so?

[Latrinsorm]

Where does this line of thinking end?At the point a reasonable person would draw it, just like every other gray area in our legal system.

Which is to say, as arbitrarily determined by the Supreme Court.

[ThatDamnTep]

Where does this line of thinking end? Are employers not allowed to run a criminal check on someone because it's presumed that they have never committed a crime? Are employers and landlords not allowed to run a credit check on people because it should be assumed that they have perfect credit? Should employers not be allowed to ask for proof of citizenship because everyone applying for a job in the US is legally allowed to do so?


Slight derail on the whole credit check for employment thing. There was a piece in the NY Times where TransUnion was fighting to keep lawmakers from passing legislation to prevent employer's performing credit checks on potential employees. The TransUnion rep even admitted that they have no statistical correlation or research to prove that people with poor credit scores were more likely to do poorly in their job or commit fraud.


Trouble is, researchers say there is no evidence showing that people with weak credit are more likely to be bad employees or to steal from their bosses, a fact that Mr. Rosenberg himself later admitted.

“At this point we don’t have any research to show any statistical correlation between what’s in somebody’s credit report and their job performance or their likelihood to commit fraud,” he said in separate testimony to Oregon legislators in January.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/business/10credit.html

[Back]

Damn. If this goes nationwide how am I gonna get my weed, Dutch Masters and beer? Oh right two of those are legal the third is easily gotten with a prescription for sleep apnea. Winning!

[Parkbandit]

Damn. If this goes nationwide how am I gonna get my weed, Dutch Masters and beer? Oh right two of those are legal the third is easily gotten with a prescription for sleep apnea. Winning!

There is nothing about you that anyone would confuse as "winning".

[Back]

There is nothing about you that anyone would confuse as "winning".

The real winners are the drug testing companies and people who vilify drug use.

[TheEschaton]

Who said anything about drug users being a class that needs a special right to privacy? I'm presuming that those being tested aren't drug users. Why should there not be a presumption of innocence here?

The problem with drug testing that I have is that to me it's an invasion of privacy that forces a person to prove innocence, and thus presumes guilt.

Doing a quick search, it looks like the case law is fairly murky. Hopefully a case will go to the Supreme Court and they can clarify when drug testing is an invasion of privacy and when it isn't.

Again, a presumption of innocence is only available in a criminal trial, a very specialized area. This is not criminal, it's not even civil, it's regulatory, and thus has no guarantee of presumption of innocence. Otherwise, TSA wouldn't be allowed to search you getting on a plane.

[Showal]

Damn. If this goes nationwide how am I gonna get my weed, Dutch Masters and beer? Oh right two of those are legal the third is easily gotten with a prescription for sleep apnea. Winning!

For the two legal things you mentioned, didn't you start a thread about how you weren't doing them anymore? That does sound like winning!

[Parkbandit]

For the two legal things you mentioned, didn't you start a thread about how you weren't doing them anymore? That does sound like winning!

He never said he was doing them any less either!

IN YOUR FACE!

[Showal]

He never said he was doing them any less either!

IN YOUR FACE!

SHOWS WHAT YOU KNOW

[Parkbandit]

In defense of Backlash... wouldn't you fall off the wagon if your wagon was this creepy?

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_LrtKBq94rcw/S_zFLz0LWEI/AAAAAAAAFOE/MXfSSrKl-cY/Creepy%20wagon_thumb.jpg

[Showal]

SHOWS WHAT YOUR KNOW

[NocturnalRob]

SHOWS WHAT YOUR KNOW
You sound jealous.

[Showal]

You sound jealous.

If I had that robot pulling a rickshaw, I would never fall off the wagon.

[4a6c1]

Late to convo.

I LOVE the idea of drug testing welfare recipients.

The problem is that most of the people I've helped get into these programs are injured/disabled in some way and take prescription drugs. I'm not familiar with drug usage/testing (other than the crap military kind) but how will these disabled welfare recipients prove that the prescription they are taking for is legal and authorized.

I think it will be hard to keep some of these people from getting lost in the system. :(

[diethx]

Late to convo.

I LOVE the idea of drug testing welfare recipients.

The problem is that most of the people I've helped get into these programs are injured/disabled in some way and take prescription drugs. I'm not familiar with drug usage/testing (other than the crap military kind) but how will these disabled welfare recipients prove that the prescription they are taking for is legal and authorized.

I think it will be hard to keep some of these people from getting lost in the system. :(

Most standard drug tests only test for the illegal shit, I think. I had to take a test for nursing school and I had been taking some benzos in the weeks prior and it didn't cause a blip or anything. They could always bring in their prescriptions as proof, if necessary, I guess. Plus, a call from their doctor if need be?

[4a6c1]

That explains that. I'm so glad I know druggies online. I love learning new things.

[Inspire]

I pop pills

That explains a lot of your attitude lately.

[diethx]

Against my better judgement I'm going to write the following and tell you the truth about my life.

I'll start by saying that I'm a very private person. I grew up a Jehovahs Witness and unless you were part of the church you were considered to be a "worldly" person and a bad person. So growing up I had no friends because I was not allowed to play with anyone outside of the church.

When I became a teenager I found Gemstone and got hooked. It was an escape from a life that I didn't agree with. I was only allowed to play for an hour here or there and spent most of my time being a twat dragging bodies out of TSC to decay and whatnot. But having a place where I could be someone different than who I was forced to be was salvation.

Eventually I got out on my own and came back to GS. I played on and off for a few years, never really making any close friends. I was part of the Trophy Room gang when Debia, Jubuls, the original Tijay, Xak, etc used to hang there.

Anyway, fast forward about 9 years from there and it brings us to last year. I guess I should also tell you that I am a 28 year old bisexual male, I'm not a girl but it's sometimes fun to play around. I have been in a relationship for 4 years now with someone I care about very deeply. Unfortunately that person had a drinking problem and it got out of control. One night he decided to swallow a tube of pills and drink himself to death. I woke up at 4am to find him barely breathing. I called 911 and they rushed him to the hospital where he stayed for awhile. He went into rehab from there and got help for his drinking problem but I wasn't alright. His suicide attempt affected me in ways that I wasn't prepared for. I became severely depressed myself and sunk into gemstone like a tick. It was getting harder and harder for me to get out of bed in the morning and I started missing more and more work. I eventually was let go, which made me sink even further into GS.

Thankfully I was able to make silvers in the game and sell them to the PC community. Had it not been for all of you, I wouldn't have made it over the last year, financially or mentally. That is also part of the reason why Myklians changing was hard on me. I was using gemstone to survive and to pay my bills. It became a full time job. When Myklians were changed I realized my life was about to become much more difficult and I freaked out. I was already in a bad place because of the suicide attempt and I no longer knew how to deal with anything.

So where does that leave me now. Unfortunately I have a drug problem. I smoke marijuana every day. I don't like taking pills to be normal, so I turned to drugs to stabilize my mood and help me feel better. Most of the time I am alright, but every now and then I turn into an ugly monster, which is what you see from time to time on lnet.

So, this is the mess that is my life. Feel free to make fun of me now in typical PC fashion. I'm sorry if I have insulted you personally. Please know that it wasn't personal if I went off on you. I have a lot of problems that I don't know how to deal with or overcome. I have become someone that I don't want to be, so I am sorry if I have affected you negatively because of it.

And I don't even have to make shit up to make you look like an addict loser.

[Parkbandit]

Late to convo.

I LOVE the idea of drug testing welfare recipients.

The problem is that most of the people I've helped get into these programs are injured/disabled in some way and take prescription drugs. I'm not familiar with drug usage/testing (other than the crap military kind) but how will these disabled welfare recipients prove that the prescription they are taking for is legal and authorized.

I think it will be hard to keep some of these people from getting lost in the system. :(

Prior to submitting your sample for testing, you are asked to list all of the medication you are currently on.

[Cephalopod]

And I don't even have to make shit up to make you look like an addict loser.

That should really be quoted in pretty much every thread, whether he's posting in it or not. Except the topless thread, there's no reason to soil that. Speaking of soiling... I think it's time to head over there now.

[4a6c1]

Prior to submitting your sample for testing, you are asked to list all of the medication you are currently on.

Sounds good.