Florida governor to impose drug testing on welfare recipients...will get rich out of it

reply to post by doobydoll


The rich have waged such a successful war against the poor using propaganda and talking points, that most people have fallen for the trick. They'll kick the #### out of a poor person stealing a few hundred dollars, but kiss the arse of a rich person stealing thousands? What sense does that make?

Most of the people against welfare are probably only 1-2 steps from it their selves! None of us should be condemning poor recepients of welfare because take it from someone who works in the office...we've had a few people who worked here and are now in line as a customer...

The only two valid arguments I have heard concerning the implementation of this required drug screening is the cost of the test and the conflict of interest with who is going to perform the drug screening.

First, the cost. I can go to my local head shop and buy a drug screening kit that cost $10. For $10 I can tell if you've been taking pills, ingesting amphetamines or smoking weed. Even people on Welfare can afford this...if they aren’t spending their checks on crack and weed.

Second, I don’t think Ann Scotts company should be in the running for this. The article snippet said her company was ONE of the companies that MAY benefit from this. So it’s not even definite that she will get the contract. However, her company should not be allowed to bid due to her relationship with the Governor.

I understand that there are people on welfare who desperately need it, but for the most part, people are just abusing the system, pumping out kids for a bigger check and generally tending to use part or most of their checks for drugs, alcohol and many other items that they don’t need to survive. Like that 60 inch plasma...

This is just another step in the direction of the nanny state that will control every aspect of your lives. If you support this what are you going to do when government provides for all your health care needs? Once you are dependent on government they can start mandating things like this. Drug test for those on government health care. Then they can tell you they won't cover you if your over weight or smoke or don't eat from the government approved list of foods. They will drop you if you don't take the meds they say you have to take. Then when they drop you for any of these reasons they will fine you because you don't have coverage. When you don't pay the fine they will arrest you. This is coming. You think I joke or am making too much of this but you will be proven wrong. Government cares about control only. Making you dependent on them is the first step of that control. People said they wouldn't impose fines for not having health insurance. People said it would never pass. People said I was just getting worked up over nothing. Then it passed and there were fines for not being covered. What do those people say now? Nothing.

This is a very dangerous precedent.

Florida is out of control in the area of pain killer abuse. In the one county I used to live in, they have 2-3 kids a week dropping dead from it. I dont think the idea in itself is bad, but I am sure the motive is not altruistic. EVERYTHING is about the money these days.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by SpectreDC
I hope the people who wade in here arguing this is a good idea can rationalize the cost it would take to do this.

At roughly 45-50$ per test it isn't cheap, and that's only a standard drug test that only covers a handful of substances.

Notice that no one for this so far in this thread can fulfill my request.

No problem. I'll bite.

It said that the testing was to be paid for by the welfare recipient. Even if the government had to partially or wholly subsidize it, 45-50 bucks a test will save money over the totality of the welfare payments a druggie would potentially collect.

Either way, net savings.

They will continue to recieve their welfare payments. And now, in addition, the test has to be paid for.

No net savings - Just huge additional expense.

A pointless and very costly law. It serves only one person - the governor.

Another nail in the coffin.

I love how hypocritical the gov is, 100 years ago, coc aine was sold on the shelves, hemp was legal + the hemp for victory military commercial [i love that one].

Now its "Public enemy #1"

They have spent more money trying to find something wrong with hemp, than any other vegetable in history. While all that money could of been spent building hemp farms and stimulating the economy, at the same time making the entire country's standard of living higher [pun intended]

Anybody that says how you should live your life and control what you can put into your body, should be put to death, for those are the real enemies of the human race.

Originally posted by byteshertz
I can understand people not wanting to spend tax dollars on junkies who are not working, but if you have the right to say everyone does not have equal right to the welfare money then it is only fair IMO people also have the right to say they will not pay tax to a system that no longer benefits everyone.


This is the problem with trying to mold society to what you think is right - you take away peoples right to disagree. And when people disagree but have no option to opt out that is slavery - you have taken someone freewill by restricting their options.

I think it is a good idea, carried out in a terrible way. Like others have said, I have gone through random drug testing for my jobs, had to do it in order to be employed in the the first place. We all have a right to be treated equally, I don't get my paychecks without having to prove that I am sober.

HOWEVER Rick Scott is a terrible politician, in my opinion. This is the same guy that is taking away teachers rights, laying off school staff, and enforcing merit pay for teachers so that schools are acting like big business instead of worrying about teaching. His track record of having no regard for citizens certainly does not earn him any of my faith in being able to carry this out. The way he goes about testing procedure (funneling the money through his wife) is horribly corrupt and if the tests aren't randomized, it's not going to do any good. If this is supposed to be a fear tactic, it also will not work because the welfare checks will be given to someone designated by person who has just failed their test. I would bet 8 times out of 10 the check would go to someone who will just hand it over to be spent on whatever (maybe more drugs.)

Like I said, good idea that can be built on, but should not be enforced as Rick Scott has it set up.

reply to post by DerbyCityLights

First, the cost. I can go to my local head shop and buy a drug screening kit that cost $10. For $10 I can tell if you've been taking pills, ingesting amphetamines or smoking weed. Even people on Welfare can afford this...if they aren’t spending their checks on crack and weed.

I would expect that the drug-test company will be providing their own test supplies which will be charged to the taxpayer.
Add onto that the additional cost of paying staff to perform the tests.
Add onto that the cost of paying adminstration staff to document/record/ store test results.

I have no doubt many will demand re-tests - yet more additional expense.

After all this palaver, they are to continue paying out welfare regardless of test results.

So, where will the money come from to pay for all this additional cost of drug-testing, which is now the law? It has to come from the taxpayer, where else?

The governor is taking the taxpayer's hard-earned dollar and stuffing his own pockets with it.

I am totally in favor of this in the sense that I hate seeing friends spend their (our) money on gear when I can bearly afford my own coke!

The cost is expensive though. I was a drugs counselor years ago and testing clients was pricey.

This should be a national law and put into affect everywhere. About time we stop providing handouts to drug addicts and free loaders.

Fact: Only 53% of americans pay taxes. (These are the welfare, social security canidates)

www.usatoday.com...

I am all for it. What a grand idea.

I don't have a problem with welfare recipients having mandatory drug testing. I have a problem with the governor getting richer off it. This stinks of corruption to the core. His company should not get any benefit from this testing. None, but if his clinics do, he should be removed from office immediately, and brought up on charges. These republican governors will very likely be one term wonders, with Wisconsin's Walker, being a one year wonder.

Time to recall that POS. And start drug and alcohol testing the Senators and Congressmen. Somebody is legislating while impaired.

Originally posted by kellynap43
This should be a national law and put into affect everywhere. About time we stop providing handouts to drug addicts and free loaders.

Fact: Only 53% of americans pay taxes. (These are the welfare, social security canidates)

www.usatoday.com...

Does that include the top 400? They pay an average of 16.5% in federal taxes, so in essence, they are freeloaders too. My wife and I are in the top 20 percent, yet we pay well over 20 percent in federal taxes. Why should the top 400 richest pay 16.5 percent?

The rich pay _______________ percent of the federal taxes, in 3......2.......1. Spare me the woe is me, rich sniveling garbage, please. They don't need any breaks.

Next up. I'm bashing the rich.

reply to post by saturnsrings


Your right. No one likes anybody to make tough decisions and be responsible. And that is exactly what the Republican canidates were highered to do. But you dont make friends being responsible. You dont make friends cleaning up after all the spending and corruption the other political party has participated in. Why would you not vote Liberal? They offer free homes, free health care, sit on your tails and make the rich pay for it. But when the country cant afford it, and starts heading in the wrong direction, (14 trillion dollar deficit), republicans are the only party that has what it takes to put all of us on the right track again.

Drug test are not what they should be doing. I would enstate a full medical and psychological evaluation for every welfare recipient. Make sure that are not fit to work in any way. Then and only then would they get there checks. If it's a there isn't any jobs available due to the ecconomy....wich I sincerely doubt....then it should be temporary until a job is found. And it's not the government paying for welfare it's you and me, the hardworking citizen. I for one am tired of paying for the lazy parasite that rather get drunk than contribute to society. I always found work no matter what. You say there isn't any..bull crap. Go mow lawns, get a paper rout, pack groceries, go pick fruit, or go back to school and become an electrician, plumber, carpenter....there are more jobs then you think. And if you don't think so then you're not looking hard enough.

Good day.

this is plain retareded unless they test as well for alkohol and nicotin....

im really "befuddled" by the grade of indoctrination ATS ( who should be the least indoctrinated) show...not only in this thread

Excellent. This should happen nationally worldwide.

You don't want the Government in your life? Then don't collect WELFARE !

By collecting welfare, you're inviting Government into your life. If you expect a free ride, it's only fair that the Government expect some restrictions on that free ride. IE - taxpayer money should NOT be buying drugs and alcohol for people who can't (or more usually won't) work.

reply to post by saturnsrings


Where are your facts to back up that claim? Proof? I'll give you proof. Top ten percent pay 70%. That is a fact you and your liberal friends can't hide from. If you think taxing yourself and the other high income earners is going to help, do it, i dont care, it wont help, it wont even put a drop in the bucket, but you may want to take a look at history. This has been done before. News flash, its not a new concept. Look at Russia, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Its doesnt work. And if you think those countries are doing well, then move there. Sorry to break it to you.

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
- Thomas Sowell

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson





www.heritage.org...

reply to post by kellynap43




Republicans got us into this mess, what makes you think they can get us out? For the life of me, I can't figure out who and why the right thinks they didn't have a hand in the mess we find ourselves in. Republicans led us into not one, but two unpaid for wars. All the while, lowering taxes on those that need it least, without paying for it. Republicans spend like drunken sailors, when they have control, and blame the democrats when they lose control, which they know they will, when their dismal policies fail, as they always do.

9/11 was Clintons fault, and the death (debatable) of Bin Laden was because of Bush. The Bush administration, was the best in history, right?

Look back at the two worst economic messes this country has seen. See if you can figure out the stark similarities.

Since you can't see the forest for the trees, I'm done wasting time with you. You've been proved wrong.