REVscene Automotive Forum - Florida bill passed: Drug test mandatory for welfare candidates

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)

- - Florida bill passed: Drug test mandatory for welfare candidates (https://www.revscene.net/forums/646956-florida-bill-passed-drug-test-mandatory-welfare-candidates.html)

Florida bill passed: Drug test mandatory for welfare candidates

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/...iref=allsearch

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

Quote:

(CNN) -- 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."

Joining in the statement denouncing the measure were Democratic Reps. Kathy Castor, Ted Deutch and Frederica Wilson.

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.

It's about time junkies are to be held accountable for their habits.

Being addicted to drugs is like having a disease... these kind of people need quick admission treatment centers which is I hear are none existent.
Lets not forget Canada supports giving drugs to humans as we protect poppy fields in our current "peace mission" and if you think other wise you are a gullible robot.

I can't see how this will do anything but increase the amount of crime and homeless bums.

Logically it makes sense. You should have to work for your moneys if you're going to do drugs.

But, then again it could turn them to a life of crime to support their habits, which would just makes things even more difficult.

The inhumane but most effective thing would be to just kill them.

its about time they do this.

they apply for welfare and with the money the receive they waste it on drugs and complain even more about how they have no money for food.

Nice law
Posted via RS Mobile

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightwalker (Post 7460396)

I can't see how this will do anything but increase the amount of crime and homeless bums.

you can never win with drug fiends
but maybe this will mean more funds will be directed to those that actually in dire need of social support

Vancouver should do the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp (Post 7460460)

Vancouver should do the same.

I was just about to say the samething.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matlock (Post 7460408)

the other thing they could also do would be to say: if you have a recent criminal record, you're not going to get social assistance either. ie: you have to be drug-free and be of good behaviour. ha. then no one would get any money at all.

Better to kill the drug dealers/pushers. Maybe people wouldn't be so willing do become dealers if the punishment was more severe.

Cutting off welfare will do nothing. The amount of money a drug addict burns through in a month is far higher than the piddly welfare cheque they get. Plus, for a lot of people welfare sends a portion direct to the landlord for rent, so you're not going to cut down on their drug use by cutting welfare - you're just going to create homeless addicts, instead of addicts living in slum rentals.
Posted via RS Mobile

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangonay (Post 7460477)

Better to kill the drug dealers/pushers. Maybe people wouldn't be so willing do become dealers if the punishment was more severe.

This mentality just doesn't work in the real world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightwalker (Post 7460396)

I can't see how this will do anything but increase the amount of crime and homeless bums.

Here is a really good article about some of the new methods that are being used to deal with homelessness. It is a bit long but the cliff notes are:

- homelessness problem does not follow a normal distribution but rather a power-law distribution
- top percentile of individuals account for most of the expenses
- much cheaper to give those chronically homeless a place to stay for free with food and everything and with constant supervision than for them to waste policing, welfare, medical resources

Quote:

Culhane then put together a database—the first of its kind—to track who was coming in and out of the shelter system. What he discovered profoundly changed the way homelessness is understood. Homelessness doesn't have a normal distribution, it turned out. It has a power-law distribution. "We found that eighty per cent of the homeless were in and out really quickly," he said.

Quote:

It was the last ten per cent—the group at the farthest edge of the curve—that interested Culhane the most. They were the chronically homeless, who lived in the shelters, sometimes for years at a time. They were older. Many were mentally ill or physically disabled, and when we think about homelessness as a social problem—the people sleeping on the sidewalk, aggressively panhandling, lying drunk in doorways, huddled on subway grates and under bridges—it's this group that we have in mind.

Quote:

The cost of services comes to about ten thousand dollars per homeless client per year. An efficiency apartment in Denver averages $376 a month, or just over forty-five hundred a year, which means that you can house and care for a chronically homeless person for at most fifteen thousand dollars, or about a third of what he or she would cost on the street.

Quote:

The reality, of course, is hardly that neat and tidy. The idea that the very sickest and most troubled of the homeless can be stabilized and eventually employed is only a hope. Some of them plainly won't be able to get there: these are, after all, hard cases. "We've got one man, he's in his twenties," Post said. "Already, he has cirrhosis of the liver. One time he blew a blood alcohol of .49, which is enough to kill most people. The first place we had he brought over all his friends, and they partied and trashed the place and broke a window. Then we gave him another apartment, and he did the same thing."

Quote:

That is what is so perplexing about power-law homeless policy. From an economic perspective the approach makes perfect sense. But from a moral perspective it doesn't seem fair. Thousands of people in the Denver area no doubt live day to day, work two or three jobs, and are eminently deserving of a helping hand—and no one offers them the key to a new apartment.

http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html

can someone tell me why they arent doing this in canada?

what if they are skitzo and taking anti psychotics?

great fucking idea, too bad we don't do this

/inb4bleedinghearts"takingawayoursocialliberties!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by MajinHurricane (Post 7460536)

what if they are skitzo and taking anti psychotics?

Fairly certain that it's a targeted drug test and they're looking for specific things instead of a pass / fail for having "drugs" in your system.

Anyone caught should be forced to go into rehab if they still want to be eligible for social assistance. But I doubt Gov. Rick Scott is willing to pay for it.

They should also do a drug test and IQ test on all politicians while they are at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vansterdam (Post 7460523)

can someone tell me why they arent doing this in canada?

Because a million idiots will suddenly develop glaucoma overnight and end up going to the only dentist in the city that uses a cocaine-based numbing agent in his work. Oh, and they'll eat two poppy seed bagels a day to explain the opium/heroin in their blood stream.

Junkies are creative. They have the will and they'll find a way

My opinion is generally that people should be working for stuff they own.
I know addiction is a disease, I get that.
I know that sometimes, people have to be helped to overcome their diseases. It's like going to The Doctor, but at the same time, people have to help themselves too, especially if it's a disease of willpower.

I'm pretty certain I'm an alcohol addict. I need a drink to sleep well, emotionally it always seems to be my fallback and if it's in my house, I don't stop until I can't. But that's kind of on me isn't it? I don't expect my family, friends or government to subsidize my poison.

I'm broke now, I can't afford anymore, so I can't get it.

legalize some drugs, that would help regulate the industry and somewhat decrease drug dealing. Maybe I don't understand what legalization will do, someone who does feel free to chime in.

Depends on how often they do it. Hard drugs dont even stay in your system for that long.

Too bad this will NEVER fly in Canada :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tachycardia! (Post 7460600)

Junkies are creative. They have the will and they'll find a way

This is the essential truth of it. People who think that denying Junkies anything will stop them is deluding themselves. The only way that you can stop a Junkie from wanting or getting drugs is by helping them into a life where they don't need or want it anymore. Rehab (voluntary or forced), not just in terms of getting drugs out of the system but in terms of training for jobs and life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by static (Post 7460623)

legalize some drugs, that would help regulate the industry and somewhat decrease drug dealing. Maybe I don't understand what legalization will do, someone who does feel free to chime in.

It's not about what legalization would do, it's what people THINK legalization would do. Several people who are agressive opponents of drug legalization essentially say "If you legalize crack and heroin, what's to say people won't start driving down the street while high? That your doctor won't inject before giving you surgery?" etc etc, and similar scare cases. The issue is though, that even if drugs were legalized many people would still not be interested in or want to use them.

I don't know about you, but most of my friends are quite disturbed by the idea of using Heroin or Cocaine simply for the fact that we don't want our lives to descend into a drug-requiring stupor. Most people (I would guess) probably feel the same way, but the fear-mongering of the pro-prohibition side keeps that fact in check for the most part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teh Doucher (Post 7460653)

Depends on how often they do it. Hard drugs dont even stay in your system for that long.

True, but it depends. Drug tests don't always test for the drug, they'll sometimes test for residual chemicals which are the broken-down components of said drugs.

If, however, you're talking about the effects, this is also true. There was a man who attended almost all the drug use symposiums in North America in which researchers and scientists discusssed methods of breaking people free of their drug habits; he attended them all because his son was a Heroin addict. IT might sound crazy, but all the researchers and scientists said "Well, at least it's just Heroin." Some drugs require several doses a day (crack, and to a lesser extent powder cocaine and Meth, among others) while Heroin is a once-a-day drug for the most part.

One of the big problems people face when thinking about "The Drug Problem" is that they think it's an issue that can be solved by a one-size-fits-all solution. Just like a lot of other situations, there is no one solution for any drug problem, or any drug user's problem. It's gonna take a lot more than just cutting off welfare to get people off drugs.