PDA

View Full Version : Legal Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results


|Zach|
08-29-2011, 07:42 AM
http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs.

At Scott's urging, the Legislature implemented the new requirement earlier this year that applicants for temporary cash assistance pass a drug test before collecting any benefits.

The law, which took effect July 1, requires applicants to pay for their own drug tests. Those who test drug-free are reimbursed by the state, and those who fail cannot receive benefits for a year.

Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly.

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

Actual savings will vary, however, since not all of the applicants denied benefits might have actually collected them for the full year. Under certain circumstances, applicants who failed their drug test can reapply for benefits after six months.

The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings, said Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The program will grow costlier yet, he said, if it draws a legal challenge.

The ACLU has been threatening for months that it may challenge the constitutionality of the program; Tuesday, Newton said his group is still weighing a lawsuit.

DCF spokesman Joe Follick said that families and accountability are the main focuses of the program.

"The taxpayers deserve to know that the money they are spending is being used for its intended purpose," he said. "In this case, with [temporary cash assistance], the purpose is to help families become independent and self-sufficient. If a family receiving [cash assistance] includes someone who has a substance abuse problem, the odds of that money being used for purposes other than helping that family increases."

More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.

"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-29-2011, 08:12 AM
Hmmmm... Seems like a waste of money.

HonestChieffan
08-29-2011, 08:22 AM
Better than Obamas record so far

Garcia Bronco
08-29-2011, 08:27 AM
Well...remember that most drugs are out of the system in 3 days.

BucEyedPea
08-29-2011, 08:37 AM
Well...remember that most drugs are out of the system in 3 days.

Even Amy Winehouse was found clean just before her death.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-29-2011, 08:41 AM
Even Amy Winehouse was found clean just before her death.

So it seems we've found another way to waste good money.

|Zach|
08-29-2011, 09:20 AM
I honestly had no idea drug tests were that ineffective.

trndobrd
08-29-2011, 09:22 AM
What are the numbers for people who are eligible, but decide not to apply because they know they would not pass the drug test?

eazyb81
08-29-2011, 09:28 AM
It would be much more effective if it was random testing during the course of receiving welfare assistance.

By making potential welfare recipients pass a test before they receive benefits, it basically becomes a simple intelligence test.

Earthling
08-29-2011, 11:59 AM
Well...remember that most drugs are out of the system in 3 days.

Except for the lesser of those evils, pot, which may be detected like 3-4 weeks after the fact. So if ya wanna get stoned do the hard drugs that don't stay in the system. Another good reason to legalize pot.

Mr. Kotter
08-29-2011, 12:18 PM
What are the numbers for people who are eligible, but decide not to apply because they know they would not pass the drug test?

THIS.

It skews the statistics; drastically, I suspect.

mnchiefsguy
08-29-2011, 02:48 PM
What are the numbers for people who are eligible, but decide not to apply because they know they would not pass the drug test?

If someone is spending their money on drugs instead of food, should they be getting aid to begin with?

Brock
08-29-2011, 02:55 PM
If someone is spending their money on drugs instead of food, should they be getting aid to begin with?

Should their children lose aid because their parents are drug addicts?

BucEyedPea
08-29-2011, 02:57 PM
Should their children lose aid because their parents are drug addicts?

Are the children still be fed when the parent is high or in a drug coma? :p

Brock
08-29-2011, 02:58 PM
Are the children still be fed when the parent is high or in a drug coma? :p

Hey, I'm just asking. IMO, abortions for these people should be free and encouraged.

mnchiefsguy
08-29-2011, 02:59 PM
Should their children lose aid because their parents are drug addicts?

Are the children evening getting the aid, or are the parents selling it for .50 cents on the dollar somewhere to trade it for more drugs?

If one is involved in illegal activity, one should not be getting government aid.

ROYC75
08-29-2011, 02:59 PM
Our country is so corrupt, it's not just the politicians.

Brock
08-29-2011, 03:03 PM
Are the children evening getting the aid, or are the parents selling it for .50 cents on the dollar somewhere to trade it for more drugs?

If one is involved in illegal activity, one should not be getting government aid.

I would assume at least some of the children are getting the aid, just as you seem to be assuming that none are.

Jaric
08-29-2011, 03:28 PM
Should their children lose aid because their parents are drug addicts?

If their parents are drug addicts, they aren't getting the aid anyway.

trndobrd
08-29-2011, 03:30 PM
If someone is spending their money on drugs instead of food, should they be getting aid to begin with?

No. But accepting the statistics as provided in the story, a read is left with the impression that the testing program is a failure because only 2% of applicants test positive (thus far). The purpose of the testing law was to prevent drug abusers from collecting welfare benefits. That purpose is acheived whether the drug abuser tests positive during the application process, or decides not to apply due to certainty of failing the drug screening.

Brock
08-29-2011, 03:31 PM
Not testing for alcohol=FAIL.

vailpass
08-29-2011, 03:32 PM
Let's do a 6 month experiment using follicle tests and see what we get.

mlyonsd
08-29-2011, 03:33 PM
Not testing for alcohol=FAIL.That's a legal drug so I don't know how you hall monitor it. I think legality of the substance is where you have to draw the line.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-29-2011, 03:37 PM
Let's do a 6 month experiment using follicle tests and see what we get.

That would probably cost 10x what is being spent now for little in return.

Brock
08-29-2011, 03:37 PM
That's a legal drug so I don't know how you hall monitor it. I think legality of the substance is where you have to draw the line.

So you're okay with an alcoholic using his welfare money to buy booze? How is this any different, other than your imaginary ethical line?

vailpass
08-29-2011, 03:41 PM
That would probably cost 10x what is being spent now for little in return.

No doubt it would be cost prohibitive. I would just be curious to see what the percentage of failed tests would be if a testing method was used that detected most substances for 90 days instead of 3-5 days.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-29-2011, 03:43 PM
No doubt it would be cost prohibitive. I would just be curious to see what the percentage of failed tests would be if a testing method that detected most substances for 90 days instead of 3-5 days.

It would be easier to solve by simply making it a random test, although it will still probably be a waste unless their is a way to test for Mcdonalds and Pizza. :p

Iowanian
08-29-2011, 03:43 PM
I don't buy those results for a second.

Time for random testing instead of giving them a month to "study" for the test.


Count me in the "if you can afford beer and cigarettes you can afford to buy your own food" list.

BWillie
08-29-2011, 03:45 PM
Well...remember that most drugs are out of the system in 3 days.

I bet 2% of people on probation for drugs can get by it to. There are many, many ways to piss clean.

mlyonsd
08-29-2011, 03:47 PM
So you're okay with an alcoholic using his welfare money to buy booze? How is this any different, other than your imaginary ethical line?I don't have an ethical imaginary line. I have a legal one.

vailpass
08-29-2011, 03:48 PM
I don't have an ethical imaginary line. I have a legal one.

I'll drink to that.

mlyonsd
08-29-2011, 03:51 PM
I'll drink to that.We can stumble down and get our checks together.

vailpass
08-29-2011, 03:54 PM
We can stumble down and get our checks together.

:D

JonesCrusher
08-29-2011, 04:02 PM
I don't have an ethical imaginary line. I have a legal one.

Legal has little to do with it IMO, the program is meant to prevent people from spending taxpayers money on stupid crap in general, not just illegal stupid crap.

Although legal stupid crap is taxed so there are many who would believe that welfare programs boost the economy as a result of increased revenue.

Brock
08-29-2011, 04:04 PM
I don't have an ethical imaginary line. I have a legal one.

Oh, I see. You're one of those "one is legal, the other isn't" people. It's fine if you want to live in a bubble where alcohol doesn't fuck up tens of thousands more lives than illegal drugs ever will, but imposing that on the real world doesn't seem to work.

Earthling
08-29-2011, 04:11 PM
No. But accepting the statistics as provided in the story, a read is left with the impression that the testing program is a failure because only 2% of applicants test positive (thus far). The purpose of the testing law was to prevent drug abusers from collecting welfare benefits. That purpose is acheived whether the drug abuser tests positive during the application process, or decides not to apply due to certainty of failing the drug screening.

So they wait 30 days, get a clean UA, and life goes on as usual...

trndobrd
08-29-2011, 04:36 PM
So they wait 30 days, get a clean UA, and life goes on as usual...


If they can go 30 days and get a clean UA, good for them.

vailpass
08-29-2011, 04:40 PM
If they can go 30 days and get a clean UA, good for them.

All the more reason for follicle testing or some other form of testing that goes back for 90 days or more. The number that could be eliminated from the government dole might soon more than pay for the cost of the tests.

jiveturkey
08-29-2011, 04:50 PM
All the more reason for follicle testing or some other form of testing that goes back for 90 days or more. The number that could be eliminated from the government dole might soon more than pay for the cost of the tests.

It sounds like this program is already accomplishing what it's set out to to. Scare away would be applicants and weed out the complete dumb asses.

Your solution is to double the cost of this program.

You'd make an excellent Obot. :D

vailpass
08-29-2011, 05:07 PM
It sounds like this program is already accomplishing what it's set out to to. Scare away would be applicants and weed out the complete dumb asses.

Your solution is to double the cost of this program.

You'd make an excellent Obot. :D

If the testing eliminated a sufficient % of those on the dole to pay for itself and/or show a net gain it would shrink government services and make more Americans independent of the federal government.
That's the kind of sunlight that sets obots on fire.

BryanBusby
08-29-2011, 05:47 PM
God what's next...."POOR" people buying perishables?!?!?

http://i54.tinypic.com/2zqft4o.jpg

Der Flöprer
08-29-2011, 05:50 PM
At least we're not wasting money.

Der Flöprer
08-29-2011, 05:51 PM
Better than Obamas record so far

ALL YOU RESPOND WITH IS BUSH, BUSH, BUSH, BUSH, BUSH, BUSH! When are you guys going to take responsibility for your own fuck ups?

mlyonsd
08-29-2011, 08:02 PM
Oh, I see. You're one of those "one is legal, the other isn't" people. It's fine if you want to live in a bubble where alcohol doesn't **** up tens of thousands more lives than illegal drugs ever will, but imposing that on the real world doesn't seem to work.What is up with you? You're unusually cranky lately. My original post was just an observation.

Don't you agree the line has to be drawn somewhere? I'm guessing cheeseburgers and high fat content food will cause more harm overall on average to welfare recipients than alcohol will over their lifetimes. Should we withold checks if their cholesterol levels are too high?

It would be the easiest thing in the world for someone to clear an alcohol test. I see it as just being practical.

Brock
08-29-2011, 08:07 PM
What is up with you? You're unusually cranky lately. My original post was just an observation.

Don't you agree the line has to be drawn somewhere? I'm guessing cheeseburgers and high fat content food will cause more harm overall on average to welfare recipients than alcohol will over their lifetimes. Should we withold checks if their cholesterol levels are too high?

It would be the easiest thing in the world for someone to clear an alcohol test. I see it as just being practical.

My point is that this is a proven waste of time and money.

|Zach|
08-29-2011, 08:10 PM
I don't really have a problem with the idea of the drug testing. I just don't think it is effective or worth it...at all.

If it was then sure...go ape shit on those tests.

banyon
08-29-2011, 08:10 PM
I honestly had no idea drug tests were that ineffective.

Particularly when they are scheduled drug tests. This just means that 2% of welfare recipients are drug users AND total dumba**es.

I see people all day with sh*t to get around these tests. Fake urine, "wizzenators", "total body flushes", etc.

mlyonsd
08-29-2011, 08:12 PM
My point is that this is a proven waste of time and money.And seeing the surprising low positive test results I can't argue.

trndobrd
08-29-2011, 09:08 PM
My point is that this is a proven waste of time and money.


How so?

Brock
08-29-2011, 09:12 PM
How so?

Isn't it obvious?

trndobrd
08-29-2011, 09:19 PM
Isn't it obvious?

Apparently not or I wouldn't be asking the question. So, since it's not obvious, could you explain how if "the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400" in a year, the State of Florida is losing money? Keep in mind, that number doesn't include the savings from anyone who decides that because of their drug problem it's easier not to bother applying in the first place.

**edit** Seems that $40,800-$98,400 number doesn't include applicants who declined to continue the application process for unknown reasons.

Ugly Duck
08-29-2011, 11:46 PM
If someone is spending their money on drugs instead of food, should they be getting aid to begin with?

Thats what I was thinking. And what about homeowners getting the mortgage interest deduction from the federal government? We taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing their mortgages if they spend the resulting refund money on drugs. Time we started drug testing homeowners if they try to claim deductions. Homeowner tests positive? No mortgage deduction-induced federal refund check for you.

mnchiefsguy
08-29-2011, 11:59 PM
Thats what I was thinking. And what about homeowners getting the mortgage interest deduction from the federal government? We taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing their mortgages if they spend the resulting refund money on drugs. Time we started drug testing homeowners if they try to claim deductions. Homeowner tests positive? No mortgage deduction-induced federal refund check for you.

That is a stupid analogy and does not fit the situation at all. We are talking about aid, not a legal tax deduction a tax paying citizen does on their taxes.

orange
08-30-2011, 03:43 AM
Apparently not or I wouldn't be asking the question. So, since it's not obvious, could you explain how if "the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400" in a year, the State of Florida is losing money? Keep in mind, that number doesn't include the savings from anyone who decides that because of their drug problem it's easier not to bother applying in the first place.


Keep in mind that number also doesn't include any of the costs of administering the program. Or do you think it runs itself?

One group is certainly happy about it - the drug testing outfits who are getting a $360,000 - $480,000 annual boost from the taxpayers.

Ugly Duck
08-30-2011, 07:05 PM
That is a brilliant analogy, but possibly may not fit the situation - will you please elucidate? We are talking about aid, not a legal tax deduction a tax paying citizen does on their taxes.

Why, certainly. Giving financial aid to low-income taxpayers & giving tax breaks to home-owning taxpayers both reduce revenue to the government. Its the reduction in government revenue that is the source of our outrage, not the social position of the perpetrator. We are just as offended by drug-using homeowners benefiting financially from government programs as we are by drug-using poor people benefiting financially from government programs. We are not bigoted against poor people, nor do we favor those of loftier social strata. All are created equal in these United States.

vailpass
08-30-2011, 07:06 PM
Keep in mind that number also doesn't include any of the costs of administering the program. Or do you think it runs itself?

One group is certainly happy about it - the drug testing outfits who are getting a $360,000 - $480,000 annual boost from the taxpayers.

How much money is saved for every person that is denied government charity due to failing a drug test?

Ugly Duck
08-30-2011, 07:26 PM
K

One group is certainly happy about it - the drug testing outfits who are getting a $360,000 - $480,000 annual boost from the taxpayers.

You do know that Florida Gov Scott owns the drug testing company, right? Well, he did transfer ownership to his wife.... But his household gets the money from all the drug testing that he ordered. Its a smashing success for him cuz he gets paid by the druggies who fail & then writes his wife a government check for each one who passes. Its good to be the Gov!

Palm Beach Post: Scott surprised state employees Tuesday by issuing his executive order for mandatory drug testing of all prospective hires, and random drug testing of current employees, in agencies whose directors he appoints. In the same announcement, he praised the Florida Legislature for its plans to require all welfare applicants to undergo drug testing as well.

Scott's lawyers met with attorneys at the Florida Commission on Ethics. Subsequently, they moved his Solantic holdings into a revocable trust in his wife's name, making her the controlling investor in the privately held company. No public records were created from the ethics meeting.

Suffolk University Law Professor Marc Rodwin, author of several books on conflicts of interest in medicine, said the movement of Scott's ownership to his wife's trust was insufficient to eliminate the ethical issues. "He owned the company and transferred it into his wife's name," Rodwin said. "It's a conflict of interest." But while it may rise to the level of impropriety, Florida legal experts said, it likely does not rise to the level of illegality.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html

Cave Johnson
02-07-2012, 12:13 PM
<div style="background-color:#<div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:407699" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#</a></p></div></div>

vailpass
02-07-2012, 12:17 PM
If the guy earning the money to pay for welfare has to get drug tested for his job the slacker he's paying to support should have to as well.

kcfanXIII
02-07-2012, 12:56 PM
If the guy earning the money to pay for welfare has to get drug tested for his job the slacker he's paying to support should have to as well.

two things

number 1, not all jobs require drug tests.
number 2, my money goes to pay my elected officials, why aren't they tested?


in my opinion, i think pre-employment drug screenings are wrong. as long as you are productive, and not stealing, who cares what you do outside of work. if money comes up short, you fail to show up for work, or give your boss a reason to suspect you of drug use, then i think its ok.

Pitt Gorilla
02-07-2012, 01:35 PM
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:407699" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-2-2012/poor-pee-ple">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>ROFL:clap:

FD
02-07-2012, 02:01 PM
Great idea. I also think everyone who is receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits should have mandatory drug tests at least twice a year to keep getting their government checks. Maybe even every 6 weeks they should have to make a trip down to the nearest Federal Drug Testing Center.

Amnorix
02-07-2012, 02:10 PM
So you're okay with an alcoholic using his welfare money to buy booze? How is this any different, other than your imaginary ethical line?

Booze is legal, drugs aren't.

Cigarette smoking is legal. Mary Jane isn't.

Is it "right"? No idea. But the bottom line is that they are permitted to use legal drugs like alcohol and cigarettes and aren't allowed to use illegal drugs. It's not improper to tie benefits to staying "clean" of illegal drugs.

IMHO we should revisit our policies regarding what are legal/illegal drugs, but that's a separate question.

Amnorix
02-07-2012, 02:12 PM
You do know that Florida Gov Scott owns the drug testing company, right? Well, he did transfer ownership to his wife.... But his household gets the money from all the drug testing that he ordered. Its a smashing success for him cuz he gets paid by the druggies who fail & then writes his wife a government check for each one who passes. Its good to be the Gov!

Palm Beach Post: Scott surprised state employees Tuesday by issuing his executive order for mandatory drug testing of all prospective hires, and random drug testing of current employees, in agencies whose directors he appoints. In the same announcement, he praised the Florida Legislature for its plans to require all welfare applicants to undergo drug testing as well.

Scott's lawyers met with attorneys at the Florida Commission on Ethics. Subsequently, they moved his Solantic holdings into a revocable trust in his wife's name, making her the controlling investor in the privately held company. No public records were created from the ethics meeting.

Suffolk University Law Professor Marc Rodwin, author of several books on conflicts of interest in medicine, said the movement of Scott's ownership to his wife's trust was insufficient to eliminate the ethical issues. "He owned the company and transferred it into his wife's name," Rodwin said. "It's a conflict of interest." But while it may rise to the level of impropriety, Florida legal experts said, it likely does not rise to the level of illegality.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html



:eek: Wow. Just wow.

Cave Johnson
02-07-2012, 02:16 PM
:eek: Wow. Just wow.

This is FL, after all.

Booze is legal, drugs aren't.

Cigarette smoking is legal. Mary Jane isn't.

Is it "right"? No idea. But the bottom line is that they are permitted to use legal drugs like alcohol and cigarettes and aren't allowed to use illegal drugs. It's not improper to tie benefits to staying "clean" of illegal drugs.

IMHO we should revisit our policies regarding what are legal/illegal drugs, but that's a separate question.

Speeding is illegal too. Should we require welfare recipients to submit to GPS vehicle monitoring as well?

Amnorix
02-07-2012, 02:22 PM
Speeding is illegal too. Should we require welfare recipients to submit to GPS vehicle monitoring as well?


Not in my opinion, but in theory we could right? Three speeding tickets in 5 years and you're off welfare. Two DUIs and same thing. Whatever.

The bottom line is that welfare is a government grant of money that it deems, using whatever standards and rules that it wants. If the government wants to only give welfare to those who comply with the law, then I dont' have a huge problem with that.

All that said, the drug testing seems at least partially designed to save money. If it fails to do that, then I don't see the point of it.

And last but not least, if I were a member of Florida's legislature, I'd be going nuts taht the governor's company is profiting directly from this program. It screams conflict of interest.

VAChief
02-07-2012, 02:35 PM
:eek: Wow. Just wow.

Nothing should "Wow" anyone after you hear the name Rick Scott. His hospitals bilked medicare out of hundreds of millions of dollars. How he got elected even in Florida is astounding.

La literatura
02-07-2012, 02:43 PM
Not in my opinion, but in theory we could right? Three speeding tickets in 5 years and you're off welfare. Two DUIs and same thing. Whatever.

The bottom line is that welfare is a government grant of money that it deems, using whatever standards and rules that it wants. If the government wants to only give welfare to those who comply with the law, then I dont' have a huge problem with that.

In theory, as in what procedural due process rights are guaranteed by courts, I think you're absolutely right. It doesn't speak to the wisdom of the policy though. I'm not sure what that wisdom would be, though.

vailpass
02-07-2012, 03:56 PM
This is FL, after all.



Speeding is illegal too. Should we require welfare recipients to submit to GPS vehicle monitoring as well?

That's a damn good idea. They could have a slogan like:
"You don't like this shit?
Get off the tit!"

Iowanian
02-07-2012, 05:45 PM
Booze is legal, drugs aren't.

Cigarette smoking is legal. Mary Jane isn't.

Is it "right"? No idea. But the bottom line is that they are permitted to use legal drugs like alcohol and cigarettes and aren't allowed to use illegal drugs. It's not improper to tie benefits to staying "clean" of illegal drugs.

IMHO we should revisit our policies regarding what are legal/illegal drugs, but that's a separate question.


Several employers won't provide health or life insurance to smokers.....If I show up to work smelling like alcohol, or demonstrate being under the influence in any way, I can be fired.

Iowanian
02-07-2012, 05:46 PM
This is FL, after all.



Speeding is illegal too. Should we require welfare recipients to submit to GPS vehicle monitoring as well?


No...we should just provide them prepackaged FOOD, adequate to keep their immediate family in good health between their bi-weekly/monthly food pick up.


The waste of cash is what pisses me off, not feeding the hungry.

AustinChief
02-07-2012, 06:08 PM
No...we should just provide them prepackaged FOOD, adequate to keep their immediate family in good health between their bi-weekly/monthly food pick up.


The waste of cash is what pisses me off, not feeding the hungry.

I'd have no problem with this EXCEPT that it is crazy inefficient. The grocery stores already have the distribution chains in place. The best solution is a fully electronic one that ties in with the register system and only allows purchase of "approved" items.

The problem is... the current system has all the pieces in place but they muddle cash and food benefits on the same card and they don't limit food purchases to essential items. With some minor changes, the current system could be streamlined to save tons of money and avoid tons of abuse. I have no clue why we don't do just that.

ALTHOUGH.. I guess you could skip the distribution chain idea and have each state contract with a food packaging company to create the bi-weekly "food pack" and then have them all delivered via US mail directly. Still doubt that would be as efficient though.

Iowanian
02-07-2012, 06:15 PM
What better way to get some people off of welfare than to give them a job distributing food deliveries to those other welfare persons who aren't capable of stopping by the food drop on the way to buy smokes and lotto tickets.

My vision is something like what meals from the heartland does.....an assembly line of volunteers(or welfare people earning some of their money) packaging predetermined amounts of dried rice/noodles/vegetables and maybe some dry packets of salt-minerals-vitamins to add. 5-10 meal types for breakfast and dinners.....

You're not guaranteed steak for your welfare....earn those. This is about keeping kids healthy and the others from being hungry. Don't like the food? Spend some free time learning a trade.



as for this topic at hand.....if you fail a drug test, it means you can afford drugs. If you can afford dope, you can afford your own damn food and paying your own rent and light bill. You want a free ride? Membership has it's requirements for the privileges.

AustinChief
02-07-2012, 06:19 PM
What better way to get some people off of welfare than to give them a job distributing food deliveries to those other welfare persons who aren't capable of stopping by the food drop on the way to buy smokes and lotto tickets.

My vision is something like what meals from the heartland does.....an assembly line of volunteers(or welfare people earning some of their money) packaging predetermined amounts of dried rice/noodles/vegetables and maybe some dry packets of salt-minerals-vitamins to add. 5-10 meal types for breakfast and dinners.....

You're not guaranteed steak for your welfare....earn those. This is about keeping kids healthy and the others from being hungry. Don't like the food? Spend some free time learning a trade.

Count me in. I'd have no problem with this at all.

Iowanian
02-07-2012, 06:20 PM
I write this post as someone paying my own way,who had to pass a drug test if requested and still at my desk for going on 12hrs today with at least 2 additional hours anticipated.


I guess I know who is helping pay my light bill. If I weren't paying so many others, I could probably go home and see my kids before they go to bed.

NewChief
02-07-2012, 06:24 PM
You do know that Florida Gov Scott owns the drug testing company, right? Well, he did transfer ownership to his wife.... But his household gets the money from all the drug testing that he ordered. Its a smashing success for him cuz he gets paid by the druggies who fail & then writes his wife a government check for each one who passes. Its good to be the Gov!

Palm Beach Post: Scott surprised state employees Tuesday by issuing his executive order for mandatory drug testing of all prospective hires, and random drug testing of current employees, in agencies whose directors he appoints. In the same announcement, he praised the Florida Legislature for its plans to require all welfare applicants to undergo drug testing as well.

Scott's lawyers met with attorneys at the Florida Commission on Ethics. Subsequently, they moved his Solantic holdings into a revocable trust in his wife's name, making her the controlling investor in the privately held company. No public records were created from the ethics meeting.

Suffolk University Law Professor Marc Rodwin, author of several books on conflicts of interest in medicine, said the movement of Scott's ownership to his wife's trust was insufficient to eliminate the ethical issues. "He owned the company and transferred it into his wife's name," Rodwin said. "It's a conflict of interest." But while it may rise to the level of impropriety, Florida legal experts said, it likely does not rise to the level of illegality.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html


I don't necessarily agree with the quote I'm about to post... but damn it's appropriate in this situation:

“People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society.”
— Jason Read

Cave Johnson
02-08-2012, 10:13 AM
The problem is... the current system has all the pieces in place but they muddle cash and food benefits on the same card and they don't limit food purchases to essential items. With some minor changes, the current system could be streamlined to save tons of money and avoid tons of abuse. I have no clue why we don't do just that.

Sure, keep them from buying steak and lobster. ;)

What better way to get some people off of welfare than to give them a job distributing food deliveries to those other welfare persons who aren't capable of stopping by the food drop on the way to buy smokes and lotto tickets.

My vision is something like what meals from the heartland does.....an assembly line of volunteers(or welfare people earning some of their money) packaging predetermined amounts of dried rice/noodles/vegetables and maybe some dry packets of salt-minerals-vitamins to add. 5-10 meal types for breakfast and dinners.....

Which is all well and good for cities but would be entirely unworkable for rural recipients.

Iowanian
02-08-2012, 11:21 AM
I'm in a rural area and I wish to use my "bullshit" pokemon.

There are already essentially programs set up to distribute services, WIC etc....It would just take less people to package and distribute the meals. Maybe they're packaged at the state level, but imo it would be a more simple process in a rural area due to volume alone.

Also, I still call complete bullshit on the 2% drug test failure rate.

mikey23545
02-08-2012, 11:22 AM
Sure, keep them from buying steak and lobster. ;)
.

You want steak and lobster, handout-boy?

Use cash.

vailpass
02-08-2012, 01:51 PM
two things

number 1, not all jobs require drug tests.
number 2, my money goes to pay my elected officials, why aren't they tested?


in my opinion, i think pre-employment drug screenings are wrong. as long as you are productive, and not stealing, who cares what you do outside of work. if money comes up short, you fail to show up for work, or give your boss a reason to suspect you of drug use, then i think its ok.

number1, this one (welfare) should
number2, you let me know the next time you get to elect who receives welfare

Cave Johnson
02-08-2012, 01:57 PM
I'm in a rural area and I wish to use my "bullshit" pokemon.

There are already essentially programs set up to distribute services, WIC etc....It would just take less people to package and distribute the meals. Maybe they're packaged at the state level, but imo it would be a more simple process in a rural area due to volume alone.

Also, I still call complete bullshit on the 2% drug test failure rate.

What, were you all out of Magic the Gathering cards?

I can pretty much guarantee you there'd be higher admin costs (given that government distribution of food would be less efficient than the free market). So you're essentially wanting to spend more, on bigger government, to impose a nanny state restriction on the poor? That's an unholy combination of everything your team supposedly opposes.

Well, other than the part about making the lives of the poor more difficult.

DrunkBassGuitar
02-09-2012, 08:30 AM
wow a whole 0.06% savings?

lol

Iowanian
02-09-2012, 10:10 AM
Well, other than the part about making the lives of the poor more difficult.


Let them eat cake.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2012, 10:49 AM
wow a whole 0.06% savings?

lol

your tax dollars hard at work.

vailpass
02-09-2012, 02:30 PM
wow a whole 0.06% savings?

lol

The bigger value would be in deterring/eliminating people from the welfare rolls.