Aa
Aa
A
A
A
Close
Avatar universal

Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs law requiring welfare recipients to take drug test, ACLU objects

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/01/2011-06-01_florida_gov_rick_scott_signs_law_requiring_welfare_recipients_to_take_drug_test_.html



If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free.

Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill on Tuesday that requires benefit recipients to undergo drug testing.

Applicants for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment.

Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving the funds for three years.

"While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Scott said. "This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars."

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

The legislation instantly came under a barrage of criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union and several of the Sunshine State's Democrats. They argued the bill is an invasion of privacy.



Gov. Scott. (Wilfredo Lee/AP)

"The wasteful program created by this law subjects Floridians who are impacted by the economic downturn, as well as their families, to a humiliating search of their urine and body fluids without cause or even suspicion of drug abuse," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

"Searching the bodily fluids of those in need of assistance is a scientifically, fiscally, and constitutionally unsound policy. Today, that unsound policy is Florida law."

The law, which will be enacted July 1, is likely to be challenged. A similar bill was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in Michigan in 2003.
52 Responses
Sort by: Helpful Oldest Newest
Avatar universal
Oh, I don't think Florida's new law is perfect at all, but I do think it's a good start. We drug test people before employment and no one has a problem with that, so why would drug testing welfare recipients be so bad? They are doing the same thing. I know that alcohol and tobacco also causes a lot of problems and I dislike both as well. Don't drink or smoke, but I won't go there. lol. In my opinion, it'd be great to drug test them all and then if they are caught for drug use, as long as they admit themselves into treatment and continue with that treatment, they can get the money still, but that's not exactly the plan they have.

The average cost for drug testing is about $42, but a lot of places are cheaper than that. A local clinic offers it for $15 without insurance or anything. It's not a huge cost and if you pass the drug test, which really they all should, then they get their money back.

I know people say welfare users aren't the only drug users, but it is known to be true that those in low income neighborhoods are much more likely to use drugs. There are a number of statistics that show this. A child is much more likely to smoke(or do drugs) if they are in poverty and if they have a parent or close relative/friend that also smokes(or does drugs). That's why subsidized housing complexes are a horrible idea in my opinion, as it's a breeding ground for bad behavior. They all learn from each other.  

Also the more access people have to drugs the more they will use. Look at the statistics. California has the most widely available amount of alcohol, with having it everywhere(local grocery store, gas stations, etc) and we have a horrible problem with teen drinking and other alcohol use problems. Compare California to Oregon and Oregon has very little problems. They only sell alcohol in Liquor stores and no where else. Making many drugs legal would cause a multitude of problems and they should be kept illegal.

I don't know how to fix the problems with welfare, but I do think this can be a good step in the right direction, if taken correctly. I do think it'd be great if more people were consulted on how to best deal with people in poverty and the drug addicts, though I don't see that happening any time soon, sadly.  
Helpful - 0
377493 tn?1356502149
Oh no, please don't misunderstand me. The legalization of drugs is not the answer at all to welfare reform.  It is a completely seperate issue.  All welfare recipients are not drug addicts or alcoholics..I don't the majority even are.

For me drug legalization is a completely seperate issue.  There is just such a stigma associated with welfare, and many assume that the majority use them

For those living on welfare there is only one common denominator...extreme poverty.  There is often also a lack of supportive family.  They really shouldn't even be lumped together. The only reason I brought up the issue of legalizing drugs is because this politician has combined the two with the drug testing bill.

Some things to remember as long as I am on the topic of stigma.  Many welfare recipients who apply for jobs are already labeled as lazy or good for nothing...not exactly qualities looked for by potential employers.  It's certainly not true, but much is assumed.

I don't think we can see true welfare reform in either your country or mine until first we change the way we deal with poverty.  From attitudes to practical approaches.  The war on drugs is completely seperate.  However, I don't think anyone can disagree that what is happening now isn't working.  My favorite quote "Definition of insanity - Keep doing what your doing and expect different results".  

BBX, I do hear what you are saying.  And like everyone elses points on here, I agree they are all valid.  There is no 100% easy solution, and I would by lying if I said that legalization is the answer to the drug problem.  I don't believe there is any 100% answer.  What I primarily want to see is the illegal and violent dealers who target kids put out of business.  THat would be a huge step.  But still not the answer.  Alcohol is legal and so many accidents happen with that as well.  It's going to happen as long as these things exist in society, and I don't think any of them are going anywhere.  I too wish they would, but it's not going to happen.

And giving drugs to kids...ay.  Unfortunately it happens in your country and mine..more then you think sadly.  That is never ok...just as you would be charged for feeding your baby alcohol to sleep, so should it be with drugs, legal or not.  

No easy answers, and I'm not claiming to have them all.  But I do think that those of us that work with those living in poverty (addicts and non included) have better ideas then some politician who is trying to get votes.  I mean, it makes sense right?
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
I am not for drug testing to all people on welfare. I just hate the rights of the innocent being taken away.
Maybe they should set up punishments for those who get arrested instead and take the kids from those abusing drugs and drink.

I know you are convinced adagal because you work with these people that legalizing drugs is the answer, but I dont. When alcohol was illegal, there was crime involved, but I dont agree that there was more crime and more people drinking. More people drink now than ever, and its just a given that their kids will drink as well once they are of age. Alcohol is everywhere now and if they were to say alcohol is now legal for any age, you can be sure the teen death rates, drunk driving, etc.. would skyrocket. Look at los vegas.
If its not against the law to use drugs, then people can put drugs in someones drink or food or whatever and not get in trouble since its not illegal right?
If someone kills or harms someone while in a drug induced state, they can claim they couldnt control what the drug did to them, and taking the drug was not illegal.
What about in the countries where all these babies are drug babies. Its a fact in some countries mothers give their babies opium to sleep.

Laws cause most people to restrain themselves. When you remove those restraints, a lot of bad is going to happen. Legalizing drugs is very irresponsible and dangerous in my opinion.
Helpful - 0
377493 tn?1356502149
That would be way better then what is being proposed now.  There can be x amount of time to get into a treatment program or there will be consequences.  The courts often use this for minor crimes.  It has had some success.
Helpful - 0
377493 tn?1356502149
This thread has turned into a couple of different debates (and I love it..lol!!).  First the drug testing welfare receipients.  You know what is most irritating (I'm not referring to the opinions here..I enjoy reading the different perspectives whether I agree or not) about politicians making these types of decisions?  I guarantee they do not consult people like us who actually are working with these folks on a daily basis.  We do have success in moving people to independance - no, not all of them, that will never happen - but we do know what we are doing.  But they don't consult us.  It's a bit like me telling a surgeon how to operate, or telling my dentist how to fix my tooth.  Everyone wants welfare reform (myself included), so they pass bills that look good but don't really do anything about reform.  I don't believe for a second it's about truly reforming, it's about votes.  I have to disagree that welfare is "their job".  It's not...for the majority it's about survival, plain and simple.  And a move like this sends a message that they think most are drug users. So not the case..not even close.  There are a heck of a lot of good, decent people on welfare.  THere are so many with disabilities, or with poor educations who don't make more then minimum wage.  In this day and age trying to keep a roof over your head, food in your kids mouth, pay for child care and do it on minimum wage?  It's not even that they don't want to , it's not possible.  Then we stick them in these huge complexes surrounded by others who are in the same boat.  Now you have hopelessness...and a belief that you cannot accomplish more. But, the votes are more important.  You guys don't have to believe me that this won't work, and I can understand why you wouldn't.  But like I said, this is what I do for a living.  I like to think I know a bit about it.  Trust me, we are not out there patting people on the head saying "it's ok, do whatever you want, and we'll protect you".  I have given kicks in the behind on many an occasion.  We encourage and help people to get practical educations (job training).  We help them find sustainable housing and child care.  These are things that bring about solutions..we do have continued success...it's working.  

Yes, you have those that are simply abusing the system.  Sure you do, and this won't change that.  But now we punish and humiliate everyone for those?  Is that ok?

THen there is the illegal drug issue.  Yep, I still say legalize it.  First off, finances.  So the police spend their time arresting pot or other drug users, spend money arresting and jailing them and what has been accomplished?  Not a thing.  It doesn't rehabilitate...quite frankly for most it's not even punishment.  And your punishing for a disease?  If we are going to do that then I think we should put everyone with any addiction in jail.  Alcoholics, gamblers, smokers..sex addicts?..yep, let's round em all up and jail em.  See what I mean?  Prohibition didn't stop anyone drinking..it just made the bootleggers a lot of money and there was also a heck of a lot of violence around it.  Make anything black market and it becomes a commodity...no exceptions there.

Here we haven't legalized marijuana yet.  However, if someone is caught with it the police don't even bother.  As long as it's not for resale (there is an amount they look at), they don't waste their time.  Drug use is not on the increase, not at all.  It's like smoking..numbers are decreasing and it's still legal...because we continue to send the message that although it's legal, it's not safe nor smart.  We are showing and telling people what it can do to them.  The reason it will help prevent spread of disease is because maybe the police/gov't will then stop shutting down needle exchanges, etc.  It will give intravenous drug users easier access to their works.  It will also allow for more proper disposal sights.  It can be confined to certain houses set up for it.  There is a lot that can be done if it's decriminalized that isn't done now.  And yes, it will decrease crime.  No, it sure won't stop it, but put the dealers out of business, bring the cost down, and crime goes down.  I bet at least 1/4 of the gun violence in your country has to do with drugs...and it's the dealers way more frequently then the users.  

Yes, education is the answer to many things.  But it needs to be tempered with a bit of common sense.  It doesn't have to even be legalized...just decriminalizing would be enough.  

I hope this discussion keeps going...it's a good one in my opinion.
Helpful - 0
649848 tn?1534633700
Alcohol and tobacco are legal and they cause just as much ill health as illegal drugs; or even legal drugs, obtained legally and sold illegally........

What about drug testing to get welfare, but instead of withholding the welfare and penalizing children that might be affected, encourage the parent(s) to seek treatment w/in a specified time frame or they risk becoming ineligible?  That gives "fair warning", since most people don't know 1/2 the laws on the books anyway...... there may be laws in the great State of Florida that I break regularly, simply because I don't know they exist .........

I do not believe welfare recipients should be required to pay for the drug tests -- as I said before, if they have money for that, they might also have money for food, rent, etc. Some people might have to go for long periods without food for their children, if they can't come up with $ to pay for the drug test - that's wrong.  If the State requires the drug test, the State should have to pay for it.........

Just my simple mind trying to figure how this law could possibly work.......
Helpful - 0
535822 tn?1443976780
Thank you sweet pea I think that was very well said ..and in my opinion what we need .,I would also think that getting them on a program would be good for everyone and a good incentive would be that they then get their entitlements .
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Isn't the point of the government to keep us all safe and well? If we legalize drugs, then what are we saying about these harmful chemicals? That go ahead, we don't care about your health and you can do what ever you want? We have a whole section dedicated to public health and public health policy in order to protect the general population. Giving them all access to drugs would be a step in the wrong direction. People claim that we can tax it and make money off it, but it's not true. Look at how much money is spent in hospitals on people who are suffering from alcohol or tobacco related diseases and conditions. The money earned from taxing the products compared to hospitals bills does not even match up closely at all. Look at how much money is spent on trying to prevent and/or stop drunk driving. Alcohol is legal, but we can't just let people drive around wasted. Even if we made so many drugs legal, you don't think crime will continue? They will always find something to fight about and that's not going to stop. They'll just fight about something else. It's a lifestyle they have grown up in and are accustomed to. I don't think throwing addicts in jail does much, but they should be thrown into centers so that they can begin their recovery from drugs. Also, stopping the spread of disease would not come from legalized drugs, that comes from education. Teaching people about how to clean needles properly, not share needles, etc. will help and there are programs that do that and they have been pretty successful.

I do still like the idea of doing a drug test before giving people welfare. I look at it as a job. If they want money, they have to stay clean. In order to be hired at almost any job, you have to take a drug test before being hired. I did this for my last job at a home goods store. Had to be drug tested in order to work there and earn money. Welfare is their "job" and they need to take their drug test before getting the money.  
Helpful - 0
649848 tn?1534633700
Teko is right -- the whole thing will probably be found unconstitutional.  While we all agree that something needs to be done, we just don't know how to do it.

Somewhere along the way, people on welfare need to be held accountable for their actions. If on one is ever held accountable, things will never change.  

Forced treatment doesn't work for drug addicts, any more than it does for alcoholics or smokers...... I used to be a smoker, so I am well aware that until one WANTS/has a reason to quit, it's not going to happen......... I had a choice to make; in my case it was simple: quit smoking or quit talking (yes, my vocal chords had gotten so bad that I could barely make sound and every sound I made caused excruciating pain).  My choice was a no brainer - today, I have a wonderfully clear voice (still can't sing though), plus I have the added benefit of my lungs clearing out, so I can breathe better, even though my doctor had told me I had beginning emphysema (I'm now off the Spiriva) - somehow, this concept has to be relayed to those on welfare.  

It's all about accountability...... how best to go about it?
Helpful - 0
377493 tn?1356502149
So it's a year after completing rehab?  So someone finishes rehab and then goes...where?  No financial supports makes it pretty tough to find a place to live.  Then caught back into that vicious cycle...trying to stay clean while living on the streets or living in shelter?  And forget finding a job when living like that...next to impossible.  Ask anyone who lives in shelter.  What I find really curious is that most of the US States now have adopted the Housing First process.  We are doing it in Canada as well.  That is what is working..huge success rates.  This completely contradicts that.  I still can't believe he is getting away with this.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Im not sure at all that this is constitutionl at all. Dont we have rights to illegal searches and seizures or something like that. How can the same people who disagree with the mandates under healthcare reform and the airline pat downs agree with this. hmmm, seems to me a bit of a double standard. Anyways, the only thing I see coming out of this is charging a bunch of people for drug testing that cann not afford it and (assuming guilt until proven innocent) and again makes me wonder how you as a state can alter a federal program like this and if that is even okay constitutionally. Opens a lot of cans imo and it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I also have heard (not checked it for fact), that if found to be on drugs, must attend rehab and cannot draw benefits until clean a year after the rehab. If that is true, that also opens a whole nother can of worms.
Helpful - 0
377493 tn?1356502149
Ohhh, don't even get me started..lol.  As someone who is the child of an addict, lived on welfare and food bank as a child and now works with the same I have a million ideas. I guess I do consider myself a bit of an expert on this issue.  But it's always politics.  I don't know a thing about this particular gov', but it sure sounds like that is what he is doing.  It's one of those things that looks good on paper to the voters, but if you break it down doesn't make a bit of sense.  Of course, technically it will cut down the welfare portion of taxpayer money, but those funds will increase...they will just be redistributed in other areas.  Sure sounds good though.  And I have no doubt that is what he is counting on.  Once again, my disclaimer...poverty is my hot button topic and I tend to get a tad bit passionate about it.
Helpful - 0
649848 tn?1534633700
I still don't agree with legalizing drugs, but you do make a very strong case for everything else; how about coming down here and helping our illustrious governor work this out ....
Helpful - 0
377493 tn?1356502149
It does sound like it should be a good thing.  Problem is that as any addict will tell us, until they are ready and it's what they want, forced treatment doesn't work.  So what will really happen is an increased homeless population and increased criminal activity.  Back to the increased cost vs' getting a welfare check.  I know that this can look good on the surface, but I would have to say that this gov' has no one on his staff that has any experience dealing with this issue at an individual level.  THere is just no possible way this will save a dime..it's going to cost more and cause more problems.
Helpful - 0
377493 tn?1356502149
Even if I don't agree with your stance, I hear where you are coming from.  But if I may.....some of your comments (ie> no shooting near an elementary school) kind of draw the conclusion that poverty equals violence.  Although yes, gang activity can be more prevelent in poverty stricken families, it is certainly not the case.  Violent offenders just need to be locked up, rich or poor.  And we need as a society to quit going after the drug users, and more heavily target the drug dealers. Yes, I am still for legalizing, but there isn't much I hate more then a vulture drug dealer.  Put em out of business...if not legalizing, then another way.  But they are the violent ones for the most part.

Here is my issue with this.  What exactly is this gov' trying to accomplish by imposing this?  If it is strictly to cut down on tax payer cost, I promise you, this won't happen.  It's not even an argument, it's fact.  I know many of you think I am just a far leftie worrying about all these issues, but truth be told, I am very tough on the client base I work with.  I push them hard to get it together, get a job, etc.  I promise you it will cost more to cut people off then to keep it going.  Honest to God it will.   And if it's part of the war on drugs, that won't help either.  THere are plenty of drug abusers in the higher income brackets.  THe only difference between these folks and other drug users is poverty.

Housing complexes are another issue altogether.  I am very against them.  I like to see subsidizing housing spread out in different apartment buildings, etc.  In fact, research has shown that it is a big positive to have no more then 5% of any given building be designated "low income".  Make a big difference.  But these huge low income complexes just become problematic, rife with drug dealers and gangs trying to recruit kids.   They also do nothing to encourage people wanting more.  If you are living in poverty, surrounded by those living in poverty, you begin to accept that this is all you can aspire to in life.  

Thanks Mary.  I know many think I am way out there, but I really believe it would work.  In some countries it does.  
Helpful - 0
535822 tn?1443976780
They still get their money as long as they get treatment so its actually a good thing ..isnt it?
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
I've said it before and Ill say it again.  I am all for testing welfare recipients.  I know it isn't going to solve all of the drug problems in the nation, and I know it isn't the end all of fraud within the socialist programs within government.... but it is a start.

When Clinton was in office and he implemented some of his welfare reform, he shut down a couple of housing projects in my home town.  Obviously the problems got transplanted, but we weren't subsidizing at least 2 housing complexes.  The whole issue revolved around getting a job if able.  Everyone was required to get a physical, and if you could perform you were required to do so and the government would still subsidize housing for you.  Same for the unable.... but those who couldn't show a doctors excuse were done. 1 housing development was across the street from the elementary school that my mother taught at.  2 or more times a month, the school was on lockdown because of a shooting.  No shootings near an elementary school, at least in my opinion, is a good thing.
Helpful - 0
306867 tn?1299249709
I'm with you on legalizing drugs for all the reasons you listed above.  I doubt people are going to run out and start smoking pot just because it's legal. I bet young kids would lose interest......the thrill of getting away with something would be gone.  You made a good case for legalizing it.
Helpful - 0
377493 tn?1356502149
I still have to wonder as well where the line will be drawn.  So we have illegal drugs, abuse of legal drugs, those who use alcohol with no problems, those who become addicted, smokers, gamblers and who knows?  Maybe those that buy food not on some approved list or something?  I know no one agrees with me on the legalizing drugs, and although I still think it would help, I know it's a bit of an "out there" thought.  But still, what about all these other legal things.  I mean, alot of the folks I work with are alcoholics..why is that different then drug use?  It's still the same end result.  Sorry, I still cannot find a positive in this law.
Helpful - 0
649848 tn?1534633700
It would not matter  what my political affiliation is -- scum hoppers like Rick Scott will always find a way to come out on top, but back to the original subject.......

I don't think drugs should be legalized, but I don't think this law is going to work, either.  If parents are on drugs and don't get the $, of course, children will suffer  I completely agree with teko, that caseworkers need to followup and make sure welfare $ are going to the people they are intended for -- mainly the children.  But then, you also have to consider those parents who are not on drugs and have no money, then have to spring for the drug test - come on, think about it; I don't know how much a drug test costs, but most everything else in medical world, I'm sure it's not cheap; if they have money for the drug test, they'd probably have money for groceries and other necessities......  

Yes, there are doctors who pass out scripts for narcotics, like candy; likewise, there are people who "doctor shop" (going from one doctor to another to get the scripts).  These are "legal" drugs and still abused/stolen/sold illegally.  What happens if a welfare recipient tests positive for these drugs?  Even if they have a valid script, they could be addicted and/or abusing them, which in turn would make their children suffer.  
Helpful - 0
535822 tn?1443976780
hahahahah well you made a good point teko I will say that ...No I didnt know that the Doctors in Florida are that useless.I also believe like you that case workers are lax in following up especially for children's sake,its the same here in CA especially as there is no money to fund anything...
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
I will name oneof the most obvious margy. I dont know if you know anything about florida at all but it is well known that other states people comes to florida to go to the doctors here to get prescriptions for things like oxycodone and then they take it back to your state or any other state and sell the crap. In other words, doctors hand out scripts like candy here so under this new law if a doc prescibes it and you can prove it, it will not keep you from getting benefits at all. It is comical when you think about the fact that several doctors are under investigation for this and the situationis outof hand, and then they pass something this stupid in THIS state with this going on. Oh but we can raise revenue thru drug testing right? In the meantime while they are working thru all this, the children suffer. I say, the case workers need to start following up on their cases like they are paid to do and make sure the money is going to care for the kids. Now that is just one option. But you are more than welcome to your opinion, but quit referring to wings. I dont wear any! I told you I have a halo!!!! missed me eh?
Helpful - 0
535822 tn?1443976780
again......     the program states the drug addict would get his money if he/she undergoes treatment so you are saying that the drug addict does not have to undergo treatment but be given the American taxpayers money, may I ask your reasoning ?  
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
You said: and lest we forget hes a Republican ......would you be saying the same had he been left wing ?

If my memory serves me right, Barb is republican, flmagi I think is independent? and so am I. Nice try. Looks more like a shared opinion among educated adults. I dont have wings, I have a halo.....
Helpful - 0
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.

You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group

Didn't find the answer you were looking for?
Ask a question
Popular Resources
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.