Florida Governor Signs Welfare Drug-screen Measure

[maiforpeace]

Gov. Rick Scott says measure saves tax dollars, provides "incentive to not use drugs"

By the CNN Wire Staff
June 1, 2011 5:58 a.m. EDT

(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.

Yet another attack by a repugnicunt on the poorest and weakest members of society. What a sham that guy is. I just read his bio and it's beyond me how someone with his history could even get elected.

[Cunt]

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

I can't believe it gets worse from there on....

[Warren Dew]

The poorest members of society can't afford drugs. The benefits aren't denied, anyway; they're just funneled to the needy children through a different adult.

[Tyrannical]

Yeah, the government should be giving free drugs to all these poor people that can't afford to buy them. Why incinerate seized pot, heroin, and coke when it can be donated to the needy instead? Evil insensitive republicans

[maiforpeace]

The poorest members of society can't afford drugs.

The poorest members of society include children.

The benefits aren't denied, anyway; they're just funneled to the needy children through a different adult.

What adult, exactly? After the parent(s), a relative or a friend would now have to jump through whatever hoops are required to become a guardian ad litum, which is far from a simple process. Now it becomes so complicated and difficult that most people would just give up and let their kids do without, especially if the parent is a drug addict. So, who suffers? The child.

[JimC]

What on earth is this "bath salts" business, talked about at the end of the OP?

[maiforpeace]

What on earth is this "bath salts" business, talked about at the end of the OP?

Mephedrone

In Australia, New Zealand, and the USA it is considered an analog of other illegal drugs and can be controlled by laws similar to the Federal Analog Act. In the USA, this only applies if the drug is sold for human consumption, allowing it to be sold legally if labelled as 'plant food' or 'bath salts'.

[Cunt]

Ya, and where can we get some?

[maiforpeace]

On the Internet!

http://www.k2incenseonline.com/products ... 500mg.html

[Atheist-Lite]

It's the snorters on Wall Street they should go after...why chase the little guys?

[Svartalf]

what are the odds of that measure being attacked in court and standing up?

I mean demanding applicants for the dole to pay for something like that?

you bet many labs will do the cheap and dodgy and offer sham testing (we do it cheap, but deliver you good results without actually incurring the costs of running the tests)?

[laklak]

Yeah, the government should be giving free drugs to all these poor people that can't afford to buy them. Why incinerate seized pot, heroin, and coke when it can be donated to the needy instead? Evil insensitive republicans

I agree, but only if it's not means tested. I want my free blunts too. But why spend the money to seize them in the first place? Legalize drugs and the problem goes away.

I oppose the measure not because I think it's discriminatory, hell, Mrs. Lak has to pee in a cup routinely. I had to do it when working on DoD contracts. If it's not discriminatory in the working world then it isn't discriminatory in the benefits world. My opposition is to the drug laws in the first place.

PS Hi Tyrannical. Good to see you on this side of the Great Internet Divide.

[Warren Dew]

The benefits aren't denied, anyway; they're just funneled to the needy children through a different adult.

What adult, exactly? After the parent(s), a relative or a friend would now have to jump through whatever hoops are required to become a guardian ad litum, which is far from a simple process. Now it becomes so complicated and difficult that most people would just give up and let their kids do without, especially if the parent is a drug addict. So, who suffers? The child.

Your article says, "Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children." That does not sound like the other adult would have to have legal guardianship.

[maiforpeace]

The benefits aren't denied, anyway; they're just funneled to the needy children through a different adult.

What adult, exactly? After the parent(s), a relative or a friend would now have to jump through whatever hoops are required to become a guardian ad litum, which is far from a simple process. Now it becomes so complicated and difficult that most people would just give up and let their kids do without, especially if the parent is a drug addict. So, who suffers? The child.

Your article says, "Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children." That does not sound like the other adult would have to have legal guardianship.

There would have to be some process in place to designate a third party to receive benefits, and I'm fairly certain, based on my experience obtaining benefits for my sister for whom I am guardian and conservator, that it wouldn't be simple.