Last I checked, Kentucky's version of this law was still stuck in committee.

 

Florida Governor Rick Scott posted this on his Facebook page today ...

 

"Today, I signed HB 353, keeping my campaign promise to require drug screening for welfare recipients. While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction. This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars. Click 'Like' if you stand in support.

 

By: Rick Scott"

 

I didn't vote for the guy, but I have to admit, if somebody voted for him and doesn't like what he has done, they weren't paying attention to him during the campaign. He has preformed almost exactly as he said he would.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-31/florida-s-scott-signs-bill-forcing-welfare-drug-tests.html

What tax dollars will be used for a welfare recipient with kidney disease or emphysema who goes to the hospital but is no longer on welfare due to failing a drug test over weed? They have no other relatives and they do not belong to a church. Who is feeding their child(ren)?

 

We're trying to use this as a stick to reinforce good decisions when good decisions is something many have already shown they are not good at.

Welfare recipients who actually care about their families will comply... It's all about personal responsibility.. Something that is greatly missing in today's society.

I hate the "unintended" consequences that this could result in...hungry children, homeless families, etc. But on the other hand, I know all too well that some recipients sell their benefits for half their worth to feed their drug habits. I actually support this legislation, but hope that the state of Florida realizes that while it may serve it's purpose well, they need to be prepared for the fall out.

Welfare recipients who actually care about their families will comply... It's all about personal responsibility.. Something that is greatly missing in today's society.

 

We can all say personal responsibility is lacking. Who is going to argue that? We can all talk tough. Are you willing to punish a kid for a bad parent?

The kids won't starve.. They may actually get more of the things they need if the money is not going to drugs..

The kids won't starve.. They may actually get more of the things they need if the money is not going to drugs..

 

So you're willing to spend tax dollars on the kids?

Yep.. I would rather spend double than give money that goes to drugs..

Yep.. I would rather spend double than give money that goes to drugs..

 

Agreed.

 

Do we offer that adult emergency healthcare when they show up in the hospital?

The hospital usually does drug testing... I would guess it's up to them.. I had a friend die of kidney failure because he failed a drug test and was denied a transplant..

It will cost a lot of money to enforce and govern any drug testing program. So much money that there is know way IMO to justify the spending of tax dollars on the "users."

 

So if you test positive, I am sure there will be in place some type of appeals process to dispute it...more money spent.

 

If you lose the appeal you then go to court to challenge the result...more money spent.

 

Then appeal it again...more money spent.

 

Will the results be a matter of public record? I mean we spent tax dollars to test them...how long are they public, if they are?

 

The ACLU will take the state to court for violation of civil rights if the records are public because of privacy issues.

 

Since they are part of public records will future potential employers have access to these files when looking to fill positions?

 

Just imagine you try "weed" once or are an occasional partaker?

 

If you test positive and it is on your record that employers can access good look getting a some what good job to provide for yourself and your family.

 

It will cost way to much money to enforce with minimal chance of success.

 

 

 

I mean why stop there because they get government money? Why not test everyone because we all use taxpayer money?

It will cost a lot of money to enforce and govern any drug testing program. So much money that there is know way IMO to justify the spending of tax dollars on the "users."

 

So if you test positive, I am sure there will be in place some type of appeals process to dispute it...more money spent.

 

If you lose the appeal you then go to court to challenge the result...more money spent.

 

Then appeal it again...more money spent.

 

Will the results be a matter of public record? I mean we spent tax dollars to test them...how long are they public, if they are?

 

The ACLU will take the state to court for violation of civil rights if the records are public because of privacy issues.

 

Since they are part of public records will future potential employers have access to these files when looking to fill positions?

 

Just imagine you try "weed" once or are an occasional partaker?

 

If you test positive and it is on your record that employers can access good look getting a some what good job to provide for yourself and your family.

 

It will cost way to much money to enforce with minimal chance of success.

 

 

 

I mean why stop there because they get government money? Why not test everyone because we all use taxpayer money?

 

In an overall general sense....to address the employer issue:

 

I had to be drug tested at every job I've ever been hired to do since 1991. Where I work now, I have been drug tested twice...once when I was hired 10 years ago, and again when the a new company bought my place of employment and I had to be hired by them. For employment purposes, I don't think that there's much of an argument.

The difference is I pay taxes and the recipient does not... Lots of high paying jobs have been lost due to a failed drug test.. Who 'takes care" of these folks?? Again it's about personal responsibility.. If a guy needs a check bad enough he will refrain..

In an overall general sense....to address the employer issue:

 

I had to be drug tested at every job I've ever been hired to do since 1991. Where I work now, I have been drug tested twice...once when I was hired 10 years ago, and again when the a new company bought my place of employment and I had to be hired by them. For employment purposes, I don't think that there's much of an argument.

 

 

I understand your point! My work place randomly test and I have been tested 3 times this year and each time also includes a breathalyzer.

 

I guess to better clarify or give an example to what I mean:

 

Say you are a 18-21 year old parent on welfare who screws up and smokes weed and then test positive. Then you straighten your life out, finish college go to apply for a job and they see that 5-10 years ago you failed a drug test and do not offer you the position. A position that you went to school for, sacrificed and struggled to complete your degree to overcome the mistakes you made when you were young and dumb. Now it is held over your head for how long...? IDK

Why should it be any different than if a non welfare recipient fails a test and loses a good job and it's held over their heads on future job openings.. The welfare thing should not matter any more than the non welfare worker...