A new law requiring drug testing for welfare recipients in Florida has been signed this last Tuesday, May 31st, 2011. While some will hail Governor Rick Scott signing a bill requiring Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) applicants to pass a drug screen, there are still plenty of voices of opposition to the measure. Scott says the legislation is "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."
But, according to a CNN report, detractors of the new Florida law not only call the measure an unconstitutional requirement that is equal to a "strip search," and an invasion of privacy, they also point out a possible conflict of interest, since Governor Rick Scott co-founded a company operating walk-in urgent care clinics, which include drug testing among the services offered.
Last April, Scott transferred his interests in Solantic Corporation over to his wife. But that can hardly be called a degree of separation. In all fairness, it should be pointed out that on May 18th, the Florida Ethics Commission ruled there was no "prohibited conflict of interest" on the matter.
Is the new Florida law the proverbial "slippery slope?" Exactly where does this requirement stop? Today, it's a requirement for those applying to TANF benefits, whether their financial situation was brought on by drug usage or not.
"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. 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?" asks representative Alcee Hastings.
Everyone can certainly agree on the concept of testing those with a reasonable suspicion of drug abuse. But this measure works under the assumption that all applicants are presumed suspected drug abusers. Opponents may ask themselves, "Whatever happened to the Fourth Amendment?" Defenders of the bill can easily point out if someone is asking for financial assistance from the Florida government, it should be on Florida's terms. In a statement about the new law, Governor Rick Scott was quoted as saying "It is unfair to Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction."
As for whether it's fair for "taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," will there also be standards for those who drink alcohol? Alcohol is also a drug, with life-wrecking capacity. If someone has brought their life to failure due to alcoholism, will they also need to find a representative payee, as well? Or, is booze okay with Governor Scott, as is so often the case with bureaucrat hypocrisy? Where do you stand on this issue?
by
Donald Pennington
Member since:
August 24, 2010 Florida Governor Rick Scott signs bill requiring drug testing for TANF recipients
June 01, 2011 02:40 PM UTC
comments: 49
Find Gather groups:
Gather Politics News Channel
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
|
||||
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Version , "Zach"; Copyright © 2012 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.
Comments: 49
"How about alcohol screening?"
At least some State assistance programs certainly do 'screen' for signs of alcoholism, and less clear-cut, for 'signs' of abuse (particularly spousal) in the context of alcohol use, without clear signs of classic alcoholism.
I'm not up on Florida, but I do know that in Washington state, personnel in the assistance office are vigilant and rather aggressive about intercepting folks who have entrenched, damaging alcohol habits.
Such people can be legally identified as having a formally defined, official "disease" - alcoholism - and this constitutes a preexisting medical condition which the state is then authorized & obligated to attend to ... in the course of "processing" an applicant for assistance.
This is all quite distinct from "testing" for alcohol consumption per se, without signs of the "disease" that does trigger "intervention".
If they win, the 24 or so States considering laws to drug-test welfare recipients won't be able to test for pot.
Until then, though, pot remains illegal.
Quite a popular idea, too.
And govt subsidies of it.
So, by supporting our ridiculous drug war, you are, in effect, supporting those murderous drug cartels South of the border. Are you a supporter of murderous drug cartels? Seems so.
Keep that in mind before you make any more comments about your Puritanical beliefs that you have the right to deem how others live.
What others put into their bodies really isn't up to you.
Who are you to have the right to dictate other people's lives?
Many companies require pre-employment drug test and some do random testing. Are they assuming all of their employees are drug abusers?
Opponents may ask themselves, "Whatever happened to the Fourth Amendment?"
Applying for TANF is voluntary. I don't think the 4th Amendment outlaws voluntary searches.
Yes.
Applying for TANF is voluntary. I don't think the 4th Amendment outlaws voluntary searches.
Hmm...you might have a point there...somewhat.
But still, booze is abused by folks, just as badly as illegal drugs. A drug, is a drug, is a drug, legal or not.
The voluntary comment was in response to the question of constitutionality NOT of advisability. And I don't see how any of your examples would be unconstitutional.
As to where the testing makes sense, I would have to see what the expected costs and savings are to evaluate that. I would use the same approach for education assistance. As far as those corporate bailouts, I was against all of them regardless of any drug use involved.
Donald,
A drug, is a drug, is a drug, legal or not.
The law does distinguish between legal and illegal. And we are talking about the law, aren't we?
The article was about the Florida's new law. Yes, alcohol is a drug. I don't have a problem with the law whether it includes alcohol testing or not. However adding alcohol has the potential to change things legally since it is a legally accepted product. It may also change the cost benefit analysis (more expensive testing?, more legal expenses defending it, etc).
You're the one claiming it is hypocritical. Your the one fixated on it being a drug. Does that mean you think they should also test for Prozac? caffeine? Not testing for them would be hypocritical in your eyes?
Smaller government? NOT!
Do you have some cost analysis backing that up?
Smaller government? NOT!
How is limiting the use of govt assistance NOT decreasing the size of govt?
Your next Aid for the Blind recipients! Oh wait they are probably better Americans than those receiving welfare huh? Yeah, cause if they were on the same level then surely we would be chasing them down with pitchforks and piss cups too...
LOL!
I hope we start piss testing political candidates too.
How are those questions irrelevent to Rollie's comment?