Fla. Welfare Recipients Must Pass Drug Test (Could and should NY do the same?) (Florida: middle-class, employment)

[nycbrooklyn]

The title says it all. What do you think would happen if NY tries to do the same? Would it be struck down by the courts? Would it help the state with it's budget crisis?

Would you support this law and before you answer yes just take a moment and think about if you were in an unfortunate situation and needed welfare, and was a casual weed smoker or something like that like a lot of people.

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure - CNN

[SilverBulletZ06]

Originally Posted by nycbrooklyn

The title says it all. What do you think would happen if NY tries to do the same? Would it be struck down by the courts? Would it help the state with it's budget crisis?

Would you support this law and before you answer yes just take a moment and think about if you were in an unfortunate situation and needed welfare, and was a casual weed smoker or something like that like a lot of people.

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure - CNN

Yes, yes, yes!

If your so poor and unfortunate that you need to take from others then you shouldn't be "casually smoking weed".

[Smash255]

Certainly do not support this idea from Governor Medicare Fraud.

This was actually done in a few Florida counties (around Jacksonville) in the late 90's as a pilot program. It was scrapped due in part that the amount of people that were caught were so low that it cost more to run the program than any savings from anyone that was kicked off. Scott was also mandating drug testing state employees, but have backtracked (for now) amid lawsuits and court cases,

Oh & the best part of this whole mess is that Scott has very close ties to a medical company that is one of the largest drug testing providers in the state. And by very close ties well, co-founder and former owner. Until earlier in the year he had majority ownership in the company worth approx $70 million. After growing criticism over his ties to the company as he started pushing the drug testing stuff, he decided to divest his share. He set up a trust for it, in his wife's name, obviously that didn't sit well with many people, but he claimed it wasn't a conflict of interest since he was no longer majority owner (even though his wife was). In addition to the drug testing issue, other plans (including moving 3 million off medicaid and into private managed care) would benefit the company. The controlling share his wife held in the company was eventually sold, but only after more continued months of denials of it being a conflict of interest, mounting criticism, and approvals dropping south of 30%

[NYEconomist]

It's about time. The problem is that what do you do with them when we find out they are doing what everyone already knows they are doing?

Now you'll have a drug addict who no longer has their revenue stream. This will cause a problem, and every critical talking head will knock the program every time some stoner knocks over a liquor store.

[nycborn]

Sound like a good Idea, But think about the kids it would it affect. Now their drugs using parents would no have means to feed their children and is it the children fault??? No, So what is next we are going to take their children away because they smoked a nickle bag of weed? In addition, what are going to do about alcohol addicted parents. IMO alcoholic addicted parents are usually worst parents then those addicted to marijuana. I think the best path Have them work for every dime. Money always has more value when one has to work for it and make the drug test part of the employment and do not stigmatize the jobs by just sending to work in the park. Have them doing work where every it is needed. I am not saying have them working in city schools and hospital. but where every they would qualify otherwise for example, criminal, psych, education,

[Yzette]

Dumb idea. What, you're going to deny someone aid because they came up hot after eating a poppy seed bagel so their stomach doesn't get upset after taking a Percocet for their ruptured disc, which they blew in a sneezing fit because they didn't take their pseudoephedrine-containing allergy meds for fear of...coming up hot?

Ethics aside, the program simply isn't cost-effective. I'm with Smash on this one.

[suprememinds]

i would support that especially that ppl who were former drug addicts can get ssi because they were dependant on drugs. That is a slap in the face since there are ppl with pysical disabilities that really need assistance. To justify someone with a drug habbit minor or major and to support it is unacceptable. We might as well let the jerk that killed the ppl in the pharmacy go and give him whatever money he didn't take that night and keep giving it to him as long as he feels he needs it.

[LongIslandCitizen]

If you can spend yo money on da weed

ya don't need the welfare

cause I don't want to support your habit anymore.

that's probably why your in this predicament anyway.

[kayfouroh]

No, drop the payouts and length of support. Government should not be doing as much as they do.

[Yzette]

Originally Posted by LongIslandCitizen

If you can spend yo money on da weed

ya don't need the welfare

cause I don't want to support your habit anymore.

that's probably why your in this predicament anyway.

Not necessarily, my friend. Look at all of the hard-working middle-class people who lost everything in the downturn. They're not drug addicts or criminals. They're just poor and out of options. I think subjecting them to what is arguably a search of their bodies without so much as probable cause is not only a violation of rights, but needless humiliation and aggravation that will only cause a certain hardening and resentfulness. The human body is not public property to inspect, even when the person occupying it is on public aid. There are some lines that just shouldn't be crossed.