Florida welfare recipients have discovered a new hurdle in claiming public aid that isn’t sitting well with a lot of applicants.
Since July, Florida law mandates any applicant for public welfare benefits must take and pass a drug test at the time of application. Applicants can refuse without giving any reason, but they are not eligible for benefits unless they comply.
The Florida Department of Children and Families told Associated Press that only 32 applicants have failed the test, out of more than 7,000 who did pass it. But the telling tale comes from the 1,597 applicants who refused to take the test.
All it tells is that 1,597 refused to take the test. If you think that implies guilt, imagine how many Tea Party members would submit voluntarily to a government program that examines their bodily fluids. Should we presume them guilty as well, or is it different because they’re not poor non-whites?
So .5% of those on welfare were found to be using drugs? Cool.
What does this now prove?
What does drug use and welfare have to do with one another?
What are the perceived welfare savings compared to the cost to administer 7000 tests?
What are the perceived welfare savings compared to the cost to administer 7000 tests?
exactly
According to the government running it, they are saving more then they are spending. They are saving very little (I think I read an article that said a few thousand dollars), but it so far has been a positive cash flow endeavor
So .5% of those on welfare were found to be using drugs? Cool.
What does this now prove?
What does drug use and welfare have to do with one another?
What are the perceived welfare savings compared to the cost to administer 7000 tests?
No they didn’t test existing welfare recipients, only new applicants. Fail.
I think it’s an awesome plan. They should be tested for drugs, alcohol, and tobacco weekly if they want welfare. Why should they be able to take what little money they have and spend it on that when taxpayers are paying for them to sit on their ass?
That’s my point there has to be a net benefit to society. While I think the idea has some merit you could never pass that up here. Occupational drug testing in Canada is very limited and it has to be for bona fide OHS reasons…
do the ones who fail get simply cut off or are they given a chance at rehab before that get cut off
What are the perceived welfare savings compared to the cost to administer 7000 tests?
exactly
I have no idea how much people on welfare in Florida receive, but let’s use the amount of $100/week which is probably way low. 1597 people plus 32 that failed aren’t getting that $100/week. $162,900 per WEEK saved. I doubt that it cost $100 for a drug test, so 7000 tests at $100 each is a 4 week payback. Seems like a pretty smart cost saving move to me.
What are the perceived welfare savings compared to the cost to administer 7000 tests?
exactly
I have no idea how much people on welfare in Florida receive, but let’s use the amount of $100/week which is probably way low. 1597 people plus 32 that failed aren’t getting that $100/week. $162,900 per WEEK saved. I doubt that it cost $100 for a drug test, so 7000 tests at $100 each is a 4 week payback. Seems like a pretty smart cost saving move to me.
The other consideration is to make sure the legislation will withstand the “rights” test… having laws tossed in court is not cheap.
What are the perceived welfare savings compared to the cost to administer 7000 tests?
exactly
I have no idea how much people on welfare in Florida receive, but let’s use the amount of $100/week which is probably way low. 1597 people plus 32 that failed aren’t getting that $100/week. $162,900 per WEEK saved. I doubt that it cost $100 for a drug test, so 7000 tests at $100 each is a 4 week payback. Seems like a pretty smart cost saving move to me.
The other consideration is to make sure the legislation will withstand the “rights” test… having laws tossed in court is not cheap.
People sue for all things, but what right do I have to not be drug tested for a voluntary free hand out?
What are the perceived welfare savings compared to the cost to administer 7000 tests?
exactly
I have no idea how much people on welfare in Florida receive, but let’s use the amount of $100/week which is probably way low. 1597 people plus 32 that failed aren’t getting that $100/week. $162,900 per WEEK saved. I doubt that it cost $100 for a drug test, so 7000 tests at $100 each is a 4 week payback. Seems like a pretty smart cost saving move to me.
The other consideration is to make sure the legislation will withstand the “rights” test… having laws tossed in court is not cheap.
People sue for all things, but what right do I have to not be drug tested for a voluntary free hand out? The wording of the law needs to stand up to this:
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
All it tells is that 1,597 refused to take the test. If you think that implies guilt, imagine how many Tea Party members would submit voluntarily to a government program that examines their bodily fluids. Should we presume them guilty as well, or is it different because they’re not poor non-whites?
I didn’t see where the story mentioned anything about the color of the applicants skin. So you automatically think all welfare recipients are minorities?
Maybe we should ask: what is the purpose of welfare? Is it to provide a safety net for people who have fallen on bad times through no fault of their own, or is it a safety net for all people period?
Or maybe we should just ask the question: what is the benefit of having welfare at all? Drugs, alcohol, laziness, skin color, etc. are all just topics that beat around the bush of the real agenda.
All it tells is that 1,597 refused to take the test. If you think that implies guilt, imagine how many Tea Party members would submit voluntarily to a government program that examines their bodily fluids. Should we presume them guilty as well, or is it different because they’re not poor non-whites?
If the Tea party folks were asking for free money, I think they'd be likely to understand there are some rules that come along with it. Your last line implies that all the welfare recipients are poor non-whites...
The majority of Tea Partiers are white. Minority groups have much higher percentages dependent on welfare presently, so let’s not get caught up in semantics.
Should we be mandatory drug testing temporary welfare recipients and not those collecting temporary unemployment? How about for medicaid? And if medicaid, why not medicare and social security? Seems to me taxpayer funded safety net programs should all be drug tested, or none at all.
You seem to be making the assumption with your “free money” comment that no welfare recipients have ever paid into the system.
Then TARP bailout funds should have had drug testing, too. No Wall Street millionaires should receive gov’t funds if they are using weed, cocaine, etc. Alcohol too. Sorry sir, you’ve had two martinis, no millions in bailout funds for you …
Maybe we should deny federal bankruptcy protection for drug addicts and alcoholics as well?
What is the REAL issue being discussed here? I don’t think it is substance abuse, which affects all income levels and causes tax payer expenses far beyond the threshold of welfare recipients.
The real issue is cultural disdain and stereotyping of welfare recipients. As if that needed clarification.
If people want to drug screen those receiving government checks, either as condition of employment or receipt of safety net benefits, fine. Just apply it evenly. Welfare recipients, kidney failure patients on Medicaid, Grandmas on Medicare, county administrators, federal judges, presidents, ex-presidents on a government pension–everyone. If the issue is opposition to payments made to those deemed unworthy due to substance use, then let’s get serious about it and not just single out our preferred targets.