-Hiring lab techs to run all these test is going to be a pain. -Having Medical Techs to make data reports and ensuring the testing is being done properly. -Having new analysers to handle the new load of specimens. -Having staff on hand to ensure that the specimen is being collected properly. -Having the analyser's company engineers on hand to fix the machines. -Having to store and organize all lab results.
and this is just from lab testing in itself there are other angles that are there as well. Drug addicts will still be drug addicts and now without a money source they will commit crimes to get their fix. So you got to either eat the fall of property value due to robberies or other crimes or you got to hire more cops or lock up then all up where your tax money is still going to be paying for their lively hoods be instead now it's going to be costing alot more.
This is a poor and honestly a obvious scheme to fatten of the Rick's wallet. Sign some crazy law to appeal to Americans knee jerk reaction to drugs and the poor then pocket all the money for yourself so shallow then effective.
On July 03 2011 07:11 Moonwrath wrote: How on earth is it unconstitutional? Every single job I've ever had I had to take a drug test for. Why should free money from the government be exempt from that? You don't HAVE to get on welfare, but if you do, you have to follow the rules. One of the rules now is don't do drugs. I fail to see how that is at all a bad thing.
Private businesses can do as they will. They can punish you for unwise speech, punish you for bringing a firearm into the office, or punish you for disseminating literature contrary to their charter or best interests.
The government is bound by the Constitution and its amendments. This law is a direct and obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment, and it should be struck down quickly.
Umm no, it is not a clear violation of the 4th amendment. A clear violation would be the government requiring everyone to get a drug test, or randomly picking people to take drug tests. There is no cause for search there. There is, however, a cause when you voluntarily go on welfare to receive money from the government. Nobody is forcing you to go on welfare. If you want to go on welfare, you must complete a drug test to ensure that the government's money will be spent on its intended purpose. I still do not understand how that requirement is unconstitutional. It is entirely within the realm of a reasonable search to check if the people you're giving money too are using drugs.
^ Agree. " Nobody is forcing you to go on welfare. If you want to go on welfare, you must complete a drug test to ensure that the government's money will be spent on its intended purpose.".
If they sign something that says that they will not use tax payer money to buy drugs, then there has to be a way to test that.
Nevertheless, both sides of the argument are interesting
Just so everyone knows the govenor who signed this into law owns a drug testing company. well thats not completely true when he took office he had to quit all his buisnesses to make sure he didnt have any conflict of interest so..... he gave it to his wife. think im bullshitting look it up its public record. so anyone still think this is about giving money to people who deserve it? or is it just another govenor signing things into law that directly make him more money. learn to look at things deeper people most if its some one in the goverment who wants new requirements for anything.
@Detwiler - I'd laugh if all the discussion on this being class warfare is just to draw people away from realizing this is yet another pork project.
from the CNN article:
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.
For the moment Scott isn't directly accountable. That said, if his ownership is now under hiw wife's name, the wife would still be benefiting. I think this comes down to whether or not the company honors its position on "not contracting for state business".
right im sure it wont. im positive his drug testing company wont do any tests for the state and im even more positive that him haing the company had nothing to do with him backing the law. lolz i mean come on. local media reported? right... oh and the government ethics commission? what a joke. everyone here use your own ethics. if i own a company, then give it to my wife, then make a law that gives that company buisness, is that a conflict of interests? please. i dont think it even warrants a discussion. oh but the government appointed ethics commission finds there isnt one huh who woulda thought... oh wait who pays the commissions paychecks? congrats on the govenor for successfully trolling a whole state. thats epic.
Found this on reddit's r/politics. The source says in Florida, just 2% of welfare recipients failed the drug test, and another 2% are not completing the application process for reasons unspecified.
Another interesting fact is that Gov Scott had stock in the drug testing company who was awarded the entierty of the contract. He sold of his stock for $62 million in April.
On August 28 2011 17:17 SpiffD wrote: Sorry to bump, but I think this is very relevant.
Found this on reddit's r/politics. The source says in Florida, just 2% of welfare recipients failed the drug test, and another 2% are not completing the application process for reasons unspecified.
Another interesting fact is that Gov Scott had stock in the drug testing company who was awarded the entierty of the contract. He sold of his stock for $62 million in April.
The stock issue has been raised a lot, but the fact that only 2% are failing (4% if we assume the non-compliant people are users) really says a lot about how weak Scott's argument was in the first place. That's less than half the rate of the general population (1/4th if you don't count the non-compliant people).
On August 28 2011 17:45 Quagmire wrote: isnt welfare a right? who cares what ppl do with the welfare they get?
Well, how do you define a right? There's no clause in the American Constitution, for example, that all citizens are guaranteed a certain minimum income level. It's arguable from an ethical standpoint that all human beings have the right to a dignified standard of living, but that's not codified in American law to the best of my knowledge.
On August 28 2011 17:45 Quagmire wrote: isnt welfare a right? who cares what ppl do with the welfare they get?
Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
On August 28 2011 17:45 Quagmire wrote: isnt welfare a right? who cares what ppl do with the welfare they get?
Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
I want those seeking welfare to possess not the smallest luxury, nor do I want them to partake in any recreational activity.
On August 28 2011 18:07 RoyW wrote: I want those seeking welfare to possess not the smallest luxury, nor do I want them to partake in any recreational activity.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.
That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.
Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
That said, math itself is based on axioms that are unfalsifiable, like a=a or a+a=2a. So it's really still a matter of faith.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
Lets go with basic logic then. Do you think having a drug test for every welfare applicant is free or something?
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
On August 28 2011 18:02 exShikari wrote: Fuck no welfare isn't a right. The only people who should be against this legislation are the crackheads and other junkies. If you are legitimately seeking welfare then you can't afford luxury items, drugs included.
Or those who can do basic arithmetic...
What arithmetic do you speak of? If it saves the state money then basic arithmetic isn't a very good argument.
EPT
