Scott signs bill requiring drug test to receive welfare (Florida Governor Rick Scott)

Tampa Bay Online (Associated Press) ^ | May 31, 2011 | Unknown

[Minus_The_Bear]

1.) People who work already have to take an invasive drug test for no reason.

2.) People who are stealing taxpayers money should have to take a drug test as well.

[Minus_The_Bear]

Sorry, but people don't need to have %100 of their housing and food paid for so they can spend money on meth.

Hard working people are inconvenienced by having to take a drug test to work normal jobs everyday.

[ilovesarah2012]

I agree. Let’s test the CEOs and employees of all companies who took TARP money.

[grumpygresh]

Goodie! If these drug addicts can qualify for free government cheese, I should be able to take drugs or drive drunk on government roads! Hey that’s the 4th amendment right- NOT!

[Minus_The_Bear]

Uhhhh... people who actually work already take some sort of drug test upon hiring.

[central_va]

Drugs? Does that include Malt Liquor?

[autumnraine]

You are making broad assumptions there...

Every person on food stamps or even subsidized housing is not ‘on it to buy meth.’

It’s a strawman argument and since meth only stays in your system for three days, you aren’t going to “catch” many.

[Minus_The_Bear]

"Sorry, this is where I completely disagree. If I pay my taxes for three decades, lose my job and have to file for stamps... well, making me pee in a cup is only going to tick me off."

What is pissing us off is people who are using cash to score meth and never paying for food. While honest people have to work.

These people aren't "poor" they are a "criminal underclass".

[absolootezer0]

Minor custodial children of drug users

a: a habitual drug user should not be a custodial parent
b: if they have money to buy drugs, they should be able to buy food.
c: probable cause is established by signing the application. assistance is not a right or entitlement.

also, i think if the people *really* need assistance, they need to start by selling off their fancy electronics, designer clothes, and any other excess luxury items. also they should show they have minimized extras (cell phones, high speed internet, cable/ satellite, high end vehicle payments, etc.) if a person has the money to afford all that, then they should be able minimise the extras to buy food.

[autumnraine]

So rather than change the intrusive (and ridiculous act of urinating on demand) rules for workplace drug testing by electing freedom loving officials who would change the laws on this madness, you just adopt the attitude of “if I have to, then SO DO YOU!”

Really?

[autumnraine]

Of course! And I share your anger at loser addicts surviving on bennies. But I don’t agree with treating EVERYONE like a criminal to get back at a small percentage.

And that’s exactly what’s happening.

[Minus_The_Bear]

No. I don't believe I should have to work 5 times as hard so lazy people should never have to work.

Nice try.

It is immoral for people to steal. It shouldn't be a very hard concept.

[Minus_The_Bear]

You sound like the people who want amnesty...

"Oh, it's so horrible that the illegal aliens have to follow the laws... Why do these horrible racists want us to actually follow the law?"

The law is for everyone. Not some. Everyone.

[ilovesarah2012]

I never had to take a drug test to get a job.

[autumnraine]

Huh?

Because I disagree with a law means I want illegals to remain here?

Big stretch.

[autumnraine]

Me either. I had a few ask, but if you need my urine to see if I’m a valuable employee when you have my references of previous employers who have stated such, I don’t need your job.

[Minus_The_Bear]

If you don't see that welfare is up +30% under Obama and is a huge problem then there is no hope for you.

Why exactly do you think that producers should be robbed to provide for those who choose not to work?

[Lancey Howard]

Not only do I not “oppress the poor”, but I happen to give generously to various charities (not that that’s any of your business). One thing I do not do is vote for politicians to confiscate from my neighbors and hand the loot over to “the poor” in exchange for their votes. That would be rude and selfish, and, well, downright Democrat.

So, thanks for the scripture, reverend, but what’s your point?

[myrabach]

I don’t get it then... if drug tests are unreasonable searches, why aren’t they unconstitutional when it comes to getting a job? Or random drug tests on employees? How about drug tests on students for extra-curricular activities? There are probably many more instances where drug tests are mandatory. What the heck happens if any drug test then becomes unconstitutional?

How can you say it’s unconstitutional for one group of people but ok for another? And just for the record, I think drug tests are fine and necessary. I certainly want those receiving welfare to have to submit to such scrutiny, including family members. I would even hope that any recipient be tested on a regular basis including the loss of benefits forever going forward. But that’s just me... I work and don’t do drugs.

[autumnraine]

“Why just pick on the poor?”

Because sadly, many Freepers feel that they have some sort of ownership on the poor on public assistance. While I am not for lifetime benefits, and some form of reform, this isn’t it. For one thing, the cost will outweigh the savings (many MANY ‘drug free workplace’ companies have discovered this) and will only bog down the system even more than before. Oh, and since this is Florida, we must hire TRANSLATORS because no one fixed the immigration problem first.

As for the not demanding the ONES MAKING THE LAWS WE MUST ABIDE BY be required to urinate on demand, I just have no idea. I keep reading about how people who work have to take drug tests, so should the welfare recipients. But our officials should have to abide by the laws they create. After all, as Minus the Bear says, “laws are laws, everyone should abide.”