Florida Governor Rick Scott To The State's Poor: I Want Your Urine!

By Kellen Russoniello, George Washington Law School student, NORML legal intern

Update: June 19, 2011…Florida Governor Scott Backs Down, Suspends His Executive Order For A Massive State Drug Testing Scheme



On May 31, 2011, unpopular Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a bill that mandates all those seeking public assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (commonly known as welfare) to pass a drug screen. Those that fail the test will not be eligible for benefits for one year. The law will become effective on July 1.
Furthermore, the law requires those seeking assistance to pay for the cost of the screening. The expense can be recovered if the applicant qualifies for benefits. If you fail the test though, tough luck: your money belongs to the state. Those who are denied may designate another person to receive the benefits on behalf of their children, but they must also pass a drug test.
In justifying his signature, Governor Scott stated that it is “unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction.” So instead of supporting effective treatment and prevention, the law will implement a costly and ineffective means to try and deter drug use. Not to mention the law is most likely completely unconstitutional.
A Michigan law similar to this one was struck down in 2000 and affirmed in 2003 by the 6th Circuit. Michigan lawmakers had enacted a law allowing for suspicion-less searches of welfare recipients. A class action lawsuit was brought by applicants alleging that these drug tests violated the Fourth Amendment. The applicants won.
Although the Supreme Court has recognized certain situations in which a suspicion-less drug test is allowed (including testing railroad employees, customs agents whose line of work causes them to be directly involved with drug interdiction, and high school athletes and other students involved in extracurricular activities), the testing under the Florida law does not seem to further a special need of the government which outweighs the privacy interest of the individual. In order to demonstrate this special need, the state generally must show that public safety is in jeopardy. The Michigan government made the argument that drug use put children at the risk of abuse and neglect, but this argument was rejected by the district court. (It could be argued that the denial of benefits is more detrimental to public safety than not testing potential recipients). Testing welfare recipients for drug metabolites does nothing to further public safety, and therefore the government will most likely fail to meet the strict test set forth by the Supreme Court.
Those convicted of drug trafficking charges are already ineligible to receive welfare. Even if you can justify this by saying that they cause harm to communities, this new law places the focus on users. Legal challenges are expected and should come down in favor of the applicants, although with the Supreme Court’s recent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, if the case were to rise that high there may be cause for concern.
*          *          *
Editor’s note: 1) Isn’t it interesting how elected politicians like Rick Scott (often with no legislative hearings at all) are so quick to want to control the living habits of poor citizens who receive state funding, but they never insist on drug testing requirements to issue state funding and grants to rich land developers, corporations, business executives, professional sports team owners or religious leaders–just the poor?
2) Looks like Governor Scott may have more than ideological reasons to push the state of Florida into using taxpayers’ money on massive drug testing programs for welfare recipients and state employees…as reported in the Palm Beach Post in March:

“Floridians deserve to know that those in public service, whose salaries are paid with taxpayer dollars, are part of a drug-free workplace,” Scott said in a statement. “Just as it is appropriate to screen those seeking taxpayer assistance, it is also appropriate to screen government employees.”
Until last week, Scott’s communications office in Tallahassee had ignored repeated requests for comment on the potential for a conflict of interest. On Friday, as national media began to call as well, the office issued this response:
Any perception that the governor’s business interests pose a conflict of interest with his health policies are “baseless and incorrect,” said Scott’s deputy communications director, Brian Hughes.
Privately, one Scott official acknowledged that every time the governor discusses health policy, his urgent care business would be “the elephant in the room.”
Shortly before he was inaugurated, Scott’s lawyers met with attorneys at the Florida Commission on Ethics. Subsequently, they moved his Solantic holdings into a revocable trust in his wife’s name, making her the controlling investor in the privately held company. No public records were created from the ethics meeting.
During the election campaign, he had estimated the worth of his Solantic holdings at $62 million. Jacksonville-based Solantic has 32 clinics statewide, including two in Palm Beach County, and plans rapid growth and an eventual initial public offering, according to company documents.
Suffolk University Law Professor Marc Rodwin, author of several books on conflicts of interest in medicine, said the movement of Scott’s ownership to his wife’s trust was insufficient to eliminate the ethical issues.
“He owned the company and transferred it into his wife’s name,” Rodwin said. “It’s a conflict of interest.”

102 thoughts

  1. IT’S OK TO BE A DRUNK . BUT DON’T LET THEM CATCH YOU BURNING ONE. THEY WILL PUT YOU IN JAIL IN THEIR SYSTEM.

  2. This law is proof of the intolerance American’s hold toward the poor.
    If you agree with this law, you HAVE to admit you are prejudice. You are PREJUDGING your fellow man. THAT is dangerous to do as official policy.
    Oh and 4.Mike: “I could care less” means you care… You mean you “COULDN’T” care less. Would it be fair of me to assume you are stupid based on that mistake? No, just like it’s not fair for you to assume people on welfare are all on crack/meth etc.
    Legalization is about FREEDOM not getting high…

  3. I really hate how some of these editors are so damn biased. Yeah, we are anti collectivists, we are AMERICANS.
    “[Editor’s note: OK…maybe you missed the points about 1) mass drug testing being unconstitutional, 2) Governor Scott steering state business to his own company, and 3) the duplicity of making poor people who get a few nickles from the state (which they may well be entitled to as previously employed/taxed workers who paid into the welfare system) when the state pays out millions to non-drug tested corporation heads, sport team owners, contractors, etc…no one at NORML cares that you’re too rich NOT to be subject to forced government drug testing to eat, for housing or health.
    Would you have passed Gov. Scott’s drug test when you were on the public dole as a college student sucking up thousands annually in taxpayer subsidized loans?
    Hmmm???
    Could you?
    Maybe you have more in common with poor people than you think!]”
    1) It is NOT unconstitutional to drug test people you are paying.
    2) A politician is corrupt? First. Time. Ever.
    3) “a few nickels” yeah because thats the only cost of welfare programs to hard working Americans. You biased double talking S.O.B.
    I really used to like NORML, but thanks to editors’ comments like yours I am starting to see this organization as ‘just another brick in the wall’.
    The truth is that people on welfare shouldn’t be using welfare money to buy drugs.
    A greater truth is that welfare is unconstitutional.
    Another one is that collectivism isolates people and their rights by assigning them to groups, rounding them up.
    Here is a thought, this law could at the very least bring attention to the drug war.
    GEE COULD WE USE LOGIC AND REASON TO MAKE A CASE??
    Nah lets respond with bullshi.
    How do you further the cause of liberty (legalization) by sticking up for welfare recipients who have been institutionalized into sucking money out of our hands?
    YOU DON’T. You work against your supposed cause.
    So, then then another question arises; what IS your REAL cause?
    [Russ responds: I know another editor chimed in, and I concur, but I don’t intend to beat up on you, Ben. You present a viewpoint that is held by a large number of Americans, especially the Idahoans I grew up with. I believe it has evolved from a basic American Protestant work ethic, that Calvinistic doctrine of salvation through hard work. If you’re poor, why, you must deserve it. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, by God, I did it, and so can you! Tell me if any of this sounds like the slogans in your mind.
    No amount of data I can present to you will shake you of this, I’m wagering. I was a progressive talk radio host for two years and tried like hell to present this as an empirical case (the cost-benefit of welfare vs. food riots, for instance, or the proportionality of federal taxpayer largess to those profitable corporations that least need it vs. meager percentages of federal dollars going to poor people.)
    So I’ll just give you a personal story as to how being poor and addicted works. My dad was an alcoholic and drug addict. He bounced from job to job, was unemployed and playing music gigs on the side. Mom would take us shopping and even at age eight I could feel her shame as she handed Food Stamps to the clerk. I remember her boiling water on the stove to draw us baths because the gas was turned off and the choice was that bill or renting me a clarinet for school band. Without Food Stamps, WIC checks, and unemployment insurance (it is insurance – you pay in to get it) I’m certain my life would have been much more difficult. I’m pretty sure we would have been homeless at some point. Maybe CPS steps in and takes me and my little brother away and into separate foster families and there goes more of your taxpayer money.
    Now, if you’d been drug testing Dad (or alcohol testing; why does Gov. Scott not propose that?) he would have failed. People mean well, thinking “we’ll give them incentive to stop taking drugs”, without understanding that being addicted means you don’t make reasonable decisions like “looks like I have to stop smoking crack today”. And yes, Dad spent some unemployment check money on twelve packs of beer… but he also paid rent and we stayed in a meager shack of a home.
    Another of my poor friends was a bit worse off financially – more kids in the family, single mom. But she didn’t smoke, drink, or do drugs. She just worked a convenience store job and a waitress job and cleaned offices in her spare time to earn the money for the day care to cover the time away from her first two jobs she worked to pay rent and utilities and feed four kids. One day she suffers a fall and must recuperate for six months. Health insurance? Ha ha. She got by with TANF and disability and unemployment, but she would have been hard-pressed to fork over $90 for the drug test and wait for her first welfare check to reimburse it when she passed. Ironically when she applied for a job later in life (I was a teen), she failed a drug test because she never knew her favorite poppy seed bagels would turn up as heroin metabolites on a pee screen. Imagine she’d forked over that $90, got the “fail”, and was told she’d not be getting that TANF and disability and unemployment and a few more weeks of appeals and retests and bagel-less breakfasts would be required before she could feed the kids.
    Being poor sucks. Most – MOST poor people are working poor and the ones without jobs desperately want them. McDonald’s recently had a job fair for 50,000 positions; they had 1,000,000 applicants. Many companies are openly discriminating against hiring the unemployed! And to defend the drug testing of welfare applicants by saying “well, I have to drug test for my job” is the worst sort of Stockholm Syndrome for those who’ve taken hostage our civil liberties.]

  4. I have to jump in here, after reading some of the unbelievable comments, specifically those of posters 4,5, 15 and the other government-intrusion apologists. What the hell are you thinking? It’s okay for you to smoke, because you are a well-paid, “good” person? And “those other people” should be tested because they’re not “good” like you?
    Give me a friggin’ break. It is that sort of bigoted and greedy, self-serving philosophy that led to the defeat of MJ legalization in California last year. (“I got mine–screw everybody else.) I’m so sick of you greedy (usually anti-govt) types using any excuse–including supporting govt intrustion–to spout your BS. You don’t even seem to understand your own hypocrisy–you hate govt intrustion, unless it’s aimed at those “other people.”
    Like the NOMRL writer said in response to your idiocy, if you support drug testing anyone on the govt dole, why are the CEO’s who benefit from govt handouts not on your list of the “bad” people who should be drug tested? Why are YOU, who drive streets paid for by the tax-payers, not on the list of those who should be drug tested?
    I’m so sick of the selective finger-pointing.
    BTW, thanks American Genesist, post 16, Rebecca, #34 and others for your REASONABLE and thoughtful comments on this egregious attempt at govt intrusion.

  5. First off I’m being a collectivist by the point I was making. If you are not being a productive member of society then you are not helping the collective whole. Your rude comment is not appreciated as I was not trying to be rude in mine. “Internet, driving down a highway, answering a phone, depositing a check, etc…all of these modes of commerce are subsidized by the taxpayer.” This is my point, they are government subsidized, which I, the taxpayer, pay for so I should be allowed to use them free of charge without drug testing. If I pay for it there is no problem. People on welfare don’t pay for their welfare check that is the big difference. They get it from the taxpayers. Which if you don’t have a job you aren’t paying the taxes that are paying for welfare. You become a leech off of the rest of the working class society, by taking the money we earned. Since this is the case regulation is necessary. While I agree with one of the comment above no one should be drug tested at jobs because that is a breach of your civil liberties, this is a completely difference scenario. Poor people should get money when they are in a bad situation, but for how long? I know many people on welfare, and there is no incentive to go out and look for jobs once you are on it. All you have to do is check in and say you are looking for a job and they continue to give you money(most the time more than you would make at a minimum wage job). This is wrong, the system is broken and unless there is a better way of doing it, I don’t like it. It’s my opinion, and I would have liked a more civil response to maybe talk out the points. You aren’t going change minds or even make a valid point if you are being rude. Peace and love to all. But do it responsibly.
    [Russ responds: I can certainly be civil in this discussion. Here’s where your argument is flawed. Poor folks pay plenty of taxes that make their way back in the form of the social safety net. Sales taxes, registration fees, payroll taxes, all of which are disproportionate to their net worth, by the way. Someone collecting unemployment isn’t a “leech” off the rest of working class society; they are someone who was working class society, lest they would not have qualified for unemployment.
    We cannot even begin to have this discussion of your hypothesis of these poor “leeches” without also addressing the megarich “leeches” on the taxpayer dime. Do you know how much net income tax ExxonMobil paid last year? For the cost of their federal subsidies we could bail out the 401ks and mortgages of a lot of people whose family net worth was destroyed when billionaire bankers looted it.
    You are falling for the demonization of the poor. “Look! Look at those poor “leeches” suckling off your working class efforts,” says the billionaire when you start asking if he really needs two superyachts… I’d much rather see my tax dollars getting milk and cheese to infants, rent assistance to single moms, and unemployment checks to working class folks who were laid off to get the CEO a bonus than funding an F-22 fighter project nobody wants, maintaining US troops in European countries that can protect themselves, and giving some NFL owner a sweetheart deal on a new stadium.]

  6. Thats a great idea! It would save alot of wasted welfare money. Get a job, i agree that prohibition fails however welfare is destroying our country

  7. Russ- I appreciate the fact you included the personal story, and I do agree with some of your arguments (ie. teh tax breaks for the rich), but you seem to forget a major factor of the burden of welfare taxes on the American people. It is really easy to say “the rich should be taxed more” and have people agree with you, but no one was in favor of tax breaks for the rich, you just threw that in there so people would agree with you. What you and so many people forget today is that the socio-economic class structure is not only the rich v. poor. You completely excluded the struggling middle class. The middle class is stuck fitting the bill for the American welfare state, while the rich arent taxed enough, and the poor(at least those in urban areas) don’t pay as much in transportation, education costs, and mortage/housing. Not only should the rich be taxed more, but the welfare state should be monitored more closely. I would suggest only having vouchers, or some type of electronic cash equivalent, to track and monitor the spending of individuals on welfare. I know that you will respond with “do you really want the gvtment monitoring your every move” or “you hate the poor”, but there needs to be a certain level of accountability when the gvt is spending money. The gvtment should be held accountable for the money spent not only on welfare, but for every type of spending, thus returning the public’s ability to control the spending of our money. Sorry this is so long, but there was a lot to address.

  8. First of all – a flat tax, in my opinion, is an acceptable way to go.
    Second – The middle class is nothing [and I mean nothing] more than “CREDIT” – the ability to “BUY NOW – PAY LATER” [or not pay later if at all – collection agencies and BK courts]. If you have credit – you’re middle class. If you don’t have credit – you’re poor. IF YOU’RE A GRANTOR OF CREDIT – YOU’RE FUCKING EVERYONE. Tell me – what would you have achieved without credit? Welfare is credit one doesn’t have to pay back.

  9. You can’t assume just because I don’t agree with assisted living, that I agree with corporate CEO salaries/bonuses. I don’t. The top 5% elitist are 100,000 times worse than anything I can think of when it come to draining our economy and driving up the deficit. I just simply wasn’t trying to make a point about the elite class because that is a totally different conversation. I’m fairly informed as to how Wall Street caused the global financial crisis of 2008 and have done nothing to regulate itself since. Now I’m not gunna sit here and try and argue your points about qualified people being working class at some point, because I agree with them. But my point is not so much the qualified unemployed should not get any money, but how much, and how long should they get it for? Like I said it really creates incentive to not go out and get a job once you start getting money for doing nothing more than signing a piece of paper every month, and this is from first hand encounters. The one’s that sit on their butts everyday and decide it is easier to pretend they’re looking for a job and just get free dollars money. I do not “fall” for anything my good sir, I research and conclude my own opinion’s about everything. I hate the idea of being a blind sheep walking with the rest of the herd. This is simply helping me to understand the subject better, so I appreciate your civility. I like discussions like this because there is always the other side of the coin that is much harder to see.

  10. First off, you do not need loans to be successful in life. I work full time in the summer to pay for my community college education; where that will lead me i do not know yet. One of the bigger problems we face is reducing not only the federal budget but our own personal debt. The middle class overextending itself in the housing market and with credit cards is one of the major reasons our economy is in the shape that it is in. In my mind credit cards should be abolished, becuase the rates the companies charge is equivalent to what the federal government used to throw the mob in jail for; loan-sharking. As for me, credit hasnt helped me at all, and i will put off using any credit as long as i possibly can. The idea of people getting money that they will not have to pay back is rediculous. Where is the incentive to improve your financial standing? And i am not saying that all people on welfare do not try to improve there lives, or that the poor do not need assistence to improve their lives. Also, i would be interested in seeing how a flat tax would truly function, but i have not seen enough to say wether it would work better than the system we have now or not.

  11. 62. Kevin
    You just proved my point – Thank you. I’m talking about a Class of people [middle class] that would otherwise be struggling if it weren’t for credit. Kevin – wait till you’re out of school, maybe married, have a couple of kids, want to buy a car, house, or put your kids through college – like you’re doing. Would all of that be possible [at the level of comfort you would be accustomed to] without pulling the cash cows tit? All credit is not on plastic. What I’m saying is that credit defines the middle class – and – without it – you’re pulling the hind tit. Best wishes for your success. BTW – the system we have now is not working.

  12. I do not believe anyone is living Large on welfare.
    The money spent on Piss testing, thereby wasting Millions, could be spent on education, and catching those actually abusing the system.
    I lost everything when my wife had a Cerebral Stroke, and I was diagnosed with M.S. AND Lymph Cancer.
    I take care of my 2nd wife who also has had 2 strokes.
    I have been trying to get SSI for 3 years. My applications were lost I was recently told.
    I have been living on 200 a mo. food stamps for a year.
    Wow. I am living large trying to Care for my x with her 650 a mo SSI and my food stamps.
    I grow our meds, but the 7 plants allowed in our state is hardly enough. I worked since I was 12 and have been described as a workaholic before I got Ill.
    But my state wont protect me from Federal Law. So I have that additional stress.
    So to add to my suffering I have to starve cause I prefer Cannabis to nasty Pharm drugs?
    Should my x be denied her SSI?
    If a mother is selleng her children’s food money to by Heroin there should be an interdiction.
    Tho it should be handled by Health services and clean Needle exchanges and supervised clean Medication sites.
    Just think of the savings in not Policing,Jailing, Starving our people and thus keeping families together.
    It would also help in the spread of HIV and Hep c.
    The more Prohibitions put on people more Anti Government and Anti LEO violence will start to spring up.
    Also increasing the Criminality.
    I hate being on welfare. Now I should be even more made to feel useless?
    I know. I will just overgrow.
    Sharki

  13. so in other words; if a patient uses Medical Marijuana; which is NOT a “drug”; but is a natural Herb
    this person will be denied Welfare benefits; Absurd ! !
    Our Nation does not know what Medical Marijuana is !
    This Herb prevents Glaucoam and other dehabilitatons !

  14. To JJ…There is only one real problem with your rant….METH DOESN’T STAY IN YOUR SYSTEM FOR OVER 4 WEEKS AFTER TOTAL CESSATION OF USE!!!! I think only really hardcore tweekers piss dirty after 3 DAYS. So no, requiring people to piss in order to receive assistance will not harm tweekers, and ultimately is only meant to hurt one group of users of illicit substances….POT SMOKERS!
    -Oz

  15. My wife and I both work full time jobs, but we can’t afford the medical bills associated with childbirth, so we receive state assistance for just her while pregnant and our unborn child. Our first child is due the first week of July and our only worry about my wife imbibing cannabis was whether or not she would get drug tested and us lose our child. This is very disturbing as we are currently living in Florida.
    This is a step in a direction that could cause me to be denied my child because my wife takes no chemical medications, but instead partakes in cannabis to soothe the uncomfortableness of pregnancy (nausea, analgesia, etc). According to our physician, she is having the healthiest pregnancy he’s seen and “everyone should do whatever it is you’re doing; keep it up yourself too”, though he is unaware that cannabis is what she’s doing. (http://www.cannabismd.net/obstetrics/ is a good spot for medical information with cited sources)
    Drug testing should ONLY be done on a case by case basis. If there is sufficient suspicion of a harmful environment, follow up with it.
    Anna:
    This country knows exactly what medical marijuana is, they just, federally, choose to ignore reports that are more legitimate than the ones that they use as evidence against our natural method of healing.

  16. What’s going to happen? Undoubtedly many people will fail the drug test. Then what? They will receive no money. Would millions of people, including children who never even touched the stuff, starve to death in one the richest nations in the world?

  17. What a Right Wing Authoritarian fascist!
    It would not surprise me if at some point some fed-up Floridian or two take it upon themselves to waterboard Governor Rick Scott, with a gallon or ten of that urine he wants … I say, “Give it to him!’

  18. my previous posts probably make it seem like i am not pro-decriminalization and legalization, but i definatly am. first off i definatly approve any reasonable expansion of individuals rights. I approve of legalizing pot, and i do not support rediculous gun control laws. (keyword there is rediculous, obviously there is not reason to own fully automatic assault rifles.) back to the pot. i support legalization mainly as a way to cripple the power and wealth that is “earned” by criminals and gangs. economically, legalization would increase the supply of pot, thus decreasing demand, as well as bringing down the price. Lower price means less revenue because the increase in demand would not cover the lost revenue for having to sell the pot at cheaper prices. If you really want to fight gang/drug related crime, you legalize what they are selling. think about it, who makes money from selling alcohol? the corporations who legally employ americans, and pay taxes (albeit not enough taxes) to support those who need government assistance.

  19. 72. Kevin
    Now you’re talkin’ – and – now I’m listening – because – now you’re making sense. You have my ear – speak wisely into it – and – you’ll have my support. On the other hand – never back off your true feelings, they are your true right.
    Have a great CDXX Communion.

  20. What will our world become if we turn our backs on even one more child? That should be our first priority, even I say this as I would be facing the same if I lived in Florida. Children will be the first to suffer in this case. I also have to ask how in the world you could possibly pay rent, utilities, transportation and have a dime for anything else on 330.00 per mo. I am on Medical Marijuana and can’t even afford it on my disability income. I would certainly be dead today had I not stopped all pharmacutical drugs three years ago…they almost killed me. I am closer now than ever to getting back in the work force and contributing to stop suffering every chance I get. People stop and think about those children. It will break our weak childrens welfare system and millions of children would really be in a dangerous position.

  21. Okay, we Floridians need to organize and at least cause some type of reform on our state’s oppressive cannabis laws.
    This state has lost it’s mind.

  22. rush limbaugh had it right, throw everyone who is getting high in jail, that will quell the drug “problem”. oh, wait a sec, wasn’t he convicted of buying thousand of painkillers aka drugs via the internet? sorry, my bad.

  23. C I A IN LA, FREE BLOW FOR THOSE WHO KNOW
    DON’T LOOK AT ME THAT WAY, I TOLD YOU SO
    THE MAN IS THE BIGGEST DEALER IN MY NABOR HOOD!

  24. I live in florida and did not vote for “Prick Scott” I was a florida firefighter for 25 years wanted to smoke pot but stayed away from it untill i retired and now have injuries from serving the fine people of florida and now smoke it for pain releif better than addicting pain killers AND IT WORKS!!! We all need to stick together and get marijuana legal for medical reasons it will put people to work and as soon as we can get rid of the JACKASS that calls himself OUR STATE LEADER is just a piece of shit i think he should get a slit tattoed on this forehead then he would look ,talk and walk just like the dickhead he is !!!
    Make me piss test for my florida firefighter retirement check its just about the same amount as welfare O FUCK IT IS WELFARE !!!

  25. At this point, I feel as if the government we have in place now is no longer fit to address the needs of this nation. I literally just gave the economic reason why the war on drugs is a failure, and pot should be legalalized, and im 20 years old, yet our “elected” officials cant understand it. Meanwhile, in order to buy a house, or a car, or to start a business, we need credit. But 100% of our staggering individual debt is from that same credit system. But we cant fix any of our problems becuase our only choice is either republican or democrat, neither of which is able to confront the issues that we Americans face everyday. To go along with all of that our economy is tanking because we no longer manufacteur the things we use, costing us low educational employment oppurtunities making it neccessary to attend college, which only adds to our personal debt; a vicious cycle. Despite all of this i am proud to be an American, and know that because we live in this nation, we have the ability to make the changes neccessary to make this nation the country we all imagine it could be. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “Everyone who has ever built a “new heaven” first found the power thereto in his own hell.” Never forget that as Americans, we the people have the power, not the politicians or business leaders, to change the nation we live in.

  26. so as a protest, are people going to throw urine at flroidas officials? Lol “you want our urine, here have it *splash” lol but on a serious note, why give money assistant and not know where the money is going to and just help to buy food, housing insurance etc rather than giving cash? I totally support cannabis and use it to help width my nausea and chronic pains and use my own working money to buy, and just want insurance and housing, food would be a plus. But I would not use free money I would get from tax payees.

  27. First, It is nearly impossible to get “money” from the State. If you do it is for one month only to pay electric or rent. 2nd It is nearly impossible to get a debit card which is only useable to buy food (food stamps are not used anymore)and is generally about two weeks worth of groceries. 3rd It is nearly impossible to get help to pay medical bills. At this point in time about the only assistance one can get is “healthy Kids” which provides medical care for your children – however only the crappiest “physicians” are available. The poor receive far less than the privileged, greedy Republican gluttons like to claim.

  28. I have work in foodbanks and soup kitchens. It only took a few hours to realize any biases I had were so unfounded. A large percentage of Americans are just a paycheck or two from having to get state/federal assistance. Govenor Scott is not upholding one of the basic tenets of our Constitution “innocent until proven guilty”. So by this FL law, he is in fact saying that anyone who applies for any kind of state financial assistance is guilty of drug abuse until proven otherwise. I do support very limited drug testing, i.e. firemen/women,law enforcement, drivers or pilots of public transportation, all judges and DA’s offices, military and people convicted of serious drug offenses….Govenor Scott is the worst of hippocrits, since he accepts our tax money as salary, is he not on the “public dole” and the way he behaves something at right. He was the favorite son of the Tea Party who wants less govt involevemt, but this is just the opposite. We as a nation have a MORAL obigation to help the weak, the hungry, the poor, and the sick; is that not what our Judeo-Christian beliefs are suppose to be. If you are a true American join the ALCU, enlist in the military if eligible, learn about current events to make intelligent decisions at the ballot box. Don’t fall for the fearmongers at election time who ignore the real issues and focus on the 3G’s of election time: God, Guns, and Gays!

  29. i have to respond to this post because Drug Testing is just another form of social control and its unconstitutional. i will agree there are jobs where and amendment should say these careers must involve drug testing, and I think we all agree we don’t want our airline pilot stoned or our surgeon stoned, However this country has gone drug test crazy, drug testing a mcdonalds employee get real. However marijuana stay in urine for 30 days sometimes longer there needs to be a testing process that shows when you use in the past 24 hrs because of on the job injuries I know of cases where people have smoked weeks prior to accidents on the job and were left out in the cold for failing the urinalysis no job, no workers comp nothing. Drug testing for welfare benefits is not about giving money to the poor its about social control period people who receive welfare ended up in their situations by many key factors not just by drugs this law is a joke and unconstitutional.

  30. Since so many on welfare are minorities; therefore; this drug testing is just another way to arrest minorities for non violent crimes; war against minority

  31. I’m all for this law. If I have to pass a drug test to get employed, why shouldn’t people who are receiving our tax money also have to pass a drug test to recieve their money? It seems only fair to me. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little in the short run to have a better long term future.

  32. The government spends huge amounts of taxpayer’s money on non-essential items. Things like i-Pads and Motorolla zooms are being bought everyday with tax payer’s dollars. But do they want to be “responsible” when it comes to that kind of spending? Quit treating the taxpayer’s money like it is some personal savings account. Spending thousands of dollars to catch one welfare drug user. To what save $400 on a government check? Here’s an idea, create jobs. Pay the employees what they are worth. Allow them to put money back into the economy by taking vacations and spending money on luxuries. Get them out of the welfare lines and into the tax payers realm. It’s like a balance. One side you have the takers. The other you have the suppliers. When the takers outnumber the suppliers, you are giving more than you are taking in. Simple. A ridiculous law is not going to magically produce enough money to bring the nation out of this slump. Simple economics will. Give the people the ability to earn their money. Should an individual that got laid off have to take a urinalysis because he/she was forced into that position? Jobs being cut everyday. Paychecks being cut everyday. But government focusing their efforts on how to save the taxpayers $400. Not like it will save anything. They already have backs to scratch with the money they think they will be saving with this law. Go back to cutting jobs and cutting education. That will fix it.

  33. Certain foods such as Sesame Seeds and Sesame Seed Oil can cause a “postive test for Cannabis; even if the person has not used Cannabis; so their testing program is flawed from the get-go…Marijuans is an Herb; not a drug; so Marijuan should not be included in the test!

  34. ps as far as welfare recepients not being “productive citizens; I think people would be surprised to see how much “free work some of these welfare recepients do…
    I have seen welfare people “clean yards; sidewalks; pick up litter; doing all sorts of work for a few $ !
    some welfare receipents give back to the community…
    Welfare recepients are not the problem…corrupt gov.is

  35. If Rick Scott want urine they should give him all the piss he wants. This is just another way for P-Rick Scott and the PUSS SUCKING Republicans to try and destroy the lower class. There are other ways to stop people from using drugs. Nancy Reagans idea was Just say no to drugs. You can’t punish people because they have a problem. What needs to be done is to find a solution to the drug problem by leagalizing marajuana and putting a tax on it the same way there is on alcohal and cigarettes. Not only would it create income for the stat but it would get rid of the stigma of using pot and make it less desirable to use. Rick Scott is so out of touch with the common man that he is inefective as a governor.

  36. Umm, isn’t that little ‘manuver’ he did moving it to his wife’s name considered ‘Conversion’ by law? Seems like that’s what I recall noting when others do the same. Even someone about to get a divorce and converting the ‘ownership’ of property/monies to someone else. Doesn’t it also fall under such crimes as hiding true tax obligations to the IRS? Or somebody working (making an income) under someone else’s name? Maybe such SHOULD be ‘investigated’, especially with good media watching/reporting.

Leave a Reply