Of course, this requirement should be nation wide.
Democrats would, because tossing our money out is what they want to do most.Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure
June 1, 2011 5:58 a.m. EDT
(CNN) -- Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Gov. Rick Scott says measure saves tax dollars, provides "incentive to not use drugs"
- Democrats slam law, saying tests "represent an ... illegal invasion of personal privacy"
- Controversy arose over Scott's association with company that did drug testing
- Scott also signs bill outlawing hallucinogenic "bath salts" drugs
"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."
Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.
Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state's congressional delegation issued a joint statement attacking the legislation, one calling it "downright unconstitutional."
More:
.
3 comments:
I don't want to argue the taxpayer's savings side of this bill, but I am interested what your opinion is about "drugs" being illegal?
Thats not easily explained.
I don't drink or smoke, but those decisions aren't based on morality... I don't drink regular sodas, either. Do typically drink coffee like a fiend, tho.
The taxpayer is the crux of the matter. The decision to use whatever drugs one may like is, and should be, up to that person... until you drag me into it.
I'd outlaw cigarettes, but only because I ultimately have to pay for the decisions of others to use them.
And that's pretty much the criteria for most drugs for me.
Using any of these will, ultimately, lead to a cost to me personally. All of the hard stuff leads to rehab or overdose death, theft, crimes of violence and the like. And that's the outcome legal or no.
Pot, viewed as a panacea by many if we'd just legalize it, would result in a net loss due to the medical aspects and the fact that if we went "Yeehaw!" and taxed it, people would just grow their own, and the primary goal of legalization would go up in smoke.
Ultimately, I see this as an extension of the gay marriage type issue.
Not that long ago, absolutely unacceptable. Those with the gay agenda kept pushing, keeping their pressure unrelenting, and soon enough, they'll have exactly what they want... and then we can move to the next issue; multiple marriage... and the next... NAMBLA type issues and so on.
Legalizing drug use is yet another "progressive" issue. And ultimately, it will get there.
But I don't believe any tax dollars should go to the purchase or use of these things, and I don't believe that we should be providing major money to people who seem to have other cash available for drugs, alcohol, anything to smoke, cell phones or any of the other crap we subsidize if, as a welfare recipient, they're using them.
I wouldn't want to argue your reasons in court but they satisfy my suspicions that "drug laws" are honestly supported by almost no one. Prohibition is simply worse than the problem.
Post a Comment