9 Investigates: Welfare Drug Testing

Doesn't cost anything to grow weed. Smoking it does not mean you've paid for it.

I'm amazed "conservatives" support this kind of violation of personal freedoms.

Doesn't Governor Skeletor's wife now own a company that does drug testing? How convenient.

Looks like the gov isn't interested in saving the taxpayers as much as he's interested in increasing his personal coffers...allegedly. ;)

Thanks for proving my last sentence. I knew I could count on you :thup:

Do you have information to the contrary?

Gov. Rick Scott's drug testing policy stirs suspicion

Do you have any evidence? Suspicion isnt evidence.
 
These statutes are a joke. None of them test for prescription drugs and HIPPA laws do not allow any government entity to ask if the person has a prescription or not.
These folks could be on oxycontin, codeine, ambien and a dozen other prescription pills illegally and there is nothing they can do to stop them, test them for it or deny them benefits because of it.
Today 4 out of every 5 overdoses seen in ER are from PRESCRIPTION DOPE.
Another feel good moronic law that will do nothing.
And the dumb ass masses eat it up as they always do.
Yep. It does get the votes from the lunatics, though.
 
9 Investigates: Welfare Drug Testing - News Story - WFTV Orlando

9 Investigates' reporter George Spencer found very few applicants are testing positive for drugs.

The Department of Central Florida's (DCF) region tested 40 applicants and only two tested positive for drugs, officials said. One of the tests is being appealed.

Governor Rick Scott said the program would save money. Critics said it already looks like a boondoggle.

Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140.

Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive.

9 Investigates first uncovered evidence in June that a similar program in Idaho also cost more than it saved.

Thoughts USMB?

Thanks for your 1000th leftist passive aggresssive thread........
 
Thanks for proving my last sentence. I knew I could count on you :thup:

Do you have information to the contrary?

Gov. Rick Scott's drug testing policy stirs suspicion

Do you have any evidence? Suspicion isnt evidence.

He transferred ownership of a company, that does drug testing, to his wife to avoid a conflict of interest (although I'm really not sure how THAT works...still seems conflicty to me). I cannot find anywhere that said that he exempted his company...er, I mean his wife's company, from being able to perform these drug tests.

While, apparently, his actions in Florida are legal, aren't you at all concerned with the ethics?
 

Do you have any evidence? Suspicion isnt evidence.

He transferred ownership of a company, that does drug testing, to his wife to avoid a conflict of interest (although I'm really not sure how THAT works...still seems conflicty to me). I cannot find anywhere that said that he exempted his company...er, I mean his wife's company, from being able to perform these drug tests.

While, apparently, his actions in Florida are legal, aren't you at all concerned with the ethics?

Does his former company do the drug testing under this new law. That's the question that needs to be answered. I haven't seen anything that shows that they do.
 
Do you have any evidence? Suspicion isnt evidence.

He transferred ownership of a company, that does drug testing, to his wife to avoid a conflict of interest (although I'm really not sure how THAT works...still seems conflicty to me). I cannot find anywhere that said that he exempted his company...er, I mean his wife's company, from being able to perform these drug tests.

While, apparently, his actions in Florida are legal, aren't you at all concerned with the ethics?

Does his former company do the drug testing under this new law. That's the question that needs to be answered. I haven't seen anything that shows that they do.

(psst, it's still his company ;) ) Yes, it does...because I certainly can't find anywhere it says his company has been exempt from performing these tests. It's not in the bill...

An act relating to drug screening of potential and 3 existing beneficiaries of...
 
He transferred ownership of a company, that does drug testing, to his wife to avoid a conflict of interest (although I'm really not sure how THAT works...still seems conflicty to me). I cannot find anywhere that said that he exempted his company...er, I mean his wife's company, from being able to perform these drug tests.

While, apparently, his actions in Florida are legal, aren't you at all concerned with the ethics?

Does his former company do the drug testing under this new law. That's the question that needs to be answered. I haven't seen anything that shows that they do.

(psst, it's still his company ;) ) Yes, it does...because I certainly can't find anywhere it says his company has been exempt from performing these tests. It's not in the bill...

An act relating to drug screening of potential and 3 existing beneficiaries of...

So, just more paranoid nonsense.
 
Does his former company do the drug testing under this new law. That's the question that needs to be answered. I haven't seen anything that shows that they do.

(psst, it's still his company ;) ) Yes, it does...because I certainly can't find anywhere it says his company has been exempt from performing these tests. It's not in the bill...

An act relating to drug screening of potential and 3 existing beneficiaries of...

So, just more paranoid nonsense.

Hardly. It is a FACT that he owned this company and then transferred ownership to his wife to avoid any actual legal conflicts of interest. There is still an ethical one, even if the laws of the state of Florida don't reflect it.

The company does drug testing. They have not been exempt from doing the drug testing for the state as far as I can find. That should be of a concern to EVERYONE.

If the state of Florida approves of their state testing its employees and TANF recipients, they will vote for the governor when he comes up for re-election. That's the way our system works...I like it that way. It's their state, their concern.

However, ethical breaches like this one, on any side of the political aisle, are a concern to every American.
 
Obesity, cigarrette smoking, alcoholism and lack of exercise are a bigger problem with these folks.
Are they testing for any of those things that are 10 times worse than smoking the twisty?
Americans are fucking brain dead these days. Any lure that a politician throws their way that sounds good they bite.

I think they should monitor those things too. Make welfare as uncomfortable as possible, make people actually want to get off of it instead of making it a multi-generational lifestyle.

And to add to your list, school. If you're on welfare and your kid drops out of school, you're kicked off.
 
I believe they do lose something when their kid quits school. We've had fraudsters register their kids and only make them show up twice a month - so they are technically "enrolled".

The most uncomfortable thing you could do is cut off cable. Without TV, people would be bored to death. Instead they are making it easier with free cell phones and internet now.
 
These statutes are a joke. None of them test for prescription drugs and HIPPA laws do not allow any government entity to ask if the person has a prescription or not.
These folks could be on oxycontin, codeine, ambien and a dozen other prescription pills illegally and there is nothing they can do to stop them, test them for it or deny them benefits because of it.
Today 4 out of every 5 overdoses seen in ER are from PRESCRIPTION DOPE.
Another feel good moronic law that will do nothing.
And the dumb ass masses eat it up as they always do.

You don't seem to know enough about drugs to be opining here.

Oxycontin and codeine are opiate derived. They would show up as a positive the same way heroin would. The same way that if someone was abusing Adderall, it would show up as amphetamine.

And also, most GOOD tests include benzodiazopenes which would catch valium, xanax, etc.
 
He transferred ownership of a company, that does drug testing, to his wife to avoid a conflict of interest (although I'm really not sure how THAT works...still seems conflicty to me). I cannot find anywhere that said that he exempted his company...er, I mean his wife's company, from being able to perform these drug tests.

While, apparently, his actions in Florida are legal, aren't you at all concerned with the ethics?

Does his former company do the drug testing under this new law. That's the question that needs to be answered. I haven't seen anything that shows that they do.

(psst, it's still his company ;) ) Yes, it does...because I certainly can't find anywhere it says his company has been exempt from performing these tests. It's not in the bill...

An act relating to drug screening of potential and 3 existing beneficiaries of...

Does his former company have the contract to perform these tests? It's a simple yes/no question. If it does then I agree it is unethical.

So far, nothing has shown this.
 
(psst, it's still his company ;) ) Yes, it does...because I certainly can't find anywhere it says his company has been exempt from performing these tests. It's not in the bill...

An act relating to drug screening of potential and 3 existing beneficiaries of...

So, just more paranoid nonsense.

Hardly. It is a FACT that he owned this company and then transferred ownership to his wife to avoid any actual legal conflicts of interest. There is still an ethical one, even if the laws of the state of Florida don't reflect it.

The company does drug testing. They have not been exempt from doing the drug testing for the state as far as I can find. That should be of a concern to EVERYONE.

If the state of Florida approves of their state testing its employees and TANF recipients, they will vote for the governor when he comes up for re-election. That's the way our system works...I like it that way. It's their state, their concern.

However, ethical breaches like this one, on any side of the political aisle, are a concern to every American.

Who cares if they are exempt? This type of thing is done by contracts. Was his company awarded the contract or not?
 
These statutes are a joke. None of them test for prescription drugs and HIPPA laws do not allow any government entity to ask if the person has a prescription or not.
These folks could be on oxycontin, codeine, ambien and a dozen other prescription pills illegally and there is nothing they can do to stop them, test them for it or deny them benefits because of it.
Today 4 out of every 5 overdoses seen in ER are from PRESCRIPTION DOPE.
Another feel good moronic law that will do nothing.
And the dumb ass masses eat it up as they always do.

You don't seem to know enough about drugs to be opining here.

Oxycontin and codeine are opiate derived. They would show up as a positive the same way heroin would. The same way that if someone was abusing Adderall, it would show up as amphetamine.

And also, most GOOD tests include benzodiazopenes which would catch valium, xanax, etc.

Oxycontin IS NOT the same as heroin. It is classified as an opiate (narcotic) but IS NOT a derivative of opium. It is a semi synthetic variety.
And most drug tests DO NOT test for it as the body does not metabolize Oxy into morphine.
NIDA testing which is what 95% test with does not pick it up as it does not trigger the identifier for opiate. Hair test? It will definitely but will they do a follicle test on all of these at $850 a whack? No.
You are right about the codeine and that does test for the opiate on the NIDA 5 test.
I contract with numerous employers now doing these tests for background investigations.
Waste of time and $$ as they prove nothing or very little.
Alcoholism, smoking and other things such as obesity are not tested.
 
Last edited:
Your post mentions the new primary caregiver twice. Talk about Big Gubmint.

Primary caregiver does not mean government. Aunt, Uncle, grandparents. That's what's meant by "the next primary caregiver". Not the government.




Custody as prescribed by some big government agency... Sorry but that is an irrational approach which is not in the best interest of American families and their civil liberties.


Forget about drug testing otherwise law abiding citizens who apply for benefits from an insurance policy they have paid into... This is just a big daddy gubmint class warfare bullshit proposal with no realistic insight.

You're going to throw your back out with all this contorting.

1. This law is in regards to CASH benefits

2. If a recipient fails and is denied benefits they can name a proxy to collect it for the kids, hence granny, uncle, etc....
 

Forum List

Back
Top