So why is drug testing wrong in this case?

[tropicsgoddess]

I think that's the best thing Rick Scott has done besides the pill mill crackdown. For those that cry "privacy invasion!" on it, I disagree. Because with prospective and current employers you can be requested to go through a drug test for pre-employment screening, workman's comp or at random per company policy. With the welfare drug test, they want to know that the money the state of Florida is spending on handing out checks to welfare recipients isn't for enabling illicit drug habits, sitting on their asses and not bothering to look for work and make an honest living.

[Dreamstalker]

The ex smoked weed fairly regularly; I didn't but came up positive on a cheap test given at the school clinic. Luckily I had nothing to worry about. I'm not completely sure why it popped.

I agree with the idea of the test, but feel that it should be given more selectively; people who are clean and know it likely don't have the money to waste on a test and hope to be reimbursed.

[insertNameHere]

I think, the system would work good with, Somewhat accurate test that if you fail, your given a quick retest and have to submit an explanation of what could have happened that doesn't make you a druggie because I'm sure there is some test they could do that is more accurate. But for instance if you have a script for pain pills but they find pot.... your SOL. After failing the second test you get charged for both. if you fail the first test and know your not gonna pass another. you don't have to pay if you don't want a second one..... only needing to pay if you keep failing.

Because HONESTLY drug tests preformed in large numbers I would have to believe become somewhat cost effective and the question that needs to be asked is, how much money would be SAVED by not giving the funds to underserving drug addicts. Since really for my job where I pay taxes to fund some of the people who abuse welfare doesn't allow me to do drugs.... neither should they.

[Shalom]

I tell you, I like this proposal mostly. (I do think the tests ought to be paid by the gubmint, if they're mandating them.) There's only one thing that bothers me:

What this program does is offer the junkies an ultimatum: Get clean, or lose your benefits. How many junkies are going to pick the first option?

Let's say the program works and is successful. You now have a whole bunch of drug addicts freshly off welfare, who are desperate for their next fix, and don't have money to buy it with. (Never mind that they weren't supposed to be using that money for smack or crank in the first place.) What's that going to do to crime statistics in that area?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it happen. There just has to be some mechanism in place to deal with the resulting broke and jones-ing addicts.

[FArchivist]

getting their money refunded for passing is all well and good, but what are those who don't have the money to spend in the first place, refund or no, supposed to do?

According to most conservative thought, those people are just fucked.

If they are legal, she wouldn't fail the drug test.

That's insanity and wrong, wrong, wrong. For example, if you take synthroid, a necessary drug for those who's thyroids have failed or malfunctioned, you can fail a drug test. The standard drug tests show synthroid as an opiate, which it is not. And a doctor's note isn't going to excuse it, either.

[Andara Bledin]

getting their money refunded for passing is all well and good, but what are those who don't have the money to spend in the first place, refund or no, supposed to do?

This.

If you want to test people, then shell out your own fucking money to do it. People who are legitimately on public assistance shouldn't have to skip a meal so that they can prove that they haven't been squandering that assistance.

Well, you can't really "fail" the drug test if you have a prescription for something that they find.

If they are legal, she wouldn't fail the drug test.

First off, this is the truth:

No, that doesn't count. Or rather, it has to be verified by a few months of bureaucratic paperwork plus doctors plus blah blah, in which time you don't get to have the benefits.

My ex used to cycle for his college. But he got dropped from the team, disqualified, and was banned for one year. Because his non-steroidal inhaler made him test positive for steroids.

Oh, wait, no, he didn't test positive for steroids, but the testing center couldn't identify what was a new compound, so they classified it as steroids and it took him five months of him and his doctor fighting with them before they'd reverse their decision.

The ex smoked weed fairly regularly; I didn't but came up positive on a cheap test given at the school clinic.

I had a friend that failed a drug test due to attending a concert.

He almost lost his job over that (and it wasn't a cheap job and the testing lab was one of the best in the country), but since he was a highly trained and very well compensated individual, they were willing to shell out for a less error prone test to confirm that it was actually a one time thing.

I'd probably test positive for pot, myself, and I don't smoke. Anything. But my neighbors sit on the steps up to my balcony and smoke out several times a week. In fact, I suspect that everybody in my building would test positive despite at least half of them (including the marine who lives next door to these guys) not actually smoking it.

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

If I understand correctly, the main purpose of this bill because "if you have money for drugs, you have money for food/medicine/housing and don't need our help."

My only problem with this is that using drugs does not equal buying drugs. Someone can smoke a dube that their friend shared with them, and they'd fail the drug test. It doesn't mean they're a junkie, or blowing their benefits, or even a bad person.

Are we going to drug test just because it's a good idea? Because people shouldn't be on drugs? Great. Then let's start testing everyone for drugs.

And I firmly believe that the person who wants something done should have to pay for it. I don't want a drug test. Why would I pay for something I don't particularly want? Fuck that. You want me tested, you pay for it.

[Evandril]

If they are legal, she wouldn't fail the drug test.

Then why do we have a nice LONG list of *legal* things we're not allowed to eat/take while in the military? Please tell me your branch briefs you on all the things that will trigger a false positive like the Air Force does...I know even our stores limit what they will carry, for that very reason. (The on-base ones)

[DrFaroohk]

Yes, More BS.

"Your" (being the tester) lack of progress in the drug testing field which cannot tell the difference between an opium addict and a bagel lover is not MY problem. It should not be treated as such.

[Andara Bledin]

Also, let's not forget until as recently as just a couple of months ago, Scott held a controlling interest in a major Florida clinic that targets the poor and uninsured that also, unsurprisingly, provides drug testing. He transferred controlling interest - to his wife. And he is still on the board of directors.

This from a man who amassed the largest health care network in the world, which company subsequently defrauded the government of the US to the tune $600,000,000.00+ and who currently owns a venture capitalist firm that invests in health organizations.

I really don't understand why this was ruled as not being a conflict of interest.

^-.-^

[insertNameHere]

I really don't understand why this was ruled as not being a conflict of interest.

^-.-^

Because, he part of the good ol boy network. I mean if you get to make the rules, how the fuck do you expect to play by them

[Fire_on_High]

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it happen. There just has to be some mechanism in place to deal with the resulting broke and jones-ing addicts.

Toss them in jail.

[Tanasi]

Also, let's not forget until as recently as just a couple of months ago, Scott held a controlling interest in a major Florida clinic that targets the poor and uninsured that also, unsurprisingly, provides drug testing. He transferred controlling interest - to his wife. And he is still on the board of directors.

This from a man who amassed the largest health care network in the world, which company subsequently defrauded the government of the US to the tune $600,000,000.00+ and who currently owns a venture capitalist firm that invests in health organizations.

I really don't understand why this was ruled as not being a conflict of interest.

^-.-^

His firm is one of many that provide this service.

[DrFaroohk]

Toss them in jail.

You can't toss 'em in jail for something they haven't done yet. Jonesing means they don't have drugs, so you can't charge them with possession. And if they haven't broken the law yet you cna't arrest them just because they might.

[Andara Bledin]

Toss them in jail.

Oh, yeah, 'cause we don't have enough people crowding our jails, using up government funds for frivolous reasons as is.

^-.-^