[trichrider]

seems like Florida is looking out for her welfare by submitting all welfare recipients to drug screening.

"TALLAHASSEE -- Floridians must submit urine, blood or hair samples for drug testing before receiving cash benefits from the state under a bill Gov. Rick Scott signed into law Tuesday."


Read more: https://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/3...#ixzz1OPe3RTpD

i'm delighted that Florida is at the other end of the country, but sad over the implications for us all.

[sneakinman13]

wow, thats some next level bull shit! not cool!
but thanks for the post!
when will fl learn.....

[ijim]

With Florida's high unemployment the loss of those funds will mean a huge spike in crime and child abuse. I wonder how much money the good Governor and his palls invested in testing labs before this law went into effect. Florida is thinking saving billions for the state while they make money testing. With the long growing season Florida should be going the other way and promoting Cannabis production, commercialization and taxation. But I suppose it is easier to deal with crime and homeless people than it is to tell Washington to kiss their arse and deal with all of the new jobs and revenue in the state.

[Jaymer]

Well add this to the list of things I shouldn't do that require parts of my body, welfare check, probation check, working for taxable money check check, basketball check?????

[cannascholar]

I love this. If you have money for drugs than you don't need taxpayer's money for food, diapers, abortions, etc. Sucks if you smoke pot, but it's a good motivator stop sitting on your ass and having so many fucking kids. The high will be much better.

[megayields]

Yeah that....

[DiscoBiscuit]

Originally Posted by ijim

With Florida's high unemployment the loss of those funds will mean a huge spike in crime and child abuse. I wonder how much money the good Governor and his palls invested in testing labs before this law went into effect. Florida is thinking saving billions for the state while they make money testing. With the long growing season Florida should be going the other way and promoting Cannabis production, commercialization and taxation. But I suppose it is easier to deal with crime and homeless people than it is to tell Washington to kiss their arse and deal with all of the new jobs and revenue in the state.

Well, Governor Rick has already told O where to stick his light rail money. Maybe he's the right guy to tell O to shove this honkin' cola up his ass and like it.

Just kidding, I'm a kidder. IMO, Rick won't be the guy to advance reform.

As far as Fl making money on tests, does Fl have a deal to get a cut from Governor Rick? After all, he owns the for-profit band-aid box that performs the tests.

I hear his approval rate is 29% as of the latest poll. That's worse than Walker in WI and they're moving to repeal his ass.

(Miami Herald) “The goal of this is to make sure we don’t waste taxpayers’ money,” Scott said. “And hopefully more people will focus on not using illegal drugs.”

Exactly. Make sure it's the most addictive opiates known to mankind, instead. Then we'll show them weed smokin' bastards how to ween themselves from cannabis. Then we'll make more money getting them off something they'll never get off of. Treatment and scripts for life. Make em pay both ways from Sunday.

If Fl weed smokers all got on opiates, Fl would no longer prescribe 40x the national average. Would be more like 80. Rick will be filthy fuckin' rich.

Oh yeah, already is.



EDIT: With the plethora of visceral reactions, I thought I'd post food for thought up front, in addition to page 26 with lots o' good arguments yet lots o' fluff in between.

Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit

OPMOD alert - just kidding, I'm a kidder.

We have a rather diverse, applied approach. But one thing appears to gel with most everybody - reasonable solutions for necessary government regulation.

With all due respect...

Rick Scott won the general election by 49% of the vote.


With a population of 18,801,310 (2010 Census)^[3] , not too may weighed in on Scott's victory. Scott won by a mere 68,000 votes - not exactly a mandate.

But we'll recognize it as a working majority, so long as you have no problem with a slim margin mandating regulation you don't particularly like. We'll just assume that you're fine with this for example sake.

The fellow citizens have every right to vote for governor. You'd need an initiative for voters to get their say with respective laws, otherwise they're affected, not effector.

But let's just assume a working majority of voters want what you want. All's well that ends well. But not necessarily.

There's more than economic efficiency and constitutionality, which this thread has shown in several places yet aren't ascertained or even suspect by the pro-test crowd. Scott didn't analyze savings projections and constitutionality hasn't been challenged yet similar laws were stricken down in two states and DC (federal level.)

But an interesting argument here appears to look away or even ignore these aspects.

Lets go ahead and pretend we're all constitutional and the law sticks. Now we only have the economic efficiency to consider. This program may save money or it may cost the taxpayer more than pre Rickyfied.

How much more money would you be willing to pay to rest-assured that poor assistance recipients are wholesale tested while college level assistance recipients aren't tested?

Now we're getting somewhere...

Because IMO, the "test 'em all" opinion, (where 'em all isn't er... all) appears to care more about value judgements than constitutionality or economic efficiency.

I base that opinion on the following:

With the exception of a single opinion (in your favor) no one has addressed savings to the taxpayer, a major aspect in Scott's reasoning (or at least his excuse, seeing he didn't study the economic effect before he signed his bill into law.)

This one opinion that actually crunched numbers verifies the law is cost-neutral. I guess that means the savings argument is all wet. Yet this particular gentleman is a constitutional stickler and it's surprising to see only the economic argument from the freedom fighter. The guy that says there's no difference in Dems and Pubs. Or, at least they're ALL left of his interests. Can't underestimate the irony.

Let's pretend Rick's law actually adds costs to the budget. How much more would you pay for it as opposed to the alternative, making testing transgression-based?

That particular aspect is one (among others) that hasn't been considered, at least not posted here.

And if you would pay even more state-budget money to keep people making less than $80/wk from drawing for a failed drug test, don't you have at least a small problem with the chickens being herded through the fox's den for private profit? Private profit to a fox that ripped us all off to the tune of a 1.7 billion dollar fine. We don't know how much he stole, we only charged him 1.7b. Not to mention the guy plead guilty after pleading the 5th no less than 75 times in court. Must have been a fast trial.

These issues are complicated, folks. Unless of course anybody's willing to admit their gut reaction to wholesale testing is an exercise in value judgement alone.



Howdaya like me now, trichrider?

[TacomaComa]

the man who introduced this bill owns a drug testing company and signed over the company to his wife before doing so.

[DiscoBiscuit]

I read that Gov Scott owns a string of minor medical facilities. Facilities that perform drug testing. Maybe there's a conflict that'll keep Rick from personally getting pissed on.

According to the piece, cost could be as high as 1.32 million dollars annually.

That would buy lots of pucks and paddles for shuffleboard.

[Weird]

Originally Posted by TacomaComa

the man who introduced this bill owns a drug testing company and signed over the company to his wife before doing so.

see its shit like this that get my fucking blood boiling

my friends family lives in greece and this is why they are looking at decades of austerity because of the government corruption just like this

FUCK