Latest Headlines
- Pedestrian Changing Tire Struck By Car In Two Vehicle Crash Near Century
- State Funding $240 Million Beulah I-10 Interchange
- Failed Urban Development Centery YouthFirst Program Finally Repays Unsecured Loan From Century
- FDOT Updates Status Of Century Highway 29 Construction Work
- Walnut Hill Man, Three Others Charged After Alleged Overdose On Embalming Fluid, GHB
- Escambia Man, 77, Charged With Shooting Multiple Rounds At Santa Rosa County SWAT
- Escambia (AL) Volunteer Fire Departments Receive State Grant, Present Service Awards
- Tate Grad, UWF Standout Darrien McDowell Selected In 2024 MLB Draft
- Escambia County Corrections’ Wilson, Hankins Graduate From State Leadership Programs
- Escambia Commission Cancels This Week’s Meeting
DCF: Drug Testing Public Assistance Recipients Makes Sense
September 14, 2012
The head of the state welfare agency is asking a court to throw out a challenge to the state law requiring drug testing of public assistance recipients, which could allow the program to restart.
Children and Families Secretary David Wilkins has filed a motion in U.S. District Court in Orlando seeking a summary judgment in favor of the agency in a case over the legality of the drug testing program. The testing is on hold following a lower court judge’s decision last year in favor of the man challenging the law, Luis Lebron.
Lawmakers passed a measure requiring recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families pass a drug test. Wilkins argues in the motion for summary judgment that the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program isn’t aimed at simply providing cash for participants, but at helping them find a job.
The program by statute is aimed at ending “the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work and marriage,” Wilkins argues.Part of being ready for work would be being drug free, the agency argues.
“In short, TANF’s purpose is not merely to give money to those falling below a certain economic threshold—it is to ‘help move people from welfare to work,’” the motion says. “Any amount of drug use can interfere with obtaining and maintaining employment.”
By The News Service of Florida
Comments
27 Responses to “DCF: Drug Testing Public Assistance Recipients Makes Sense”
I think they should drug test, People that have to work have to be tested for drug use before they get a job, what makes these people any different, To the person who said they would rob and steal they do that anyway. If you are a thief you are going to steal regardless of what you get.
In all sincerety I believe while they are hopefully going pass this, they should add in a cut off time! I would be curious to know just how long one can stay on public assistance! I completely understand if someone is disabled and simply cannot work but for the rest I am just plain curious!
REGARDING:
“if you keep benefits from those who might be taking drugs, then they will likely get desperate and turn to stealing from your home or committing a violent crime/robbery,”
We should give money to drug users because otherwise they will kill and rob us?
Sounds good, in fact why don’t we just give them the most potent drugs made? Surely that would be safer for us and cheaper as well since it would cut out the pushers and their inflated prices.
David for cowing in fear
@bin, and then what, turn to crime, go to jail, where it ends up costing tax payers 3 or 4 times as much money?
Drugs testing applicants is not cost effective. That has already been proven. While Conservatives assume that everyone on welfare is doing drugs, it is actually a very small percent so you end up spending more money testing everyone and continually testing everyone vs any money you think you are saving, because if you keep benefits from those who might be taking drugs, then they will likely get desperate and turn to steeling from your home or committing a violent crime/robbery, which is a cost in the degradation of society and they end up in jail which, like I said, will cost 3 to 4 times more in tax revenue and then they get out and the cycle starts all over again.
That, as we cut benefits to social programs at places like Lakeview that could help these people deal with their drug issues and why they use.
Not to mention, some folks have medical problems and need public assistance and the government shouldn’t have a right to access your medical information that should be between you and your doctor.
Drug testing is a way of having a bigger, more expensive and more intrusive government, just like conservatives really want. It is another contradicting principle that conservatives have.
it’s been a long time and about time. drug test , yes. fail loose your wellfare and right to vote.
Reply to Huh,
The government wants them on welfare, so why would they make incentives for people to get jobs and get off? That would be the opposite of what the administration wants. Government only seeks to grow, consume, waste, erode, and spend.
Picture the federal government like this: A massive milticolored blob of fat with a huge mouth consuming all, eating excess food nonstop, all day and night, producing nothing beneficial to the economy, in fact restricting people and things as it grows fatter and fatter – sweating, burping, blowing smoke, lies, untruths, half truths, hogging all space, time, being incosiderate, loud, obnoxious, arrogant, disrespectful, foul mouthed, spitting, bad breathed, stinky, sloppy, rude, clumsy, crude, foul, inhumane and a downright disusting never ending run on sentence.
That is exactly the vision we should all have. Granted some federal government is good. *Some
Right now, the federal government is a fat obese blob of all consuming nature. It needs to be trimmed down to a healthy, fit, productive, fiscally responsible federal government. That is the image I have.
Some of you have valid points; some of you…complete idiocy. Look, it is unconstitutional…from one point of view. And THAT is why these courts exist. However, not everyone on welfare is milking the system or on drugs. Why is it that the
people FOR this legislation didn’t speak up when the legislators refused to allow mandatory drug testing on themselves? We, the taxpayers, pay 100% of their salaries, right? I say test, but don’t charge for the tests. The reimbursement deal on this is BS and we all know it. Oh, yeah, I forgot, the program was actually proven to be costing money, rather that saving it, right? Well then, in the eyes of ALL Republicans, it should be scrapped without argument, right? So why are we fighting over this? It was proven to be ineffective and inefficient, so just let it die already… of course, I also realize that my opinion is just that… an opinion. Some people just can’t get the gist of that concept. Your opinions matter about as much as mine, so let us not stress, argue, or criticize over such an inane issue.
(by the way, I don’t care if you want to drug test CEOs, just flat don’t care)
REGARDING:
“Searching someone without probable cause is unconstitutional. Period. All of you whining about how you are tested at your job so people receiving assistance should be tested do believe in the Constitution, right? The legal reasoning behind allowing employers to do it is that you don’t have to work for an employer if you don’t like their drug testing policy. In practice, that’s ridiculous, of course, but that’s the theory by which the Supreme Court allowed it”
The limitation on searches is twofold: It is on government and it involves involuntary searches.
The second is the kicker here: nobody is searched without their consent. I’m not allowed in some court rooms without going through a metal detector. If I want to be there, I consent. I’m not allowed to drive tons of metal down the road without consenting to drug testing, I consent. If I want to fly in a machine with hundreds of others, I have to consent to searches even though one look shows I’m the most harmless person on earth. (Note: even though I’M harmless, someone MIGHT decide to slip a bomb into my luggage.)
Regardless, according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court is never wrong since it lists them as the ultimate decider.
David for truth
well, if the reasoning behind employers being allowed to drug test is that their employees are not required to work for them, then that same logic could be applied in the case of welfare/food stamps/what-have-you recipients. those who are receiving such benefits from the government are not required to do so. yes, they are and their families may be hungry and unable to pay bills, but there is no one telling them that they MUST apply for and receive government assistance. they could (in theory) get a job.
that makes just about as much sense as the supreme court ruling that you can find another job if you don’t agree with your current one’s policies, doesn’t it?
so, I agree with Rufus on this. although the supreme court ruled in favor of one unconstitutional law (employers drug testing), that does not mean we should encourage more unconstitutional laws be passed to make things seem more “fair”. if anything, you should be protesting against the legality of your employer requiring invasive searches of your person.
and to the person who said that this isn’t a socialist country–yes we are, at least somewhat. you might mean that our country was not founded upon the ideas of socialism.. but since every government program that has been listed here is a socialist program, you cannot say that we are not at least a somewhat socialist country.
Well, does it really make sense? Lets take a look at what it costs total vs how much it has actually saved the state and we will see clearly, it doesn’t make sense.
The next issue is if the parents are on drugs or buying drugs, what about the kids should they not be able to eat? We shouldnt take food away from children just because the parents are bad.
The government needs to make incentive to give people jobs that are on welfare. Dont want them on welfare? help them get a job
1. If you are subjected to drug testing to earn it, you should be subjected to drug testing to receive it. Plain and simply. This is not a violation of unreasonable search, just plain fiscal prudance…. Can’t recall how may times I have provided a sample to prove my worth for continued employment. So, ya dam skippy, testing should be mandatory if you receive public assistance.
Searching someone without proably cause is unconstitutional. Period. All of you whining about how you are tested at your job so people receiving assistance should be tested do believe in the Constitution, right? The legal reasoning behind allowing employers to do it is that you don’t have to work for an employer if you don’t like their drug testing policy. In practice, that’s ridiculous, of course, but that’s the theory by which the Supreme Court allowed it. It’s a travesty, imho, and makes a mockery of our Constiutional protections against illegal search and seizure, but I’ve noticed most Americans are OK with throwing out the Constitution as long they don’t think THEY will be affected by doing so. The “if you didn’t do anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about” mentality is more dangerous to liberty and democracy than Obamacare, Medicare, or anything the Democrats have ever come up with.
David,
Do not let the crude workings of deviciveness enter into your points. No matter what color we are, we are all Americans. It is not a me vs you issue. We speak on only our ideas. We are together in the fact that we want our country to be better and strive for perfection. Some of us may be misguided and need direction. Be the one to lead by example and show others the correct way.
The answer is not “more.” The answer we may not know but the general idea and concept is very wrong. Complexity can often leave us regular folks misguided and being left with half truths/focused not on the main issue at hand in which we should be focused on the bigger picture.
I see many of my fellow Americans lost in the complexity of it all. Back up, breathe and take a look at the bigger picture. The problem is a massive federal government. Until that problem is fixed we will continue to be lost, misguided, fed untruths, half truths and taken advantage of.
Many define tyranny the point when a civil society fears its government. How close are we?
I think this is a great idea! I would love to know how this would be considered discrimination? So everyone with a job is being discriminated against? Every job i have ever had I had to be drug tested! Oh and I have also been a welfare recipient when I was a single mother and would have gladly gave blood, took drug test, picked up trash off of the side of the road ect…They helped me in a time of need and I would have been more than happy to do anything asked in return because I was greatful and appreciative of their help! So the word discrimination in this story is absurd!
This may be a state issue but the root problem exists and lies within the federal government. I am all for liberty and freedom. Less laws, requirements, and less government intrusion. Those who chose to milk the government (taxpayers indirectly) for generations should also be subject to drug testing. They chose to reach out to government for help. This problem only exists due to excessive government.
The idea is great if we were a socialist country. We are not.
Remember: The opposite of liberty is tyranny. Tyranny is brought fourth through government. The more we accept and let government take power, the more at risk our freedoms become.
David,
By bringing up race or color will certainly erase any credibility from you trying to make your point. Be careful. The welfare mentality/culture sees no color.
I am not talking about those who temporarily need assistance with food or supplies. I am speaking of the GENERATIONS of families who believe they are entitled to it because it is all they know. It is a sad fact.
By asserting your patriotism with emotion is also a credibility buster. Learn to not let your emotion drive your thoughts. Let logic drive your thoughts. Try to relax and think clearly, rationally. Do not let your anger get in the way of logic David.
I never said anything about oil companies needing incentives to drill for oil. Are you delusional? Again, logically and rationally David.
The root of the problem is the monolithic size of the federal government. Collectivism is the problem. The general idea, concept, and acception that the government is in control of nearly everything is very very wrong.
Significantly downsize the federal government and we would not be having this conversation nor this problem and issue of drug testing citizens for free money may exist.
Logic and reason/rationality.
This program has been proven to not be cost effective. Gov Rick Scott’s Wife owns a bunch of small clinics that do drug testing, not that there is any conflict of interest over that.
It isn’t right to treat all poor people, disabled, disabled veterans and otherwise, as though they are guilty of being druggies until they prove they aren’t and in some cases, where people are disabled and are prescribed pain medications, they shouldn’t have to turn over their medical records or be treated as criminals when they aren’t and already have other battles going on trying to qualify for SSI or SSDI.
Besides not being cost effective and a waste of tax payer dollars, it just creats administrative abuse.
If unemployment goes down to like 4 or 5% because there are good paying jobs available and Florida decides to drug test based on some probable cause, that’s a bit different and might be ok, but just blatantly discriminating against the poor for being poor and asking for government help when people at every level of income get government help in some form or fashion, whether it is getting their street repaved or grant money for home improvements, if you go after the poor when they ask for government help, they you need to drug test everyone from alkl economic levels when they ask the government for assistance. There can’t be two different standards especially when the people asking for help paid income and other taxes for as long as they did before becoming unemployed for what ever reason they became unemployed. Fair is fair and discrimination is discrimination, not to mention, not cost effective is not cost effective.
It does not matter if they are black or white, they should be tested. We have to be tested to maintain our jobs & they should not be exempt in order to obtain welfare.
Marcus, you do understand that the vast majority of people on welfare are white, right? You get that don’t you? I consider myself a patriot , ergo, I get mad when we give billions in welfare to multinational corporations that are swimming in cash, who then invest in other countries. A head of an oil company takes NO RISK of his personal fortune and yet they come begging for more from, guess who? US! If you’re going to start drug testing people who get free money from the public coffers, I say start with the ones who get the most and work down.
Its funny people have to pass drug test to get and keep jobs so their taxes pay for this program ao its only fair that people recieving walefare should have to take drug tests to recieve benifitWhats fair is fair
POINT BLANK, i have to get drug tested to earn my paycheck and pay taxes, why not have them drug tested to spend my tax dollars?
Marcus, the oil companies are literally soaking in money. Do you truly believe that they need incentives to drill? It’s a rather vulgar assertion.
David Schwartz,
I can respond to you post.
I bet the head of an oil company created more jobs than the ENTIRE GENERATION of families milking welfare and using drugs, buying rims, cars, clothes, jordans, and becoming obese on the taxpayer dime.
David, the head of an oil company took ungodly monetary risks and made decisions/education/the right moves to be where he/she is at and to feed the horse the finest of foods from remote italian hand picked farms. He/she worked hard to be at the top of the company.
If you don’t like capitalism, move to France. If you don’t like America, move to China and try to make it weak boy. This is not a crybaby nation.
REGARDING:
“Nobody ever wants to respond to this point….”
Because it feels like we would be responding to one who would fail the test
BIG TIME.
Just consider the statement, “Welfare is welfare, whether it’s food stamps or a deduction for the care and feeding of your million dollar horse.”
You profess to believe tax deductions are welfare.
Since every income tax form in the nation includes deductions, it means you believe everyone who fills out a 1040 is on welfare or only the ones who DO NOT fill out income tax forms are NOT on welfare.
This suggests we are responding to one who is off balance.
David for rational thought
and free drugs for the insane
Will they be drug-testing recipients of corporate welfare? That’s where the real money is and the recipients have a long history of extremely whacked out behavior. I can better make a case for testing the head of an oil company who says he desperately needs billions in assistance as an incentive to drill more than I can someone trying to support a family on $750 a month. Welfare is welfare, whether it’s food stamps or a deduction for the care and feeding of your million dollar horse. Nobody ever wants to respond to this point….
If you cannot afford to eat, you certainly cannot afford to get high.
“Helping them find a job”, Mr Wilkins you have multigenerational, career welfare. It is interesting, if not amusing to see three generations of recipeants, expectant and hearlding in the next generation of recipeants.
It is not a culture that I aspire to, but I am tolerant of it.