Should you have to take a drug test to get TANF?

Well, they're trying to impeach him...

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/impeach-florida-governor-rick-scott/

given the info cyclo provided, that's something to reflect on

The votes was divide three ways and that gave him the chance to become govenor.

I think we can all agree that this guy is pretty scummy.

Outside of that, how would you answer the question? Say that the law was enacted in your state by a governor that had absolutely no conflict of interest. Would you oppose it?

What if they tested but didn't care about pot smoking? Would you oppose it still?

Do state workers have to undergo drug screening?

If they do, why shouldn't others who are being paid by the state?

Reading this story reminded me of my brother, when his daughter hit the teen years. He bought a drug testing kit and told her that if he thought she was using drugs he would test her. He told her that he trusted her completely but that but that he understood peer pressure and should she feel pressured to try something he wanted her to be able to say "Are you kidding? My dad will drug test me! I'd better not...."

She never gave him reason to use the test.

Mr. B's company drug tests because the people who work there operate heavy machinery and are around dangerous chemicals. They've only had to fire one person for using drugs.

I guess I'm just not convinced that the threat of a drug test doesn't have any effect on behavior. If it helps parents stay away from drugs, that's good for kids, right?

we're working on it!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/impeach-florida-governor-rick-scott/

Yes Bill. Crist screwed things up totally.

My father and stepfather both were addicts - alcoholics. If they had refused to give us help because of that I and my siblings likely would have perished. I don't hear anybody calling for similar tests when big companies are granted government welfare.

If the tests sampling show as it did in Florida that ii is a non-problem then I would not be in favor of doing the testings for that reason alone and there would be no need to address other issues.

As far as not trusting your citizens or your children without any casuse not to do so carry a heavy price by itself in my opinion.

My parent trusted me completely as a teenager my name was on thier checking acounts and I carry the same credit cards they did.

Since I was a young adult in my 20s I had a complete power of attorney for both of them.

If they would ever had qusetion me without cause like your example of your brother and his daughter just the act of not doing so would had change my feelings and my relationships with them for the rest of my life.

The state and parents should assume trust until and if either is given some reason to question that trust.

Scott is trying to make them do so - the ACLU is fighting it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/06/02/aclu-challenges-drug-testing-of-florida-employees/



Oh, I'd say that it's because it's none of their damn business what people do to themselves in their free time. If you don't operate heavy machinery or have a position which threatens the lives of others in some way, there's no compelling interest in drug testing whatsoever. The whole thing is a scam to make Scott money, and perhaps to kick some people off of the welfare rolls. Nothing more.



Sure. Not only for the ethical reasons I mentioned above, but because the fact of the matter is that marijuana is the only drug which really stays in your system long enough for the types of testing they are going to be performing; cocaine, meth, even crack cocaine can be flushed out of your system within just a few days, especially if the person in question is trying to do so. This renders such tests totally ineffective - they are easy to beat, and therefore accomplish nothing.

Cycloptichorn

in america , we have full liberties, freedom and the right to do with ours bodies what we please. This includes putting drugs into our bodies. Our bodies are our property . One of the main reasons for the constitution / bill of rights was to ensure WE remained in control of and kept freedom of our bodies, ourselves , our property and our choices with the freedom to pick what WE want. We have the right to pursuit happiness in anyway we see fit so long as it does not hurt another person.

me putting drugs in my body hurts no one. That single action alone affects ONLY me.

what I DO when I am on those drugs is an entirely different act all together and would need different policing by the government to ensure that a mother who is doing drugs ( or father) is still feeding and caring for their child. This would require some highly invasive government action and NOT what our constitution is about.
What I do on drugs can not be determined to only be the sole cause of being high either. Parents sell their daughters, abuse, rape, starve and deprive their kids even when they are NOT high. Parents on drugs are not the only ones capable of, nor do they hold the award for being the ONLY parents who do those things.
You can not statically prove that drugged parents are worse parents than those who do other horrid acts so why only corner them when it comes to TANF benefits? isnt that this side of legal alienation? How about abuse of power?

And dont people realize that it only takes 'most' (not all) drugs about 3-5 days to be out of the system enough to test free from it? Drug tests stop nothing.

I think people forget to separate the ACT vs the behavior. And the ACT of getting high hurts no one and affects only the drug user, and should not be a reason for anyone to possibly deny any child, or human for that matter a right or a means to food. Food is necessary for life. That should never be negotiated especially when kids are involved.

We have the right to do what we want with our body, but we do NOT have the right to harm, starve or abuse children. Just because a parent is high does not mean they are harming their kids by starving them or otherwise depriving them of what they need. And if they are, police enforcement and other laws will step in. There are plenty of NON intoxicated parents doing much worse to kids. Tell me how can someone test for rapists when they come in asking for food? Frankly, I think a rapist parent is more of a danger then a high parent who happens to fall asleep and not give dinner .. but that is side tracking.


I do not believe that the government should have the right to limit family members, children, elderly people and ANY human for that matter from a means of food based on a FREEDOM to do what they want with their body, which includes putting drugs in it.
There are doctor prescribed drugs that kill people instantly, are as addictive as street crack and are handed out like candy. If any and all drugs are going to be a reason for someone to not get food stamps or tanf, they need to include ALL drugs, even those given by a doctor....those are addictive too.

When I read the article the second time, I also thought it's nothing more than a punative measure (heh, we'll get those drug users if they want our help), but then, too, they offer the option of the aid going to a secondary party, so now I'm not so sure. If there are children in the household and the parents are using the aid for drugs or booze (or whatever, really), then perhaps giving it to a more responsible party (grandparent?) would insure the children are not neglected.

I am in favor of drug testing. But first I want all politicians in any kind of public office to take a drug test randomly at least 5 times a year. If they do pass such a law than I am in favor testing the recipeints of welfare. After all who sucks more from the public tit than politicians per individual.

For the people who talk about how their money gets spent and think that drug testing is a valuable way to ensure the money is used towards the best purpose, why not simply save some real money and force these people into government housing, or let us say, camps, where feeding them in bulk can reduce costs, or house them in big wide buildings so they don't have to pay any rent? Would that not be a more "efficient" use of resources?

Is it not bad enough to be so low on the economic ladder to have to ask for help to prevent starvation, but in the proposed situation you are already considered a drug user and be forced to prove your innocence? Are there any real Americans out there that have a problem with being forced by the government to prove your innocence instead of requiring the government to provide any a priori proof of guilt? Or have we reached a state where personal or familal economic calamity is now considered the ear mark of drug use?

The issue that ought to be discussed is that Governor Scott's wife owns the company that would do the bulk of the drug testing and make millions of dollars in the process.

btw drug war........

The 24-page paper was released Thursday. Get the pdf file here.

http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report

Unfortunately, substance abuse affects not only the user but also the children and life as they know it. Should the user decide to drive and cause an accident, it will also affect innocent people.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/parentalsubabuse.cfm

There are more kids in the "system" due to their parents substance abuse
than any other reason, and as one kid said "Ma' got hurt on the outside
and I got hurt on the inside".....

Well said.

Cycloptichorn

unfortunately two-thirds of the Florida Senate has to vote for impeachment and that ain't gonna happen.

If they want to be re-elected they will listen to the residents of Florida.
It doesn't belong here (more in edgar's voting threat), but if we cast our votes
smartly and threaten our representatives with voting against them, they
will start listening.

Doubt it.

Cycloptichorn

kuvasz,
I am sorry, but if you're receiving government assistance you have to obey
by their rules, just as employees have in a corporate setting where they're
subjected to drug testing prior to hiring. I don't see a difference here, really.
Plus, my concern are the children in all of this. It's one thing if an adult
chooses to abuse their body with drugs, it's another to be the child of a substance abuser. We as society primarily have to protect the children as
they cannot help themselves and need an advocate that protects their best
interests.

How can you say this, Cyclo? It happened right in our own backyard in
California!