# Florida has passed (both houses) mandatory DRUG TESTING ...



## vacationhopeful (May 6, 2011)

of adult receiptants of WELFARE! Must pay a $35 testing fee which is refunded if clean. Benefits lost for 1 year 1st time. 3 year lost of benefits 2nd positive test. Parents must have dependants' benefits paid to another adult (hopefully, they too will be tested). No paid treatment money allocated.

Article sites recent executive order for state employees to be subjected to drug testing and mentions private employers doing drug testing.


----------



## Rose Pink (May 6, 2011)

vacationhopeful said:


> of adult receiptants of WELFARE! Must pay a $35 testing fee which is refunded if clean. Benefits lost for 1 year 1st time. 3 year lost of benefits 2nd positive test. *Parents must have dependants' benefits paid to another adult (hopefully, they too will be tested).* No paid treatment money allocated.
> 
> Article sites recent executive order for state employees to be subjected to drug testing and mentions private employers doing drug testing.


I would hope that if a parent tests positive for drugs, the children would be taken out of the home and put in a safer environment but I realize there is a severe lack of good foster homes.  How sad.


----------



## Jaybee (May 6, 2011)

Yea for Florida!  I wish all states would follow their lead!


----------



## ronparise (May 6, 2011)

[Deleted]
You guys are tempting me to step over the line again

I have a comment and its not complimentary to the folks we send to Tallahassee So Ill let it go by  simply saying its not about the drugs,


----------



## VivianLynne (May 6, 2011)

As a employee subjected to drug tests to keep my job and wages needed to feed myself and family, I find this 10 years too late. The company I work for has spent way more than my salary to test applicants who fail the drug screenings for employment after several interviews, a medical appointment for a pre-employment physical & tests, and the normal professional screens regarding schooling and references. 

For our entry level jobs, the failure rate is heidous in the under 35-40 year applicants. :annoyed: And we have several signs which state "Do not apply if you do illegal drugs. We drug test every applicant."

I wonder what they think illegal drugs are?


----------



## vacationhopeful (May 6, 2011)

My local Home Depots employs many male 70-80 year olds in all departments - the managers have said because few male applicants under 40 can pass the drug screening.  I don't live in the retirement/snowbird belt; I live in the Northeast.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (May 6, 2011)

When Jordan (my 28 year old son) completed his certification at a technical school, I told him that he would be a high interest employment candidate because he could pass a drug test and he had no criminal background. I even put it on his resume.

Sad but true that there are so many people doing drugs. 

elaine


----------



## Ridewithme38 (May 7, 2011)

Pre-editing my post...i'm from a younger generation and the gap becomes apparent with these posts....

I'm just going to leave it at...its not the drugs that are the problem, its the law


----------



## MommaBear (May 7, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Pre-editing my post...i'm from a younger generation and the gap becomes apparent with these posts....
> 
> I'm just going to leave it at...its not the drugs that are the problem, its the law


If it were only pot I might be tempted to agree with you. In my field of emergency medicine, it is more often the opiates, benzos and barbituates  often superimposed on alcohol that is the issue. Not a day goes by that I do not see blood alcohol in excess of 0.40. The issue with both work and welfare is that these drugs are purchased and used illegally and rob people of the ability to think clearly and to perform certain tasks well. These drugs show up 10 to one in my community over cocaine or heroin and probably 3 to 1 over marijuana. I am all in favor of drug testing, I actually think it is inspired. I do not think taxpayers neeed to be paying for other peoples' choices.


----------



## stevedmatt (May 7, 2011)

I agree with this bill. My conclusion is simple. I don't want someone using my money (that was taken through taxing me) to buy their drugs. I have no problem with them using that money to feed their children if they legitimately cant find work.


----------



## Tia (May 7, 2011)

A relative, lives in Florida, years ago ~6 said Florida had a huge illegal prescription drug problem.


----------



## dougp26364 (May 7, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Pre-editing my post...i'm from a younger generation and the gap becomes apparent with these posts....
> 
> I'm just going to leave it at...its not the drugs that are the problem, its the law



I work in a hospital. The law is not the problem. It's the belief that drugs don't hurt you. Even the legal drugs of tobacco and alcohol are hard on the body and effect the brain.


----------



## DebBrown (May 7, 2011)

vacationhopeful said:


> No paid treatment money allocated.



So does this mean that a person who tests positive will have no way to support themselves and no way to get treatment?  I sure don't see an easy solution to this.

Deb


----------



## vacationhopeful (May 7, 2011)

DebBrown said:


> So does this mean that a person who tests positive will have no way to support themselves and no way to get treatment?  I sure don't see an easy solution to this.
> 
> Deb



So, if your teenager does not get a job at Home Depot, you expect Home Depot to pay for a residential treatment program? Why should the government pay? The provision to pay a 3rd party the "funds" for minor children COULD be the first step in making "grandparents or other responsible parties" realize that something else is the problem in that situation verses a bad job market, no transportation, no education or other BS excuses. 

*How many of you all were driving before required usage of seat belts? Or child safety seats? * The times changed for the betterment of society and a lot of people didn't like those intrusions in their "private life".  At least you can still take the bus or cab without a seat belt.


----------



## ronparise (May 7, 2011)

[Complaint about moderation deleted.]

So ill try again and simply agree with  Ride and Deb. and re state its not about the drugs

By the way, Florida had to be pushed;  but they have finally  started to crack down on the "prescription mills" in the state so at least they are also going after the doctors, drug stores, and the big drug companies that create,  feed and profit from the drug addictions of the people


----------



## vacationhopeful (May 7, 2011)

dougp26364 said:


> Even the legal drugs ...  alcohol are hard on the body and effect the brain.



And state laws have limits on how much the Blood/Alcohol percentage is allowed before you are not allowed to drive. And again, the government is not paying for or mandating rehab. Personal choice allowed.


----------



## pjrose (May 7, 2011)

stevedmatt said:


> I agree with this bill. My conclusion is simple. I don't want someone using my money (that was taken through taxing me) to buy their drugs. I have no problem with them using that money to feed their children if they legitimately cant find work.



I completely agree.



Rose Pink said:


> I would hope that if a parent tests positive for drugs, the children would be taken out of the home and put in a safer environment but I realize there is a severe lack of good foster homes.  How sad.



Agreed.
There also is a lack of good oversight/overseers of said foster homes.


----------



## Larry6417 (May 7, 2011)

Drug use is something I see often in my line of work, and solutions defy easy, knee-jerk reactions. The legislation in Florida may be well-intentioned, but you know the old saying about good intentions.  

Last year a group of scientists in the UK classified drugs according to the harm they did to the individuals taking them as well as to others i.e someone besides the drug user. The drug causing most harm to others was, by a wide margin, alcohol. The drug classified as causing the most harm to users was heroin. The study was based on UK data, so the results may vary slightly depending on what country you're in. However, I suspect alcohol would be at or near the top everywhere. See www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext?version=printerFriendly

Let's return to the legislation in Florida. What drugs are they testing for? Do they test for alcohol - a legal drug which causes enormous harm? Do they test for marijuana - an illegal drug that causes little harm? Do they test for prescription drugs (which may have a legitimate use but are often abused)? I'm going to grossly stereotype...poor people use "street drugs" while middle and upper-class addicts (addicts come from all walks of life) abuse alcohol and prescription drugs.

What will Florida do with positive tests? Will they stop benefits? Addicts won't necessarily stop being addicts. They'll just find a different way to support their habit. Coming soon to your home, car, or neighborhood...an addict short on funds.


----------



## SueDonJ (May 7, 2011)

Larry6417 said:


> Drug use is something I see often in my line of work, and solutions defy easy, knee-jerk reactions. The legislation in Florida may be well-intentioned, but you know the old saying about good intentions.
> 
> Last year a group of scientists in the UK classified drugs according to the harm they did to the individuals taking them as well as to others i.e someone besides the drug user. The drug causing most harm to others was, by a wide margin, alcohol. The drug classified as causing the most harm to users was heroin. The study was based on UK data, so the results may vary slightly depending on what country you're in. However, I suspect alcohol would be at or near the top everywhere. See www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext?version=printerFriendly
> 
> ...



I agree completely, very well stated.


----------



## markel (May 7, 2011)

*0.40 Bac*

Are you serious?? It's hard to believe how much someone would have to drink to get to that level. I thought the mid 0.3's was close to dead !!



MommaBear said:


> If it were only pot I might be tempted to agree with you. In my field of emergency medicine, it is more often the opiates, benzos and barbituates  often superimposed on alcohol that is the issue. Not a day goes by that I do not see blood alcohol in excess of 0.40. The issue with both work and welfare is that these drugs are purchased and used illegally and rob people of the ability to think clearly and to perform certain tasks well. These drugs show up 10 to one in my community over cocaine or heroin and probably 3 to 1 over marijuana. I am all in favor of drug testing, I actually think it is inspired. I do not think taxpayers neeed to be paying for other peoples' choices.


----------



## SueDonJ (May 7, 2011)

markel said:


> Are you serious?? It's hard to believe how much someone would have to drink to get to that level. I thought the mid 0.3's was close to dead !!



Alcoholics develop tolerances to it that defy the norms of what a non-alcoholic is able to tolerate.


----------



## Blue Skies (May 7, 2011)

*Gov. Rick Scott, Solantic and conflict of interest: What's the deal?*

If you have a $62 million investment, representing the biggest single chunk of your $218 million in wealth, and you put it in a trust under your wife's name, does that mean you're no longer involved in the company?

Florida Gov. Rick Scott says it does.

Read the rest here http://www.tampabay.com/news/busine...d-conflict-of-interest-whats-the-deal/1161158


----------



## am1 (May 7, 2011)

Illegal drugs support gang violence and terrorism.  Alcohol does not.


----------



## Pit (May 7, 2011)

ronparise said:


> So ill try again and simply agree with  Ride and Deb. and re state its not about the drugs



Ron, not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that illicit drug use causes no harm to others, should be publicily funded, or something else?


----------



## laurac260 (May 7, 2011)

am1 said:


> Illegal drugs support gang violence and terrorism.  Alcohol does not.



Alcohol destroys families.  My mom is an alcoholic, so is her husband.  So is his entire family, so are most of their friends.   They were largely absent parents.   They drank sun up to sun down, to the point where as an adult I would no longer call my mother after 3pm, nor would I answer the phone when she called me anytime after 3 (which is when her husband came home from work and they went to the bars).  They and their friends spent their entire free time in bars.  Step-dads brother worked a full time job, made good money, but he and his little boy lived in a hotel room, in a pit of a hotel, in a bad part of town.   He spent all his money on alcohol.  
BUT...they didn't do drugs.  They looked down on "pot heads", drug addicts, etc.  But there was nothing wrong with drinking a beer everyday. Or 12.  Every day.  

The only difference, from where I've sat, is that alcohol and opiates are legal, and street drugs are not.   When you're a kid looking at your parents, stoned is stoned, and absent is absent.


----------



## Rose Pink (May 7, 2011)

DebBrown said:


> So does this mean that a person who tests positive will have no way to support themselves and no way to get treatment?  I sure don't see an easy solution to this.
> 
> Deb


 


vacationhopeful said:


> So, if your teenager does not get a job at Home Depot, you expect Home Depot to pay for a residential treatment program? Why should the government pay? .....


I didn't get the impression that was what Deb was saying.  I thought she was saying there is no easy solution to the drug problem.


----------



## VivianLynne (May 7, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> Alcohol destroys families.  My mom is an alcoholic, so is her husband.  So is his entire family, so are most of their friends.   They were largely absent parents.   They drank sun up to sun down, to the point where as an adult I would no longer call my mother after 3pm, nor would I answer the phone when she called me anytime after 3 (which is when her husband came home from work and they went to the bars).  They and their friends spent their entire free time in bars.  Step-dads brother worked a full time job, made good money, but he and his little boy lived in a hotel room, in a pit of a hotel, in a bad part of town.   He spent all his money on alcohol.
> BUT...they didn't do drugs.  They looked down on "pot heads", drug addicts, etc.  But there was nothing wrong with drinking a beer everyday. Or 12.  Every day.
> 
> The only difference, from where I've sat, is that alcohol and opiates are legal, and street drugs are not.   When you're a kid looking at your parents, stoned is stoned, and absent is absent.



Over eating is also an addiction.


----------



## SueDonJ (May 7, 2011)

am1 said:


> Illegal drugs support gang violence and terrorism.  Alcohol does not.



Alcohol is the cheapest, most widespread AND readily-available drug out there.  It's true that it doesn't support violence and terrorism in the way that the Mexican Drug Cartels and Afghanistan heroin trade do, but it definitely has an effect on the street violence and drug trafficking that occurs every day in thousands of American neighborhoods.  As inconceivable as it may sound, there are plenty of folks in those neighborhoods who get in cahoots with the major dealers to sell street drugs, but then turn around and spend their profits to support their alcohol addictions.

I don't know what the answer is because both sides have a point in this discussion - nobody wants to see government aid spent on items which do not aid the recipients in healthful ways, but I don't think that anybody wants to see folks who have a legitimate need be denied aid for something that they have no control over.  What happens in the two-parent households where one parent is struggling with addiction and the other is struggling to keep the family together on a paycheck that doesn't stretch far enough - is that family going to be denied aid in Florida when the one parent fails a drug test?  Is the only solution for them going to be breaking up the family?  Or are they going to be desperate enough to leave Florida and put the burden on another state?  (That's actually why I believe Florida has taken these measures; I  hope it's not too politically charged to say that in this discussion.)


----------



## laurac260 (May 7, 2011)

VivianLynne said:


> Over eating is also an addiction.


Don't get me started on the whole "addiction" thing.   It is one thing for the body to become physically addicted to drugs, the body will go thru horrible withdrawal if the drug is removed....BUT, taking drugs, drinking, overeating, is still a CHOICE.  You can choose not to.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (May 7, 2011)

am1 said:


> Illegal drugs support gang violence and terrorism.  Alcohol does not.





laurac260 said:


> The only difference, from where I've sat, is that alcohol, Nicotine, caffeine and opiates are legal, and street drugs are not.


Edit in red

Ok...i'm trying to walk softly in this thread...i have some strong beliefs about the politics behind what made some drugs illegal and others not...alot of what causes illegal drugs to support gang violence and terrorism is Simple the fact that they ARE illegal...If these drugs were made legal and able to be sold over the counter and produced in FDA or NTF regulated labs...like Nicotine, Caffeine and Alcohol, there would be no need for an 'illegal drug trade'.....if they were restudied impartially and compared to many of the current legal drugs...things could change


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 7, 2011)

*Everyone who get OUR TAX MONEY should be drug tested*



am1 said:


> Illegal drugs support gang violence and terrorism.  Alcohol does not.



Alcohol did the same exact thing - when it was illegal to buy.

  Gambling can be addictive and destructive.  Perhaps recipients of state aid should be banned from casinos.  We don't want them spending OUR TAX MONEY on gambling.  Do we? 

 Who else gets OUR TAX MONEY?  Farmers get our tax money.  They should be subected to drug tests before getting their subsidies.  Oil companies get our tax money.  Oil company executive should be drug tested before getting those subsidies.  The owners of sports teams get our tax money to build stadiums and arenas.  They should be drug tested before they get their money.  Doctors, hospitals, and scientists get our tax money.  They should all be drug tested.  I almost forgot veterans.  They get lots of our tax money.  They should all be drug tested before they get their money.  Of course, some of them use our tax money to get drug treatment but that is a small complication.  Eliminate drug rehabilitation for veterans.

I am all for drug testing of anybody who gets one single penny of our tax money.


----------



## stevedmatt (May 7, 2011)

Larry6417 said:


> What will Florida do with positive tests? Will they stop benefits? Addicts won't necessarily stop being addicts. They'll just find a different way to support their habit. Coming soon to your home, car, or neighborhood...an addict short on funds.



So is your answer to continue using tax dollars to support their habit? Put them through rehab? If they resort to robbery to fund their habit, there will be far greater consequences for those action. For this I say institute (if they don't already have one) a 3 strikes and your out rule.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 7, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Alcohol did the same exact thing - when it was illegal to buy.
> 
> Gambling can be addictive and destructive.  Perhaps recipients of state aid should be banned from casinos.  We don't want them spending OUR TAX MONEY on gambling.  Do we?
> 
> ...



I forgot all about people who get social security and medicare.  I don't want those people using MY TAX MONEY!!!!!! to buy pot, and cocaine, and who knows what else.  I say if they want drugs make em steal to get em.  THEN when we catch them - three strikes and their OUT.  Forever. Jail forever.  Unfortunately, we will be using MY TAX MONEY to keep them in jail.  Better idea.  Kill em.  That will be a one time expense.


----------



## Tacoma (May 7, 2011)

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.


Sorry to disagree but I think it is a slippery slope.  Drug testing to work at Home Depot really?  Unless they are operating dangerous equipment I do not see the need.  Next it will be not hiring obese people as they will cost more in health care.  Then you will need to be tested for any pre existing conditions that might arise.  Parent dies early because of some conditon sorry too much risk in hiring you.  There is a lot of drug testing in the oil industry which for rig workers is a good idea but even office workers are often subjected.  Cutting desperate people off welfare will only make them more desperate and that I wouldn't want to see.

Joan


----------



## pjrose (May 7, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Alcohol did the same exact thing - when it was illegal to buy.
> 
> Gambling can be addictive and destructive.  Perhaps recipients of state aid should be banned from casinos.  We don't want them spending OUR TAX MONEY on gambling.  Do we?
> 
> ...



And what about those who use our tax money indirectly - driving on roads, putting their kids in schools, etc.


----------



## pjrose (May 7, 2011)

Tacoma said:


> . . . Drug testing to work at Home Depot really?  Unless they are operating dangerous equipment I do not see the need.  . . .



I think drug testing should be mandatory for all occupations - whether it's dangerous to the job holder or not.  I'd just as soon not have a druggie ringing up my purchases or stocking the shelves.  I'd like to discourage drug use by not employing drug users.  

What to do with all the unemployed drug users?  Well, we are a civilized country so I wouldn't want them or their children to starve.....but drug rehab may be cheaper than public assistance programs.  I don't know.


----------



## Conan (May 7, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I forgot all about people who get social security and medicare.  I don't want those people using MY TAX MONEY!!!!!! to buy pot, and cocaine, and who knows what else.


And all Town and State employees.  And all drivers's license applicants.  And what about registered voters?

Do you think there will be much public support for putting the shoe on those feet?


----------



## VivianLynne (May 7, 2011)

Tacoma said:


> ...  Drug testing to work at Home Depot really?  Joan



There are almost NO JOBs in USA where health insurance is offered which does not have a drug testing policy in place. 

Welfare office caseworkers are tested in my state. They WOULD LOVE IT, if the state tested everyone who came through their doors. I have heard them whine as it how it is NOT FAIR and then they have to spend their days dealing in person and on the phone with these nonfunctioning idiots (otherwise called addicts).  

I use the term idiots, because they can not remember any simple instructions, can not stay on task, can not remember the question you just asked them 4 times, have the jitters sitting across from you, and this is all the while you fear whatever disease they may have, will be sneezed all over you!

Slippery slope? Come do their job for a week!


----------



## VivianLynne (May 7, 2011)

pjrose said:


> I think drug testing should be mandatory for all occupations - whether it's dangerous to the job holder or not.  I'd just as soon not have a druggie ringing up my purchases or stocking the shelves...



Or having access to your credit card info or your home address off your driver's license or your date of birth? 

I have known many people who over the years decided because of work to STOP doing recreational drug usage. Amazing how they all figured out, that they needed new friends who were clean. And almost none have gone back to "recreational drug use".


----------



## Ridewithme38 (May 7, 2011)

VivianLynne said:


> There are almost NO JOBs in USA where health insurance is offered which does not have a drug testing policy in place.


This isn't accurate..for along time i hooped between jobs...i'd say i worked at about a dozen placed that offered insurance to full time employees without drug screening...the place ive been at for 3yrs doesn't drug test either(One of the reasons i chose to work there...drug testing is an invasion of privacy...what i do in my own home is my own business)...MOST have Zero tolerance rules about drug use...but atleast in my experience...most don't have mandatory drug testing



VivianLynne said:


> Welfare office caseworkers are tested in my state. They WOULD LOVE IT, if the state tested everyone who came through their doors. I have heard them whine as it how it is NOT FAIR and then they have to spend their days dealing in person and on the phone with these nonfunctioning idiots (otherwise called addicts).
> 
> I use the term idiots, because they can not remember any simple instructions, can not stay on task, can not remember the question you just asked them 4 times, have the jitters sitting across from you, and this is all the while you fear whatever disease they may have, will be sneezed all over you!
> 
> Slippery slope? Come do their job for a week!



There are MANY MANY functional drug users....If you count marijuana as a drug



> National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)***
> According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 2009, 16.7 million Americans aged 12 or older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed


 and thats the LOWEST estimate i could find because alot of other surveys included a error percentage of those that won't admit on a public study...but still do

With a population of about 300million....thats easily 1 in 20 people you know...could be your doctor, dentist, accountant, human resources manager

Thats ONLY marijuana...that percentage goes up ALOT if you include all illegal drugs


----------



## dougp26364 (May 7, 2011)

DebBrown said:


> So does this mean that a person who tests positive will have no way to support themselves and no way to get treatment?  I sure don't see an easy solution to this.
> 
> Deb



Almost everyone has a way to support themselves. It's called work. You're not supporting yourself when you're on welfare. Taxpayers are supporting you. 

It seems to be a popular misconception that life owes anyone anything. I'm always amazed at those receiving assistance who believe they're supporting themselves.


----------



## Ken555 (May 7, 2011)

VivianLynne said:


> There are almost NO JOBs in USA where health insurance is offered which does not have a drug testing policy in place.



We don't test. Perhaps this should be part of the marketing for employees? :hysterical:


----------



## dougp26364 (May 7, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Alcoholics develop tolerances to it that defy the norms of what a non-alcoholic is able to tolerate.



I classify the drinkers I see. Amature, semi-pro and pro level. 0.05 to 0.15, amature. 0.15 to 3.5 semi-pro. 3.5 and above are the true pro level drinkers who have pickeled their body so much almost nothing will kill them until their liver finally tosses in the towel.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 7, 2011)

dougp26364 said:


> Almost everyone has a way to support themselves. It's called work. You're not supporting yourself when you're on welfare. Taxpayers are supporting you.
> 
> It seems to be a popular misconception that life owes anyone anything. I'm always amazed at those receiving assistance who believe they're supporting themselves.



Are people entitled to anything?  Aren't people entitled to life itself?  To live?  Isn't that why it is a crime to take someone's life without justification (self defense).  Doesn't society PROTECT your right to live with your tax dollars by having a police force?  A fire department?  A military? A judicial system to put murderers away or execute them for taking a life.  Isn't there a right to life in this country and virtually every other human society that exists today or ever existed?


----------



## Ridewithme38 (May 7, 2011)

dougp26364 said:


> I classify the drinkers I see. Amature, semi-pro and pro level. 0.05 to 0.15, amature. 0.15 to 3.5 semi-pro. 3.5 and above are the true pro level drinkers who have pickeled their body so much almost nothing will kill them until their liver finally tosses in the towel.



I'm a semi-pro :whoopie:  i have no problem going out on a friday-saturday night and drinking a couple 12 packs in a sitting, most week nights i'll have 4-5 beers a night before bed to help sleep

I hope to one day hit pro level like my brothers, father and uncles....but i just don't think i'm built for it :rofl:


----------



## Larry6417 (May 7, 2011)

stevedmatt said:


> So is your answer to continue using tax dollars to support their habit? Put them through rehab? If they resort to robbery to fund their habit, there will be far greater consequences for those action. For this I say institute (if they don't already have one) a 3 strikes and your out rule.



As I've stated previously drug abuse defies easy, knee-jerk "solutions." What's legal and illegal often arbitrary decisions. For example, the women of the temperance movement railed against alcohol but soothed themselves in the comfort of their own homes with laudanum (opium). During prohibition, gangsters (including Al Capone) made fortunes through illegal alcohol using methods as violent as those of modern drug cartels.

So the question is how much do we (as a society) want to pay? We can't avoid paying something for addicts. We can either pay for clean needles, or we can pay for HIV/ hepatitis treatment (in prison, medicaid, medicare, etc). We can pay for rehab, or we can pay for more and more police and prisons. It costs as much for an inmate as a college student, and prisoners' medical bills are rising far faster than the rate of inflation (~ 10%). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

I don't think there's one easy solution. Legalization of some (not necessarily all) drugs with taxes on those drugs to fund rehab and prevention may be at least part of the solution. But after a century of the "war on drugs," isn't it time to try something that works?


----------



## Talent312 (May 7, 2011)

The issue of drug testing aside, there is one thing about the Florida Legislature that must be mentioned... Nearly every year, regardless of the party in control, it manages to make itself look silly on the last day.

*Florida's 2011 Legislative Session Ends in Chaos*
The Associated Press

TALLAHASSEE — Florida's Republican-led Legislature passed a balanced budget, a massive Medicaid overhaul measure and a bill cracking down on "pill mills" in the final day of the 2011 session — but there was no celebration afterward. GOP leaders were mad at each other.

Gov. Rick Scott waited patiently late Friday to congratulate House Speaker Cannon and Senate President Haridopolos, but a budget deal collapsed shortly before midnight. Scott went home and lawmakers scrambled into the wee morning hours of Saturday to settle the budget.

The leaders of each chamber couldn't find one another. Cannon kept the House in session until nearly 2 a.m. and adjourned after passing the budget. Haridopolos, visibly upset by the sloppy finish, tracked down enough senators for a 34 minute session beginning at 3:01 a.m. to finish up.
---------------------------------------
_Now that its over, all Floridians can breathe a sigh of relief._


----------



## JeffW (May 7, 2011)

I think the intention of this law (bill?) is good - punish those that don't pay attention to our laws.  However, to a degree, is that that different from the illegal immigrant policy (or lack of) we have in the US?  Technically not being US citizens, they shouldn't get a lot of benefits that they do.  However, when you have a sick person, or a child wanting an education, it's tough to stare them in the face and say, "You aren't entitled to this.".

I'm NOT looking to make this a political discussion.  Just that making laws can often be a lot easier than enforcing them....

Jeff


----------



## gpurtz (May 8, 2011)

Florida Legislator 1: “We sure have made a mess of this state."
Florida Legislator 2: "Yea, what should we do about it?"
Florida Legislator 1: "Let's do what we do best.  Let's fire up the smoke machine and make it appear that others are to blame."
Florida Legislator 2:  "Good idea. Who should we blame this time?"
Florida Legislator 1: "How about the poor again? Taxpayers like it when we blame the poor, especially the poor on welfare."
Florida Legislator 2: "Great idea!  Do you think our colleagues will go along?"
Florida Legislator 1: "Like a tail on a hound!"
The poor go to their corners for drugs.  The rich go to their doctors.  Let's assume this ill-advised law does snag some drug users and they lose their cash assistance.  How many will get their money elsewhere, say a neighbor's house, or yours? How many will get caught and go to prison? What costs the taxpayers more, cash assistance or prison?  How humiliating is this for all the cash-assisted poor who don't use drugs? Do Florida legislators and their nepotism-filled staffs get drug tested?  Once again legislators use sleight of hand so taxpayers and voters will believe that something other than a void of real leadership is responsible for what has happened in Florida.  My suggestion to Floridians...if you want to know what ails your state, look to your legislators, not to your poor.


----------



## stevedmatt (May 8, 2011)

Larry6417 said:


> I don't think there's one easy solution. Legalization of some (not necessarily all) drugs with taxes on those drugs to fund rehab and prevention may be at least part of the solution. But after a century of the "war on drugs," isn't it time to try something that works?



Now you are talking. In trying to stay on topic, I avoided this statement. Now, since it has been said, I totally agree with this. Marijuana is the LARGEST cash crop in he US. Let's legalize it, tax it, and use the tax revenue to fund recovery programs for other more addictive and self mutilating drugs.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 8, 2011)

stevedmatt said:


> Now you are talking. In trying to stay on topic, I avoided this statement. Now, since it has been said, I totally agree with this. Marijuana is the LARGEST cash crop in he US. Let's legalize it, tax it, and use the tax revenue to fund recovery programs for other more addictive and self mutilating drugs.



Hard to argue with this statement.  It is prohibition again - only worse.  The problem is that the war on drugs is a complex industry involving the private sector and government.  Careers and fortunes are being made on this war.  It makes it very difficult to stop it.

MARYJUANNA is a very easy case.  There is NOT ONE VALID REASON to have alchohol legal and not mary jane.


----------



## beejaybeeohio (May 8, 2011)

*Druggies in our schools!!!*

Never had to have a drug test to work in private or public school in Ohio.  I have to have an FBI criminal background check and TB test done biannually, and, to even step foot into a Head Start program, medical clearance from my physician...

Surprised that our state legislators haven't added drug testing to the above mandates....


----------



## Passepartout (May 8, 2011)

I wish the party in power could make up their minds whether they want to be 'small gov't- off the people's back', or 'check everyone, open more jails, exclude everyone unlike themselves, big gov't'.

Time will tell.

Edited: I have no time for drugs or druggies. I worked in a drug-tested industry for near 40 years, subject to random and 'for cause' testing.

Jim Ricks


----------



## nightnurse613 (May 9, 2011)

I just have one question- Did the Florida legislature EXEMPT themselves from this law, like most legislators do?


----------

