Drug Free for Free Money

Anyone who’s ever read my posts knows how much I hate government waste.  The only thing I hate more than the government hemorrhaging money is the lack of oversight and accountability to the taxpayers.

I work for my husband so I don’t have to drug test.  But think of how many millions of workers have to drug test in order to keep their jobs, pay taxes, take care of their families and watch as the government pays out welfare benefits to those who don’t work but are using drugs.  How does that make any sense?

Requiring drug testing in exchange for government assistance is nothing new.  More than half the states in this country are considering legislation which will require some type of oversight to insure that taxpayer dollars are not funding someone’s drug habit.

So, when I read that Florida Governor Rick Scott signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening, I said, “yes!”  I think this is a great idea.

Unfortunately, the recipient would be responsible for the cost of screening.  If they test clean, they’ll recoup the money if they qualify.  Those who fail the test could designate someone else to receive the benefits on behalf of the children.  But, really, how many drug-free people, legitimately in need, have the money for the drug test in the first place?  That’s the glitch.

As I’ve written before and most recently in “Who’s Rich? Who’s Poor?”, if we’re taking the care of the less fortunate in society out of the hands of families, friends and communities and placing it in the hands of the government, when will recipients be accountable to the government, and, more specifically, to their fellow Americans who actually foot the bill for all these entitlements?

Not surprising, the Democrats have already lined up screaming that the Florida bill is “downright unconstitutional” and “represents an extreme and illegal invasion of personal privacy.”  And between the time I wrote this article and posted it, the ACLU has already filed a lawsuit.

As a taxpayer, and as someone who’s seen plenty of people scam the system by manipulating their drug screens to show up negative or by selling their food stamps, bus passes, and just about any other type of government assistance, in exchange for money to buy drugs, I’d really like to see some oversight and accountability.  Bottom line:  Drug abusers shouldn’t be allowed to live off our tax dollars.  I’m not sure if the Florida legislation is legal or will solve the problem.  But I sure like it.

I don’t get government handouts without accountability.  But if you do, God bless you.

Author Bio:

For over twenty years, Leona has tried to heed her husband’s advice, “you don’t have to say everything you think.” She’s failed miserably. Licensed to practice law in California and Washington, she works exclusively in the area of child abuse and neglect. She considers herself a news junkie and writes about people and events on her website, “I Don’t Get It,” which she describes as the “musings of an almost 60-year old conservative woman on political, social and cultural life in America.” It’s not her intention to offend anyone who “gets it.” She just doesn’t. Originally from Brooklyn, and later Los Angeles, she now lives with her husband, Michael, on a beautiful island in the Pacific Northwest, which she describes as a bastion of liberalism.
Author website: http://www.idontgetit.us
  • JDO

    Generational Poverty and Lack of Personal Responsibility, which go hand in hand with one another, are two of the biggest reasons America is goin’ the way it is. Enablers such as the ACLU, Liberals and others are another. Teach a man to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime. Encourage a man (or woman) to just take and take and take a fish, and they’ll teach the same to their children, and so on and so on. It’s sad and disgusting at the same time.

  • chief98110

    I travel for my work and use public transportation. People seem to think that their conversations are private even when they are discussing how to work the system for free benefits from the government. Selling food stamp cards, transportation vouchers for cash are common place. Other times I’ve overheard tips on how to qualify for SSI benefits and which states offer the best government benefits.
    I currently have 2 clients who at age 41 have never held a job. It makes me crazy because I know they could work. Working might give them some self worth but they are unmotivated.
    Government handouts rob you of your worth. Sure everyone occasionally needs help but 41 years of government subsidies has destroyed these two lives. If they had been required to drug test they might have had a chance to turn their lives around.

    • Bruce A.

      I wish more people would take notice about the abuse of the system. I see it everyday at my business & in the city where I live. I don’t know which makes me more angry. The people who tell me thay are on disability but they could work for strictly cash or the lazy bums just bleeding the system.
      It does not look like it’s going away anytime soon.

  • Roger Ward

    1) If the taxpayer is going to fund these programs, the taxpayer has the right to set conditions on the receivers. If the receivers and/or the ACLU don’t like it …. tough.
    2) Setting these taxpayer conditions will undoubtedly result in the establishment of another beaurocracy, to set and enforce these condtions …. so we’ll pay again, ten times over, for this beaurocracy..
    3) Maybe the government shouldn’t be in the business of providing sustenance to the citizens. We could return to the practice of much more efficient private charities providing help …. as we once did.
    BTW, you can pretty much ensure good government by taking positions in opposition to those of the ACLU.

  • Ron

    I don’t understand most of the criticism of the law but I do understand the ACLU’s lawsuit. Most of us work for private employers so if we have to take a drug test as a condition of employment, it is not a state action and does not have Fourth Amendment implications. On the other hand if blanket suspicionless drug tests are required to receive a government benefit, it does have Fourth Amendment implications. I dislike the welfare state but I don’t think it should be grounds for greater intrusion in people’s lives. One of the problems with it is we now have conservatives seeking greater government intrusion in private lives. Maybe the answer is going from a cash based system to a voucher system.

  • CCNV

    I just hate following someone through the checkout line who’s talking on a cell phone, buying t-bones (or candy) while paying with food stamps, and taking the groceries out to a nice vehicle while the ‘baby daddy’ sits in the car smoking with the stereo thumping. Along with the drug testing, I’ve always thought that welfare benefits should be limited to TWO children only. It doesn’t matter if you have 10 children, you’re only getting benefits for TWO. It might make some of them get off their butts and find a job, OR, keep their pants up.

  • Konrad Lau

    I have often thought that mandatory drug/alcohol testing should be required prior to any vote conducted by the House of Representatives or Senate. As the honored servants are passed into chambers, the doors would be locked behind them and no entrance or exit should be allowed until the session is recessed.

    How much money and complexity could be saved in legislation?

    At least we would know they were sober (if not in their right minds) at the time of the vote.

    In my job, were I to become involved in an accident, I am assumed impaired until proven sober by the required tests.
    Why should my employees not be held to the same standard?

    Bravo Florida!