Whether you think drug testing is the grooviest or the worst, there is a false assumption in this statement.

Ive seen way too many smart people post this.

No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

MIAMI — Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.

“Many states are considering following Florida’s example, and the new data from the state shows they shouldn’t,” said Derek Newton, communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state last year to stop the testing and recently obtained the documents. “Not only is it unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, but it doesn’t save money, as was proposed.”

This week, Georgia instituted a nearly identical law, with supporters saying it would foster greater personal responsibility and save money. As in Florida, the law is expected to draw a legal challenge. The Southern Center for Human Rights, based in Atlanta, said it expected to file a lawsuit once the law takes effect in the next several months. A number of other states are considering similar bills.

The Florida civil liberties group sued the state last year, arguing that the law constituted an “unreasonable search” by the government, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In issuing a temporary injunction in October, Judge Mary S. Scriven of Federal District Court scolded lawmakers and said the law “appears likely to be deemed a constitutional infringement.”

From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload,” the document said.

But supporters of the law said four months of numbers did little to discredit an effort they said was based on common sense. Drug users, no matter their numbers, should not be allowed to use taxpayer money, they said.

“We had to stop allowing tax dollars for anybody to buy drugs with,” said State Representative Jimmie T. Smith, a Republican who sponsored the bill last year. Taxpayer savings also come in deterring those drug users who would otherwise apply for cash assistance but now think twice because of the law, some argued.

Chris Cinquemani, the vice president of the Foundation for Government Accountability, a Florida-based public policy group that advocates drug testing and recently made a presentation in Georgia, said more than saving money was at stake.

“The drug testing law was really meant to make sure that kids were protected,” he said, “that our money wasn’t going to addicts, that taxpayer generosity was being used on diapers and Wheaties and food and clothing.”

Florida’s governor, Rick Scott, who supported the measure last year, agreed.

“Governor Scott maintains his position that TANF dollars must be spent on TANF’s purposes — protecting children and getting people back to work,” said Jackie Schutz, the governor’s deputy press secretary.

Last month, Mr. Scott signed into law another drug testing measure, this one permitting state agencies to randomly test up to 10 percent of their employees. The tests can be conducted every 90 days and agencies can fire or discipline employees if they test positive for drugs.

The law, which the civil liberties group said it believes is unconstitutional, takes effect in July. The courts have largely upheld drug testing for workers with public safety jobs.

I wouldn't be bragging that Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri are the first ones to do it. Give me a state that matters and I'll consider your gif.

Well, instead of leaving us at this cliffhanger of a post, why don't you tell us what that false assumption is?

Because Cliffhangers are fun!


It was a pretty good little cliffhanger post, if I do say so myself

Nomination denied. Welfare is not a right/entitlement. It should not be given to people who are only enabled by welfare to help feed their drug habits.

I was waiting for something to fly out at me and make me shit myself.

Nomination denied. Welfare is not a right/entitlement. It should not be given to people who are only enabled by welfare to help feed their drug habits.

I see both sides, but why stop at welfare for the poor? How about hair samples from these wealthy recipients getting agriculture. Welfare or corporate welfare?

Agreed,, but why target the poor only?

Im not sure what you mean.

Im saying No drug testing at all, for anyone.


Target no one.

Agreed,, but why target the poor only?

Agreed,, but why target the poor only?

What else could that mean? I agree with you....but if testing is going to happen...why not test everyone getting subsidies?

Your posts are confusing lately, you start a dbotw Manning thread and halfway in say his qb rating is what it always is.

I'm not sure if this has been answered...but why would someone be 100% against drug testing?

It helps give the company an idea if you might be a fuck-up. Makes sense to me.

I'm not sure if this has been answered...but why would someone be 100% against drug testing?

It helps give the company an idea if you might be a fuck-up. Makes sense to me.