Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

archer wrote: It amazes me too kate.....how willing conservatives are to spend our tax dollars on stuff they approve of, yet how stingy they are with stuff they don't like.

Guilty as charged. I approve of spending our tax dollars on enforcing the law and I am extremely stingy giving it to people to spend on drugs. I know it is the opposite for some of you but that is your choice and speaks volumes to the differences in the two parties and our philosophies.

It is just like the differences in our beliefs in illegal immigrants. Republicans want to spend money on upholding the laws ALREADY on the books and not enforced whereas most Democrats especially the elected ones want to turn a blind eye to the fact that they have and are still breaking our laws and give money to them and reward them. Give them welfare and cheaper schools ad housing and even amnesty for coming here illegally. What other nation or party believes in that?

How about those who use section 8 housing using drugs or selling drugs, everybody ok with that?

VIII. TERMINATING TENANCY - LEASE PROVISIONS

The regulations at 24 CFR 5.858, 5.859 and 5.860 set forth required provisions that Owners must incorporate into their leases that provide for termination of tenancy. Owners have the discretion to terminate the tenancy and the lease must provide grounds for terminating the lease for the following:

• Drug-related criminal activity engaged in on or near the premises, by any tenant, household member, or guest, and any such activity engaged in on the premises by any other person under the tenant’s control. (See the definitions of premises, guest and other person under the tenant’s control.) The definitions below are in accordance with the regulations at 24 CFR 5.100.

1) Premises – means the building or complex or development in which the public or assisted housing dwelling unit is located, including common areas and grounds.

2) Guest – means a person temporarily staying in the unit with the consent of a tenant or other member of the household who has express or implied authority to so consent on behalf of the tenant.

3) Other person under the tenant’s control – means a person who, although not staying as a guest in the unit, is, or was at the time of the activity in question, on the premises because of an invitation from the tenant or other member of the household who has express or implied authority to so consent on behalf of the tenant. (Examples of other persons under the tenant’s control include party attendees, regular visitors, and people who provide a commercial service to a household member on a regular and frequent basis, such as an in-home nursing care provider.) Absent evidence to the contrary, a person temporarily and infrequently on the premises solely for legitimate commercial purposes is not under the tenant’s control -- for example, the pizza delivery man.

• A determination made by the Landlord that a household member is illegally using a drug.

• A determination made by the Landlord that a pattern of illegal use of a drug by a household member interferes with the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.

• Criminal activity by a tenant, any member of the tenant’s household, a guest or another person under the tenant’s control: a) that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of other residents (including property management staff residing on the premises); or b) that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of their residences of persons residing in the immediate vicinity of the premises.

• If the tenant is fleeing to avoid prosecution, custody or confinement after conviction for a crime or an attempt to commit a crime that is a felony under the laws of the place from which the individual flees or that, in the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor.

• If the tenant is violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or state law.

• A determination made by the Landlord that a household member’s abuse or pattern of abuse of alcohol threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of other residents.

In accordance with the regulation at 24 CFR 5.861, the Landlord may terminate tenancy and evict the tenant through judicial action for criminal activity by a covered person if the Landlord determines that the covered person has engaged in the criminal activity, regardless of whether the covered person has been arrested, or convicted for such activity and without satisfying a criminal standard of proof of the activity. HUD encourages, but does not require, Landlords to take into account individual circumstances when making a determination to terminate tenancy; such circumstances might include, among other things, the seriousness of the offending action, the extent of participation by the leaseholder in the offending action, and whether the leaseholder, if not the wrongdoer, took all feasible steps to prevent the offending action from occurring and has removed the offending person from the lease or otherwise banned the offending person from the premises in the future.



http://reentry.mplp.org/reentry/index.p ... Final_Rule

I haven't read the law, but how does it address the children? If mommy is on drugs, and is cut off from welfare, will the state take the kids to make sure they get fed and have a roof over their head? I just see a whole bunch of problems cropping up. Does the state have the extra money to take in a bunch of kids?

then there is the appearance of the governor profiting from the law.....that is not good.

and the problem of welfare recipients moving to other states to avoid the law and causing a hardship on GA or LA (much as AZ caused some of it's illegal population to move to other states with SB1070)

I know you conservatives hate federal programs, but maybe this is better addressed at the federal level?

The point I am trying to make (apparently unsuccessfully) is that this is just yet another government intrusion into our lives. Requiring drug testing for food stamps or welfare could very well lead to further requirements for other government services.

JMC brought up yet another example of drug testing public education students, after all, they are their education is on the public dime. I've brought up other examples where this intrusion into personal lives could be exploited, all in the name of "saving the taxpayers dollar."

archer wrote: PS.....do you really believe that FL will cancel the program if it doesn't save money? Well maybe, if they vote democrats into office. Once conservatives have found a way to punish the poor I seriously doubt they will care if it saves money or not.

.

punish? This is punishment? You must be a drug addiction advocate.

"Double Head Danny was a heavy
He would try anything.
He thought he would take a good look at himself
Dropping some L.S.D.
When the doors were open
He knew he made a mistake.

Hey he was playing with fire, ha,
Playing with fire, yeah
Playing with fire
But it was too late.

I said he was playing with fire, huh uh,
Playing with fire, yeah
Playing with fire
But it was too late.

Alright come on play it one time!
Oh come on!
Yeah!

Acid Mary was a dealer,
She had a mission in life.
Soon as everybody was turned on
Everything would be alright.
When she sold speed to a narc girl,
She made a bad mistake.

Yeah she was playing with fire, ha!
Playing with fire, yeah
Playing with fire
But it was too late.

Said she was playing with fire, huh uh,
Playing with fire, yeah
Playing with fire
But it was too late.

I said she was playing with fire, huh uh,
Playing with fire, yeah
Playing with fire
But it was too late."


http://www.allthelyrics.com/lyrics/coun ... 08669.html

The Viking wrote:

archer wrote: It amazes me too kate.....how willing conservatives are to spend our tax dollars on stuff they approve of, yet how stingy they are with stuff they don't like.

Guilty as charged. I approve of spending our tax dollars on enforcing the law and I am extremely stingy giving it to people to spend on drugs. I know it is the opposite for some of you but that is your choice and speaks volumes to the differences in the two parties and our philosophies.

That isn't what I meant, and I think you know that. I don't care to give my tax dollars to people to take drugs either......I don't, however, want to spend my tax dollars on a program that would cost more than will be saved by catching the druggies. Cost effective?......would you spend $2 million to catch the druggies when that will only save you $1 million?

Hey, some conservatives were willing to spend tax dollars on a bridge to nowhere.....i was not.....does that speak volumes to the differences in the two parties and our philosophies?

neptunechimney wrote:

archer wrote: PS.....do you really believe that FL will cancel the program if it doesn't save money? Well maybe, if they vote democrats into office. Once conservatives have found a way to punish the poor I seriously doubt they will care if it saves money or not.

.

punish? This is punishment? You must be a drug addiction advocate.

nope, not an advocate at all, wrong again in your assumptions.

You all seem to forget that there are some poor people, and disabled people, and sick people on welfare who are NOT drug addicts.

isn't his company the one that does the drug testing? interesting.... and it is not for welfare recipients, it is for ALL state employees. should tuck quite a wad of cash in the family portfolio

The tests cost the same, whether they come back negative or positive... "Follow the money".... Who stands to gain from an enormous amount of money being pumped into the system by a state-mandated program? Who owns the primary chain of labs?

Among the companies that stand to benefit from the bill is Solantic, a chain of urgent-care clinics aimed at providing emergency services to walk-in customers. The Florida governor founded Solantic in 2001, only a few years after he resigned as the CEO of hospital giant Columbia/HCA amid a massive Medicare fraud scandal. In January, according to the Palm Beach Post, he transferred his $62 million stake in Solantic to his wife, Ann Scott.

Among the services that Solantic offers: drug testing.

Scott's office dismiss ethics questions over the governor's Solantic ties without further elaboration. "The claims of a conflict of interest are incorrect and baseless," Brian Hughes, Scott's deputy communications director, responds in an email. When pressed by local reporters, Scott also glosses over the issue. "I believe in the principle that if you have more competition it will drive down the prices," Scott told the St. Petersburg Times last week when asked about his wife's shares in Solantic. "If you give more choices, it's better for the consumer also to help drive down price…and that's exactly what I'm going to do as governor."

Uh-huh.... How conveeeeeenient....

archer wrote: I haven't read the law, but how does it address the children? If mommy is on drugs, and is cut off from welfare, will the state take the kids to make sure they get fed and have a roof over their head? I just see a whole bunch of problems cropping up. Does the state have the extra money to take in a bunch of kids?

then there is the appearance of the governor profiting from the law.....that is not good.

and the problem of welfare recipients moving to other states to avoid the law and causing a hardship on GA or LA (much as AZ caused some of it's illegal population to move to other states with SB1070)

I know you conservatives hate federal programs, but maybe this is better addressed at the federal level?

They do that now when a parent is proven unfit or winds up in prison as a result of their drug activity, right? That won't change, nor should it, unless the child is also using the drugs, then they should be enrolled, involuntarily if necessary, into a juvenile resident drug treatment program. The money that the state was paying the parent to provide a home in which drug abuse occurs is then spent on having the child raised in a better environment, which will in theory, be to the benefit of the child. Parents fail the test, they are enrolled in a treatment program before being removed from the welfare rolls. Failure to complete or attend the program results in their being removed. Parent then gets to decide who is more important, them or their children. If they deem themselves and their drug abuse more important, then they children shouldn't be with them anyway, right?

If it moves the problem to another state, that state has a remedy, they implement the same policy and leave the problem makers no available landing zone to continue to be a problem. Or, as an alternative, they implement one they feel will accomplish the same goals that is different in nature. That's the wonderful thing about 50 laboratories on the best way to self govern. So no, consolidation of power over domestic affairs in the general government is never, ever, anything remotely close to a good idea. That's why we have the mess to begin with after all. The solution to the problem isn't more of what caused the problem to begin with.