Ol` Scott claims that this drug testing " will prevent the misuse of tax dollars". If 21,000+ people are potential drug testees, at $35 a test and they all pass it,  21,000 x $35 =  $735,000+ . So the cost to administer this program [reimbursements] could actually increase by a million dollars.  Talk about a misuse of tax dollars. Politicians at their best.

So all the Alcoholics are entitled to Welfare but someone who toked a month ago is not? Once again, the problem is not the drugs it is the prohibition and the politicians that we are allowing to decide our moral compass.. 

I blame the citizens of this country that have allowed themselves to be sheep. I have been rebuked by many for my opinions, I have been denied employment because of my opinions, but I still hold firm in my belief that politicians can not, and will not, decide how I live my personal life. I believe that if any individual causes harm to another they are accountable for that harm. I believe that every inch that we allow politicians to take into our personal life creates the next inch they are intending to take. I believe that their final goal is to control the information that we take into our minds, which is part of our body, and they are setting the precedent for this control today, by controlling what we eat, drink and partake of. 

God save us all..

Just like any other assistance, there is criteria that must be met for eligibility. And adding drug testing makes sense.  If you are down and out, a person should be continuously looking for employment, furthering their education to become employable, or pursuing other ways to improve skills for future employment in order to bring themselves and their family off the welfare roles.  Not idling away at home day after day, wasting their time looking for drugs instead of a job, wasting time in a drug induced state instead being productive.  Certainly having a drug abusing parent is not a positive situation for any child.  Why should hard working taxpayers continue to foot the living expenses of a drug user?

You have to pass a drug test to get a job. Why shouldn't you to suck your living off of the taxpaying citizens? I recognize that there are people who really need the assistance. Typically they should be job hunting anyway, which often requires testing to get the job. So those really trying to help themselves will show up clean. But those who collect and continue to collect so they can sit home and suck crack through a glass pipe shouldn't be getting taxpayer money to do it.

First being, no man shall be compelled to testify against himself. Second, the levying of war on the states or the people is treason. I believe Dickhead scott has had his head up there too long, his brain is lacking oxygen, among other things. But this is a good thing, scott has lots of money to be sued for. Conflict of interest, illegal search, considering he'll need a warrant for each "search". And clinic fires may become a problem since scotts wife has control over his chain of clinics across the state. House fires may also be on the rise. But sniper attacks wouldn't be surprising either.

Congratulations Gov,

I am glad someone has finally attempted to do something about the Welfare program.  I don't really understand why there are so many people upset about this law.  I had to take a drug test to get my job, which I get up every morning and got to, so I can help pay for the Welfare program.  Why shouldn't they have to take a drug test to sit home and collect the money that the "WORKING" class put into the Welfare program.  I don't have a problem with this and think it is a good start in fixing the program.  Good job, keep up the good work!!

Ever think that it's not just african americans on welfare? Or drug addicts? It's SINGLE white mother's too, who work their asses off trying to support their family and as embarrassing as it is to get help from the state it's needed so we have money to pay for our children's needs, rent, utilities, and daycare and don't have to worry about not paying the electricity or not eating for a week. We don't all get child support so that is what cash assistance is for. Think before you preach..

Listen to all of the ignorant liberals on here bashing this guy because he enacted a policy that has been needed for years now. Welfare and other public assistance are bleeding this country dry but we cut education and increase money for dead beat lazy people? These people get a free check every month for doing absolutely nothing....and you think they should be able to do illegal drugs with no consequence? Illegal search by making them take a piss test? Absurd. The way I see it is the state is not making these people apply for assistance..they are doing that on their own. This just happens to be a qualification if you want the free money. 80% of public jobs today require you to take a drug test before they hire you..so where is the ACLU saying this is illegal? Its perfectly legal for us hardworking Americans to have to take a drug test to earn our paycheck but the deadbeat citizens who get free money shouldn't have to give up their precious urine. Liberals today are so dumb its actually comical...and they are the reason our country is in such a dump now. When we push them out of the spotlight and get them to shut up then this country can once again be the great place it once was.

If you need the money, you will go through an "embarrassing" pee test to get it. If I want health or life insurance, I have to take a pee test. If you're clean, you get insurance. If you are clean, you get welfare. I wish I lived in Florida, because nothing like this WILL EVER pass in California.

Why is it so humiliating or embarrassing, anyway? And is an embarrassment unconstitutional? I think it is unconstitutional that my tax dollars go to welfare sponges who use their welfare cards in Vegas and on cruises. I've never been on a cruise...because I WORK and I only get 2 weeks off a year.

Whether you think this law is right or wrong, I do not know how anyone can argue, that the children of all Floridians who receive public assistance are the ones who are going to pay the price. These children did not have the right to come out of  the womb and say "Gee I think I choose to be a member of the Bush family" or "Gee I really hope my new mother or father snorts coke", just like none of us had the choice. The law states a designated third party can provide for the children, if you are ok with this clause then I'm sorry but how is that any better. Who's to say this third party is going to have the children's best interest at heart. In some cases they may, in some cases they may not. If then the children become appointees of the state, you're saying an extra 20, 000 + children are going to have their needs met, it would almost seem the the drug using parents would do a better job. In many cases this will either be seen as a monetary gain for the the third party or an extra burden and are either of those scenarios any better then the previous. If you are indeed saying they are, then you might as well be saying " I'm saving money, screw the children". It not even about making people do drug tests to qualify for welfare assistance, if that would be the case, then you are saying every single person that has had any kind of taxable assistance should have to adhere to drug testing. Now, ask yourself is that really realistic ? Scott states, "This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars." Does anyone actually now how much of their tax dollar goes towards welfare assistance, compared to well...... anything. This is craziness....... The idea of accountability is fine, but why is so much money, time and effort being given to taking away from those who have little to begin with, ohh because they use our money..... that's laughable. The idea of drug testing one group of select people is so far from heading in the right direction , it's incomprehensible why any human being would think that would make things better in the long run. If we're going to do it, then do it right,have everyone subject to the same criteria. But yet again is that really realistic..hmm good question.

Whether you think this law is right or wrong, I do not know how anyone can argue, that the children of all Floridians who receive public assistance are the ones who are going to pay the price. These children did not have the right to come out of  the womb and say "Gee I think I choose to be a member of the Bush family" or "Gee I really hope my new mother or father snorts coke", just like none of us had the choice. The law states a designated third party can provide for the children, if you are ok with this clause then I'm sorry but how is that any better. Who's to say this third party is going to have the children's best interest at heart. In some cases they may, in some cases they may not. If then the children become appointees of the state, you're saying an extra 20, 000 + children are going to have their needs met, it would almost seem the the drug using parents would do a better job. In many cases this will either be seen as a monetary gain for the the third party or an extra burden and are either of those scenarios any better then the previous. If you are indeed saying they are, then you might as well be saying " I'm saving money, screw the children". It not even about making people do drug tests to qualify for welfare assistance, if that would be the case, then you are saying every single person that has had any kind of taxable assistance should have to adhere to drug testing. Now, ask yourself is that really realistic ? Scott states, "This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars." Does anyone actually now how much of their tax dollar goes towards welfare assistance, compared to well...... anything. This is craziness....... The idea of accountability is fine, but why is so much money, time and effort being given to taking away from those who have little to begin with, ohh because they use our money..... that's laughable. The idea of drug testing one group of select people is so far from heading in the right direction , it's incomprehensible why any human being would think that would make things better in the long run. If we're going to do it, then do it right,have everyone subject to the same criteria. But yet again is that really realistic..hmm good question.

The only people I've had contact with who are receiving or have received government assistance are families wherein parents are drug-free individuals with a long history of working hard and paying their taxes just like the rest of us who've been laid off and are finding it impossible to find and maintain steady employment in this economy. In fact, most of them had at least an associates degree (one was a dental hygienist)  if not more. While you will always find those who abuse any system, the potential savings don't outpace the more likely expense this law will end up creating. 

Further, this law is more of an effort to look tough on government spending while in fact lining his own pockets, than anything else.

Scott is a joke; all of his initiative are designed solely to further his personal agenda-not for the short- or long-term benefit of the state.

If you think this law is just, you have done NO research into the comparison of cannabis against pharmaceutical medications. In 10,000 years of human use of cannabis, not one single person has ever died from it. In the decades we have been using pharmaceutical poisons, how many thousands have died from overdose? How many more thousands  from addiction or complications from extended use? So, what you are saying, is that if i have to get welfare, my only choice should be to slowly kill myself (at a cost of thousands of dollars to the welfare system). The option to use something that cant hurt me, and will provide hundreds of health benefits ( YES, LOOK IT UP AND SEE THAT THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF SAFE, BENEFICIAL USES OF CANNABIS) at NO cost to the welfare system, as i can grow it right in my own home, should disqualify me from receiving welfare? Whose screwed up idea is that?

You may be interested to know that some of the states that are considering legalizing for medical use are considering it because it would bring the cost of required medications for welfare recipients down significantly, so put that in your pipe and smoke it next time you want to blame potheads for waste of tax dollars. Oh, and enjoy the 300 dollar refill on a med i can substitute with a plant.

The bottom line is this.  Whereas 8.7% of Floridians do drugs, results from testing show that only 2% of those on welfare do.  This law is unconstitutional under the 4th amendment.  The same crap was tried and shot down by the federal courts in Michigan.  To make his wife a lot of business Scott has wasted loads of state dollars .Why impeachment proceedings haven't been started are beyond me!

Why is it humiliating,disrespectful, and treating somebody like a suspected criminal to demand a drug test for welfare, and not to demand a drug test to get a job?????????????????????????????????????????????

Rather than "pick" on drugs, alcohol etc.  why not make it a "requirement" that any recipient of government assistance is required to "earn" their subsistence by community service of some sort or "government work" if they are both physically and mentally able to do so (I mean afterall they are already on the government payroll, they just arn't required to work).  At the very least they should be required to "pick up their check" in person ... that would at least remove all the "dead people" receiving social security.

I was subjected to random drug tests at my job. It didn't bother me since I didn't do drugs. There are a lot of people that abuse welfare. They will reimburse them as long as they pass. If you don't do drugs why cry about it? I knew a lot of people in Sacramento that sold their food stamps for half what they were worth allowing their kids to go hungry while they got high on meth. I think all states should require recipients to drug test. Think of all the money saved. Maybe that would make them clean up if they really need the welfare help.