----The second link doesn't have any info, really. The first one is based on asking caseworkers their opinion on who is committing fraud with the child care grants. It can only be based on a subjective sense, because the recipient likely isn't telling them that the money isn't going to a day care provider. It's pretty much based on the caseworker thinking something is fishy. The article also incorrectly references the amounts, saying LA county, but actually the amounts are for the whole state. Information is probably best drawn from results of work done by fraud investigators and then trying to extrapolate from there. Drawing conclusions about people you know or some guy down the street isn't valid. People do it all the time though and drives me nuts.
"Florida would become the second state in the nation to approve such an undertaking, something Gov. Rick Scott campaigned on last year.
A federal court in Michigan has struck down a similar law there, ruling that universal drug testing without suspicion of drug abuse was unconstitutional.
Proponents of the bill say the tests could help force drug-addicted welfare recipients to go straight. Opponents object that the measure would force the poorest of Floridians to fork out money they can't afford to get cash assistance for their families.
"If the state is going to go down the road of moving from a presumption of innocence standard to the presumption of guilt for only the poorest among us, it should at least bear the cost," argued Rep. Jeff Brandes, D-St. Petersburg.
But the bill's sponsor, Rep. Jimmie T. Smith, R-Inverness, said the measure is necessary to ensure that state and federal dollars are being spent on families who truly deserve the aid and that those who receive the money don't spend it on drugs. And, he argued, student athletes, many private employees and soldiers have to submit to the tests."
this is bullshit. drug addiction is a medical issue... and should be treated as such.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
this is bullshit. drug addiction is a medical issue... and should be treated as such.
Although this may be true, some could argue that allowing those who are drug addicts to receive government assistance is enabling (if they use that money for drugs--which would be difficult to prove anyway). Even if there were rehab programs in place for those individuals, there would still be the ones who do not want it and have made it their chosen lifestyle. On the flip side, there would be the ones who were not receiving government assistance who may want rehab but can't afford it.. There's no easy answer.
this is bullshit. drug addiction is a medical issue... and should be treated as such.
Although this may be true, some could argue that allowing those who are drug addicts to receive government assistance is enabling (if they use that money for drugs--which would be difficult to prove anyway). Even if there were rehab programs in place for those individuals, there would still be the ones who do not want it and have made it their chosen lifestyle. On the flip side, there would be the ones who were not receiving government assistance who may want rehab but can't afford it.. There's no easy answer.
youre right.. there is no easy answer. however as someone who has held the lifeless body of her junkie boyfriend in her arms, i would say that addiction IS a medical problem. for many there is no choice, regardless of what the dogooders say. yes i chose to use drugs but that doesnt mean i can effectively choose to stop... and this in a society who thinks nothing of drinking.... legally.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
youre right.. there is no easy answer. however as someone who has held the lifeless body of her junkie boyfriend in her arms, i would say that addiction IS a medical problem. for many there is no choice, regardless of what the dogooders say. yes i chose to use drugs but that doesnt mean i can effectively choose to stop... and this in a society who thinks nothing of drinking.... legally.
yes, I agree with the societal view on drinking. And, I, too, have firsthand experience with this issue and I think it is a psychological problem as well as a medical one. 'Effectively choosing to stop' involves a conscious decision and a desired real effort. Sometimes a realistic, tangible consequence is the straw that breaks the camels back. And other times, no intervention is going to matter.
youre right.. there is no easy answer. however as someone who has held the lifeless body of her junkie boyfriend in her arms, i would say that addiction IS a medical problem. for many there is no choice, regardless of what the dogooders say. yes i chose to use drugs but that doesnt mean i can effectively choose to stop... and this in a society who thinks nothing of drinking.... legally.
yes, I agree with the societal view on drinking. And, I, too, have firsthand experience with this issue and I think it is a psychological problem as well as a medical one. 'Effectively choosing to stop' involves a conscious decision and a desired real effort. Sometimes a realistic, tangible consequence is the straw that breaks the camels back. And other times, no intervention is going to matter.
psychological problems ARE medical problems. there is no difference. you don't go to a chef to treat a phychological problem , you go to a fucking MD. people can choose to stop but the parts of the body, the chemical receptors, etc, that are ADDICTED do not allow them to stop.
treat it is a medical condition and sometimes people get better. if you cut off funding you might just increase that dreaded crime rate because addicts will lie, cheat and steal to get the next fix if they do not have any money. i know this firsthand as well.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
psychological problems ARE medical problems. there is no difference. you don't go to a chef to treat a phychological problem , you go to a fucking MD. people can choose to stop but the parts of the body, the chemical receptors, etc, that are ADDICTED do not allow them to stop.
treat it is a medical condition and sometimes people get better. if you cut off funding you might just increase that dreaded crime rate because addicts will lie, cheat and steal to get the next fix if they do not have any money. i know this firsthand as well.
psychological problems are NOT always medical problems and vice versa. Addiction is a combination of both. And I didn't say anything about 'cutting off funding'---I advocated drug testing for those receiving welfare, that's it. And they will still lie, cheat, and steal to get the next fix with or without government assistance. ... and 'do not allow them to stop'....I don't fully believe that. And it does involve a conscious decision and a consistent desire and effort...
psychological problems ARE medical problems. there is no difference. you don't go to a chef to treat a phychological problem , you go to a fucking MD. people can choose to stop but the parts of the body, the chemical receptors, etc, that are ADDICTED do not allow them to stop.
treat it is a medical condition and sometimes people get better. if you cut off funding you might just increase that dreaded crime rate because addicts will lie, cheat and steal to get the next fix if they do not have any money. i know this firsthand as well.
psychological problems are NOT always medical problems and vice versa. Addiction is a combination of both. And I didn't say anything about 'cutting off funding'---I advocated drug testing for those receiving welfare, that's it. And they will still lie, cheat, and steal to get the next fix with or without government assistance. ... and 'do not allow them to stop'....I don't fully believe that. And it does involve a conscious decision and a consistent desire and effort...
I believe the point in testing is to cut off funding for those with positive tests, so this whole discussion is about cutting off funding. What's the point in drug testing for those receiving welfare if "that"s it"??
I believe the point in testing is to cut off funding for those with positive tests, so this whole discussion is about cutting off funding. What's the point in drug testing for those receiving welfare if "that"s it"??
I had assumed that it was about taking the $50 a month or whatever it is for the drug testing was taken out of their food supply as was mentioned previously. If you read my earlier posts I said that I had no comprehensive solution because it is a difficult issue but "that's it" meant advocating for drug testing, and something done after that as a result of a failed drug test. But thank you for your hostility, and excuse the hell out of me if I was talking about something else..
I believe the point in testing is to cut off funding for those with positive tests, so this whole discussion is about cutting off funding. What's the point in drug testing for those receiving welfare if "that"s it"??
I had assumed that it was about taking the $50 a month or whatever it is for the drug testing was taken out of their food supply as was mentioned previously. If you read my earlier posts I said that I had no comprehensive solution because it is a difficult issue but "that's it" meant advocating for drug testing, and something done after that as a result of a failed drug test. But thank you for your hostility, and excuse the hell out of me if I was talking about something else..
My "hostility"?? :? I guess you have no idea what my hostility looks like if you thought you saw it in my post. Thanks for your defensiveness, though, and excuse the hell out of me if I asked you a logical, objective, germane question to clarify your position... which I still don't understand. So I'll try asking a different way:
You advocate for drug testing TO WHAT END, if not for withholding funding? For such a plan to be implemented, there must be a reason.
psychological problems ARE medical problems. there is no difference. you don't go to a chef to treat a phychological problem , you go to a fucking MD. people can choose to stop but the parts of the body, the chemical receptors, etc, that are ADDICTED do not allow them to stop.
treat it is a medical condition and sometimes people get better. if you cut off funding you might just increase that dreaded crime rate because addicts will lie, cheat and steal to get the next fix if they do not have any money. i know this firsthand as well.
psychological problems are NOT always medical problems and vice versa. Addiction is a combination of both. And I didn't say anything about 'cutting off funding'---I advocated drug testing for those receiving welfare, that's it. And they will still lie, cheat, and steal to get the next fix with or without government assistance. ... and 'do not allow them to stop'....I don't fully believe that. And it does involve a conscious decision and a consistent desire and effort...
are you an addiction specialist? psychiatrists, who handle mental and psychological issues are required to have an MD or a DO after their name and require that education to get those credentials. if that is the requirement how can you say that "psychological problems are not always medical problems"? as someone in the medical profession i take issue with that contention of yours.
a conscious decision is not the only thing that is required. why do alcoholics stay in treatment way beyond when they choose to stop drinking? because there are temptations and situational factors that effect their choice and test their will, and their bodies or minds revert back to craving alcohol sometimes. same as with narcotics anonymous. once an addict you are always an addict. pure and simple. there is physical and psychological addiction and they are not the same and they both require more than a choice to stop.
requiring people on welfare to pay for their own testing IS cutting off funding to them. requiring the government to pay for the testing is the same ting as giving those people money because the testing costs about as much as a week's worth or groceries. so either way, no matter how you and the conservatives look at it you are "wasting taxpayer's money" on people on welfare. if you are going to spend the money why not just give it to them in the form of food stamps?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
My "hostility"?? :? I guess you have no idea what my hostility looks like if you thought you saw it in my post. Thanks for your defensiveness, though, and excuse the hell out of me if I asked you a logical, objective, germane question to clarify your position...
no, I suppose I don't have any idea what your hostility looked like, and I apologize if I took it the wrong way or was defensive. I guess I caught a note of sarcasm, maybe, with your statement. :?
which I still don't understand. So I'll try asking a different way:
You advocate for drug testing TO WHAT END, if not for withholding funding? For such a plan to be implemented, there must be a reason.
I don't have the complete answer to that. Perhaps if a drug test is failed, then those people should be monitored in a program similar to what a probationary program would do, and they would have rehabilitative requirements to fulfill, and, if they did not comply with the probationary conditions, at that point their funding could be revoked. Just a thought.. Again, apologies.
My "hostility"?? :? I guess you have no idea what my hostility looks like if you thought you saw it in my post. Thanks for your defensiveness, though, and excuse the hell out of me if I asked you a logical, objective, germane question to clarify your position...
no, I suppose I don't have any idea what your hostility looked like, and I apologize if I took it the wrong way or was defensive. I guess I caught a note of sarcasm, maybe, with your statement. :?
which I still don't understand. So I'll try asking a different way:
You advocate for drug testing TO WHAT END, if not for withholding funding? For such a plan to be implemented, there must be a reason.
I don't have the complete answer to that. Perhaps if a drug test is failed, then those people should be monitored in a program similar to what a probationary program would do, and they would have rehabilitative requirements to fulfill, and, if they did not comply with the probationary conditions, at that point their funding could be revoked. Just a thought.. Again, apologies.
and my question is who should pay for this? the person on welfare who has no money anyway, or the state?
nobody seems to be able to answer this. the position seems to be "yeah lets test those leeches and if they are positive cut off their benefits rah rah rah!" but nobody has a comprehensive plan for inplementing the program, who is paying for it, or the goal or the end result of the program...
you people advocating for this drug testing are opening up a HUGE can of worms that you are all going to have to try to figure out. if this passes and spreads to other states you are going to see a huge increase in size and scope of government....and the tea party is not going to go for that.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
psychological problems are NOT always medical problems and vice versa. Addiction is a combination of both. And I didn't say anything about 'cutting off funding'---I advocated drug testing for those receiving welfare, that's it. And they will still lie, cheat, and steal to get the next fix with or without government assistance. ... and 'do not allow them to stop'....I don't fully believe that. And it does involve a conscious decision and a consistent desire and effort...
are you an addiction specialist? psychiatrists, who handle mental and psychological issues are required to have an MD or a DO after their name and require that education to get those credentials. if that is the requirement how can you say that "psychological problems are not always medical problems"? as someone in the medical profession i take issue with that contention of yours.
a conscious decision is not the only thing that is required. why do alcoholics stay in treatment way beyond when they choose to stop drinking? because there are temptations and situational factors that effect their choice and test their will, and their bodies or minds revert back to craving alcohol sometimes. same as with narcotics anonymous. once an addict you are always an addict. pure and simple. there is physical and psychological addiction and they are not the same and they both require more than a choice to stop.
requiring people on welfare to pay for their own testing IS cutting off funding to them. requiring the government to pay for the testing is the same ting as giving those people money because the testing costs about as much as a week's worth or groceries. so either way, no matter how you and the conservatives look at it you are "wasting taxpayer's money" on people on welfare. if you are going to spend the money why not just give it to them in the form of food stamps?[/quote]
I did not say that a conscious decision is the ONLY thing that is required, just one factor. I am also in the medical profession and people other than MDs or DOs also qualify to provide care for addiction. Also, I am not a conservative on the whole regardless of how I feel about this issue. And I did not say that taxpayers' money is wasted on welfare. You seem to be generalizing me with others whom you may have had this discussion with.
and my question is who should pay for this? the person on welfare who has no money anyway, or the state?
nobody seems to be able to answer this. the position seems to be "yeah lets test those leeches and if they are positive cut off their benefits rah rah rah!" but nobody has a comprehensive plan for inplementing the program, who is paying for it, or the goal or the end result of the program...
you people advocating for this drug testing are opening up a HUGE can of worms that you are all going to have to try to figure out. if this passes and spreads to other states you are going to see a huge increase in size and scope of government....and the tea party is not going to go for that.
That is not my position as you stated above about 'leeches' and whatnot. I never claimed to have a comprehensive plan for implementing a program. It just seems to me that if people with jobs have to take drug tests, then so should the people who are getting money from the government. And, if a drug test is failed on a job, and the employee is required to go to some rehab program, the cost is covered by the employee in some cases. To that end, I do not see why a percentage of the person's assistance could not be used to cover the rehab program.
My "hostility"?? :? I guess you have no idea what my hostility looks like if you thought you saw it in my post. Thanks for your defensiveness, though, and excuse the hell out of me if I asked you a logical, objective, germane question to clarify your position...
no, I suppose I don't have any idea what your hostility looked like, and I apologize if I took it the wrong way or was defensive. I guess I caught a note of sarcasm, maybe, with your statement. :?
which I still don't understand. So I'll try asking a different way:
You advocate for drug testing TO WHAT END, if not for withholding funding? For such a plan to be implemented, there must be a reason.
I don't have the complete answer to that. Perhaps if a drug test is failed, then those people should be monitored in a program similar to what a probationary program would do, and they would have rehabilitative requirements to fulfill, and, if they did not comply with the probationary conditions, at that point their funding could be revoked. Just a thought.. Again, apologies.
It's all good.
Well I'm 100% in support of rehab programs, which I believe should be paid for by the government & which I'm happy to fund through my taxes. But I think they should be available/required for EVERYONE who needs them, not just poor people receiving government assistance.
I don't think people should be required to take drug tests without a good REASON though - like if they committed a crime. Being poor is not a crime, and I believe the frustration me & gimme & others feel is with the attitude some people have that it is a crime. Imagine for a second that you are at a low point in your life where you're unable to care for your family without government assistance. Then think about how it would feel to be kicked while you are down, to be treated like a criminal simply because you are poor. How dehumanizing!
I don't think the drug testing on the job analogy is a good one, and here's why:
(1) For the most part, the rationale behind testing for certain jobs is that someone could get hurt if you are impaired on the job - like if you operate heavy machinery, for instance, or have people's lives in your hands. Even so, many jobs only require drug testing if there is some reasonable suspicion that you have a problem. Otherwise you are presumed innocent. Receiving welfare, however, puts no one's safety in your hands.
(2) The other reason jobs require drug testing is because they figure drug addicts will commit other crimes. They're afraid you'll steal from them or sell their secrets if you owe/need money for drugs. Personally, I don't think this is a good enough reason unless you're asking for a government clearance or something. But my point is, the testing is not because the company doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on drugs; it's because they don't want to give you access to commit OTHER crimes against them. This is also not relevant to our welfare scenario because receiving welfare doesn't give you government access.
(3) Receiving welfare is not a job. If the "receiving government money is like having a job" analogy were accurate, it should hold true for everyone else with a government job. But it doesn't. I don't see anyone else decrying the lack of testing for ALL government employees. I'm a government employee and I've never had a drug test in my life - but no one is up in arms about that. It's the welfare recipients who are being singled out and it's time to call a spade a spade. They are (generally) singled out because (as blockhead said) they are thought to not be DESERVING of government assistance. They are thought of as lazy freeloaders. They are thought of as more likely to be CRIMINALS. This belittling judgment of those who are less fortunate is the real problem that needs to be addressed.
Anyway, my main problem with this whole argument about withholding the welfare funds of people who use drugs is that THE MONEY IS FOR THE CHILDREN. It's not the addicts who would be punished if they were cut off from food stamps; it's primarily their children. And how anyone can look a child in the eyes and tell her she'll have to go hungry because her dad has a problem... well that's just not something I can ever condone or understand. :(
Well I'm 100% in support of rehab programs, which I believe should be paid for by the government & which I'm happy to fund through my taxes. But I think they should be available/required for EVERYONE who needs them, not just poor people receiving government assistance.
I don't think people should be required to take drug tests without a good REASON though - like if they committed a crime. Being poor is not a crime, and I believe the frustration me & gimme & others feel is with the attitude some people have that it is a crime. Imagine for a second that you are at a low point in your life where you're unable to care for your family without government assistance. Then think about how it would feel to be kicked while you are down, to be treated like a criminal simply because you are poor. How dehumanizing!
^^I also agree and understand this because, as I said in an earlier post, I have had trouble recently and I tried to apply for it; please refer to earlier post (I think p. 2). I also have a cousin who receives it and a very good friend who does as well, and I am not averse to government assistance and I do not view those who get it as 'criminals'. As I also said, I also know/have known those who receive it and are on the flip side. They spend the money they get on drugs, beer, and cigarettes mostly (and rent). I understand what you are saying about the children issue, and that the money is used on their food; I completely agree, and it should be. However, I have also known/known of people (I was personally in a house where I witnessed this several years back) in which the recipient had three kids--there was NOTHING in the refrigerator but 1/2 carton of OJ and baking soda, and I mean NOTHING else. This person was involved in drugs, was clearly not worried about the welfare of her children, and was not using her money on food. She lived in a trailor park, her mother lived next door, and her mother's place is where she and her children ate. Now..I completely realize that this is not the 'norm', but it is a real example, and if it existed in that one situation, then it exists in others. Again, I stress that I DO NOT claim to have the answer to this problem, but situations like that are disturbing. I really would not know what to do regarding the children involved in such a situation. One thing I do feel somewhat sure about is that if a drug test is $20-$50, and a stipulation is that they will have to expect random testing say once every 3-6 months, that this amount will not significantly diminish the amount of food in the household.
I don't think the drug testing on the job analogy is a good one, and here's why:
(1) For the most part, the rationale behind testing for certain jobs is that someone could get hurt if you are impaired on the job - like if you operate heavy machinery, for instance, or have people's lives in your hands. Even so, many jobs only require drug testing if there is some reasonable suspicion that you have a problem. Otherwise you are presumed innocent. Receiving welfare, however, puts no one's safety in your hands.
^^You also have a valid point here. You bring up something that I hadn't thought about before, and that is that they would be tested just because they receive government assistance; I hadn't thought about it quite in those terms. I was thinking about it more in terms of a job because, like a job, they are receiving money. I did not realize that government employees are not subjected to drug tests. For most of my adult life, I have been in the medical profession, and we are regularly subjected to drug screens with or without suspicion or reason. Therefore, I have been looking at this issue subjectively. I appreciate you shedding a light on a more objective view. Perhaps you can see my reasoning behind thinking that drug screens would be worth considering. Yes, I realize that the medical profession has peoples' lives in their hands, and it is not analogous to receiving government assistance, and this is a valid argument. However, if someone is receiving government assistance, and they have children, they also have someone's life in their hands.
Anyway, my main problem with this whole argument about withholding the welfare funds of people who use drugs is that THE MONEY IS FOR THE CHILDREN. It's not the addicts who would be punished if they were cut off from food stamps; it's primarily their children. And how anyone can look a child in the eyes and tell her she'll have to go hungry because her dad has a problem... well that's just not something I can ever condone or understand. :(
^^No, I do not condone that, either. As I said, I do not have a solution to that. There are also children who go hungry if their parents have a problem and they're not receiving assistance, so shouldn't that be addressed by CPS? I don't know, I'm just saying.. And I know about as much about government assistance programs as I do about the molecular structure of an asteroid.
Well I'm 100% in support of rehab programs, which I believe should be paid for by the government & which I'm happy to fund through my taxes. But I think they should be available/required for EVERYONE who needs them, not just poor people receiving government assistance.
I don't think people should be required to take drug tests without a good REASON though - like if they committed a crime. Being poor is not a crime, and I believe the frustration me & gimme & others feel is with the attitude some people have that it is a crime. Imagine for a second that you are at a low point in your life where you're unable to care for your family without government assistance. Then think about how it would feel to be kicked while you are down, to be treated like a criminal simply because you are poor. How dehumanizing!
^^I also agree and understand this because, as I said in an earlier post, I have had trouble recently and I tried to apply for it; please refer to earlier post (I think p. 2). I also have a cousin who receives it and a very good friend who does as well, and I am not averse to government assistance and I do not view those who get it as 'criminals'. As I also said, I also know/have known those who receive it and are on the flip side. They spend the money they get on drugs, beer, and cigarettes mostly (and rent). I understand what you are saying about the children issue, and that the money is used on their food; I completely agree, and it should be. However, I have also known/known of people (I was personally in a house where I witnessed this several years back) in which the recipient had three kids--there was NOTHING in the refrigerator but 1/2 carton of OJ and baking soda, and I mean NOTHING else. This person was involved in drugs, was clearly not worried about the welfare of her children, and was not using her money on food. She lived in a trailor park, her mother lived next door, and her mother's place is where she and her children ate. Now..I completely realize that this is not the 'norm', but it is a real example, and if it existed in that one situation, then it exists in others. Again, I stress that I DO NOT claim to have the answer to this problem, but situations like that are disturbing. I really would not know what to do regarding the children involved in such a situation. One thing I do feel somewhat sure about is that if a drug test is $20-$50, and a stipulation is that they will have to expect random testing say once every 3-6 months, that this amount will not significantly diminish the amount of food in the household.
I don't think the drug testing on the job analogy is a good one, and here's why:
(1) For the most part, the rationale behind testing for certain jobs is that someone could get hurt if you are impaired on the job - like if you operate heavy machinery, for instance, or have people's lives in your hands. Even so, many jobs only require drug testing if there is some reasonable suspicion that you have a problem. Otherwise you are presumed innocent. Receiving welfare, however, puts no one's safety in your hands.
^^You also have a valid point here. You bring up something that I hadn't thought about before, and that is that they would be tested just because they receive government assistance; I hadn't thought about it quite in those terms. I was thinking about it more in terms of a job because, like a job, they are receiving money. I did not realize that government employees are not subjected to drug tests. For most of my adult life, I have been in the medical profession, and we are regularly subjected to drug screens with or without suspicion or reason. Therefore, I have been looking at this issue subjectively. I appreciate you shedding a light on a more objective view. Perhaps you can see my reasoning behind thinking that drug screens would be worth considering. Yes, I realize that the medical profession has peoples' lives in their hands, and it is not analogous to receiving government assistance, and this is a valid argument. However, if someone is receiving government assistance, and they have children, they also have someone's life in their hands.
Anyway, my main problem with this whole argument about withholding the welfare funds of people who use drugs is that THE MONEY IS FOR THE CHILDREN. It's not the addicts who would be punished if they were cut off from food stamps; it's primarily their children. And how anyone can look a child in the eyes and tell her she'll have to go hungry because her dad has a problem... well that's just not something I can ever condone or understand. :(
^^No, I do not condone that, either. As I said, I do not have a solution to that. There are also children who go hungry if their parents have a problem and they're not receiving assistance, so shouldn't that be addressed by CPS? I don't know, I'm just saying.. And I know about as much about government assistance programs as I do about the molecular structure of an asteroid.
It isn't just who will be paying...... it's who IS getting paid ?
Scott's agenda has conflicts of interest
Submitted by Ron Littlepage on March 31, 2011 - 11:24pm
Ron Littlepage's Blog
Folks, if you are not, you need to be paying close attention to what's going on in Tallahassee.
Gov. Rick Scott's campaign against special interests is probably still ringing in your ears from the 24/7 onslaught of his television ads last fall.
But apparently there is one special interest he's more than fond of - himself.
First, he signs an executive order requiring drug testing for state employees.
Conveniently, the chain of health care clinics he founded just happens to do drug testing.
Now he wants legislation on his desk that will put all of Florida's Medicaid patients into managed care plans.
The 100,000 or so potential customers from drug testing (at about $35 a pop) is small potatoes compared to the 3 million Medicaid recipients who could be looking for the other services Solantic provides.
A campaign promise Scott soon forgot was his pledge to put his considerable business interests into a blind trust while serving as governor.
Instead, he transferred his $62 million stake in Solantic to his wife.
Asked by reporters about potential conflicts of interest with Solantic, he shot back: "As I've told you, I'm not involved in that company."
How dumb does he think the people of Florida are?
Probably pretty dumb, and with reason.
After all, he did manage to win enough votes to become governor by bobbing and weaving around the record $1.7 billion fine the hospital company he founded had to pay for defrauding taxpayers.
It's no wonder he's emboldened.
And those special interests, other than himself, that Scott wanted to drive from Tallahassee?
The way this legislative session is going, it could be their best year ever.
Last week, the Legislature overrode a Charlie Crist veto of a bill passed last year that re-established "leadership funds," a shameful method of legal bribery that had been done away with two decades ago.
That act of arrogance couldn't be described any better than what columnist Howard Troxler wrote in the Sunday St. Petersburg Times.
"The Florida Legislature proved this past week, once and for all, that it is the utter ***** of Babylon."
Special interests can now pour unlimited amounts of money into these slush funds that go to the House speaker and the speaker designate, the Senate president and the president designate, and the leaders of the minority party in both the Senate and the House.
These "leaders" can then spread the money around to candidates who will then be indebted to them and to the special interests providing the cash.
Troxler wrote: "This is what we have come to. 'Lawmakers' walking around with open gunny sacks, selling the democracy, frankly, proudly, wickedly, shamelessly, amorally."
That conclusion can't be improved upon, and it should be remembered by voters the next time the yahoos who approved these funds come up for re-election.
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:ron.littlepage@jacksonville.com">ron.littlepage@jacksonville.com</a><!-- e -->, (904) 359-4282
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
I fixed your last post to look right, so if you just hit quote you can see how to do it. (Only it will add "[ quote="_" ]" to the beginning and "[/quote]" to the end, so just ignore those.) In order to quote sections of things, you just have to write "
" at the beginning of the section you're quoting and write "[ /quote ]" at the end. If you want it to say who you're quoting, write "[ quote="WhoYou'reQuoting" ] at the beginning. (Just take out the spaces in all the brackets.)
I know there are situations like the one you described where people spend their assistance money on drugs instead of food for their kids. But, as you said, this is not the norm, so I don't think it should be treated as though it is with everyone being punished because of a few bad apples. Plus, you said the person you spoke of didn't buy food, but at least used the money to pay rent, right? So what if this person didn't have that money with which to pay rent? Then the children would be out on the streets!
My primary concern is for the children - not for protecting my money from going to people who I think are lazy, which seems to be the primary concern of many people. If there are children who are not being cared for, this problem should be dealt with (through CPS), but it's a INDEPENDENT issue. There are children who are not properly cared for in all socio-economic brackets, not just in the families that receive welfare. It's just like the drug problem... I think we should address that problem (through rehabs) for the people who have that problem - but we shouldn't single out people because they are poor and need government assistance OR ignore the problem in more affluent homes either.
I can see how drug testing wouldn't seem like such a big deal if you are subjected to it on a regular basis. I happen to be in the unique position of having a government job in the medical profession and, like I said, I have never been tested in my life. Even the doctors, with the most responsibility for patient safety, don't get drug tested unless there is reason to believe they are impaired on the job. Drug testing, then, is something that only happens to "bad" people in my world. So if the guy doing my brain surgery is innocent until proven guilty, it certainly seems discriminatory to me that they guy receiving my taxes through government assistance should be guilty until proven innocent.
I agree with your point that if someone is receiving government assistance and they have children, then they do have people's lives in their hands. However, the "receiving government assistance" part is again irrelevant. ANYONE who has children has people's lives in their hands. So we come back to the same point as before. If we are really testing people with children because they have people's lives in their hands, then we should test ALL people with children, not just the poor ones receiving government assistance. Ya know?
I think you raise another good point when you say you don't have much knowledge of government assistance programs. None - or very few - of us really do, and we haven't really even defined which programs we're talking about. I know a lot about Medicaid but much less about food stamps and cash assistance. They're all government assistance programs for poor people. So are people saying we should test - and possibly remove assistance from - people on Medicaid? Or just those on cash assistance? Or what? I think this conversation needs to be more specific.
I fixed your last post to look right, so if you just hit quote you can see how to do it. (Only it will add "[ quote="_" ]" to the beginning and "
" to the end, so just ignore those.) In order to quote sections of things, you just have to write "
" at the beginning of the section you're quoting and write "[ /quote ]" at the end. If you want it to say who you're quoting, write "[ quote="WhoYou'reQuoting" ] at the beginning. (Just take out the spaces in all the brackets.)"
omg, thanks for the lesson! I'll try it...I think I might need a class on that.
My primary concern is for the children - not for protecting my money from going to people who I think are lazy, which seems to be the primary concern of many people. If there are children who are not being cared for, this problem should be dealt with (through CPS), but it's a INDEPENDENT issue. There are children who are not properly cared for in all socio-economic brackets, not just in the families that receive welfare. It's just like the drug problem... I think we should address that problem (through rehabs) for the people who have that problem - but we shouldn't single out people because they are poor and need government assistance OR ignore the problem in more affluent homes either.
I can see how drug testing wouldn't seem like such a big deal if you are subjected to it on a regular basis. I happen to be in the unique position of having a government job in the medical profession and, like I said, I have never been tested in my life. Even the doctors, with the most responsibility for patient safety, don't get drug tested unless there is reason to believe they are impaired on the job. Drug testing, then, is something that only happens to "bad" people in my world. So if the guy doing my brain surgery is innocent until proven guilty, it certainly seems discriminatory to me that they guy receiving my taxes through government assistance should be guilty until proven innocent.
I agree with your point that if someone is receiving government assistance and they have children, then they do have people's lives in their hands. However, the "receiving government assistance" part is again irrelevant. ANYONE who has children has people's lives in their hands. So we come back to the same point as before. If we are really testing people with children because they have people's lives in their hands, then we should test ALL people with children, not just the poor ones receiving government assistance. Ya know?"
"
yes, I do know...and I thought about this point after I pondered it a little while longer. You are right about that. I am shocked that you don't have drug tests. I am a nurse; most of the doctors I know have never had a drug test. I think nursing boards are more stringent regarding that than are medical boards. Yeah, I don't get that. I guess it just seems that there isn't any 'monitoring' going on, if that makes sense (even if, like you say, the 'bad' people of the bunch who get government assistance are doing inappropriate things, nobody is monitoring that). But I do see what you're saying--kind of that it's discriminatory for 'monitoring' someone just because they get government aid; otherwise, you'd have to have the government going into any house with children to 'check on things' even if not reported, etc. Some people are legitimate about it, and some are not. There doesn't seem to be any way around that.
"I know a lot about Medicaid but much less about food stamps and cash assistance. They're all government assistance programs for poor people. So are people saying we should test - and possibly remove assistance from - people on Medicaid? Or just those on cash assistance? Or what? I think this conversation needs to be more specific.
I know next to nothing about any of it, other than I make too much money to get it at $650/month income. I know several younger girls I know who have jobs and still receive Medicaid for their kids, but can't get it for themselves. Yes, specificity would be helpful, although I still don't know that I could add anything necessarily constructive. :roll:
It worked great! :thumbup: It only messed up at the beginning because of the examples I wrote. Oops. :oops:
Regarding drug testing at my job, I don't honestly know about the nurses. Maybe they have to be tested, though I've never heard that they do. I work at a teaching hospital, so the docs (and me & my colleagues) get paid via one government entity (the Health Sciences Center) & the nurses & MAs technically get paid via another government entity (the University Hospital). Some of the hospital policies are different - like their benefits - so maybe this one is different too. But I know for sure that there's no testing at the Health Sciences Center unless there's a problem.
Regarding drug testing at my job, I don't honestly know about the nurses. Maybe they have to be tested, though I've never heard that they do. I work at a teaching hospital, so the docs (and me & my colleagues) get paid via one government entity (the Health Sciences Center) & the nurses & MAs technically get paid via another government entity (the University Hospital). Some of the hospital policies are different - like their benefits - so maybe this one is different too. But I know for sure that there's no testing at the Health Sciences Center unless there's a problem.
woooow. Crazy. Every place I've ever worked (some teaching hospitals, some not), there has been a pre-employment drug screen, random drug screen policy, and drug screening for reason/suspicion. I'm just used to it now because it's so typical. The random ones don't seem to happen much, but they do happen. Most people I know who are not in the me dical field rarely have drug screens other than the pre-employment, if then. But as far as 'recreation in spare time'...forget it, that can't exist for me---foreign concept. But, the knowledge of that makes one aware..so, similar idea to what we were talking about. But again, they're not on a job...see, it's just circular..:problem:
Regarding drug testing at my job, I don't honestly know about the nurses. Maybe they have to be tested, though I've never heard that they do. I work at a teaching hospital, so the docs (and me & my colleagues) get paid via one government entity (the Health Sciences Center) & the nurses & MAs technically get paid via another government entity (the University Hospital). Some of the hospital policies are different - like their benefits - so maybe this one is different too. But I know for sure that there's no testing at the Health Sciences Center unless there's a problem.
woooow. Crazy. Every place I've ever worked (some teaching hospitals, some not), there has been a pre-employment drug screen, random drug screen policy, and drug screening for reason/suspicion. I'm just used to it now because it's so typical. The random ones don't seem to happen much, but they do happen. Most people I know who are not in the me dical field rarely have drug screens other than the pre-employment, if then. But as far as 'recreation in spare time'...forget it, that can't exist for me---foreign concept. But, the knowledge of that makes one aware..so, similar idea to what we were talking about. But again, they're not on a job...see, it's just circular..:problem:
Weird. I wonder if it's just for nurses. Do the docs get tested too in the places you have worked? If not, maybe they're discriminating against you because you make less money. :problem: I have doc friends all over the country, and I don't think they've been tested in other places either, but I'll ask.
Comments
How much does welfare fraud total?[/quote]
check these out for a little info.
Godfather.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/01 ... e-welfare1
http://fraud.laws.com/welfare-fraud/wel ... the-system[/quote]
----The second link doesn't have any info, really. The first one is based on asking caseworkers their opinion on who is committing fraud with the child care grants. It can only be based on a subjective sense, because the recipient likely isn't telling them that the money isn't going to a day care provider. It's pretty much based on the caseworker thinking something is fishy. The article also incorrectly references the amounts, saying LA county, but actually the amounts are for the whole state. Information is probably best drawn from results of work done by fraud investigators and then trying to extrapolate from there. Drawing conclusions about people you know or some guy down the street isn't valid. People do it all the time though and drives me nuts.
this is bullshit. drug addiction is a medical issue... and should be treated as such.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
youre right.. there is no easy answer. however as someone who has held the lifeless body of her junkie boyfriend in her arms, i would say that addiction IS a medical problem. for many there is no choice, regardless of what the dogooders say. yes i chose to use drugs but that doesnt mean i can effectively choose to stop... and this in a society who thinks nothing of drinking.... legally.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
treat it is a medical condition and sometimes people get better. if you cut off funding you might just increase that dreaded crime rate because addicts will lie, cheat and steal to get the next fix if they do not have any money. i know this firsthand as well.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
psychological problems are NOT always medical problems and vice versa. Addiction is a combination of both. And I didn't say anything about 'cutting off funding'---I advocated drug testing for those receiving welfare, that's it. And they will still lie, cheat, and steal to get the next fix with or without government assistance. ... and 'do not allow them to stop'....I don't fully believe that. And it does involve a conscious decision and a consistent desire and effort...
I believe the point in testing is to cut off funding for those with positive tests, so this whole discussion is about cutting off funding. What's the point in drug testing for those receiving welfare if "that"s it"??
My "hostility"?? :? I guess you have no idea what my hostility looks like if you thought you saw it in my post. Thanks for your defensiveness, though, and excuse the hell out of me if I asked you a logical, objective, germane question to clarify your position... which I still don't understand. So I'll try asking a different way:
You advocate for drug testing TO WHAT END, if not for withholding funding? For such a plan to be implemented, there must be a reason.
a conscious decision is not the only thing that is required. why do alcoholics stay in treatment way beyond when they choose to stop drinking? because there are temptations and situational factors that effect their choice and test their will, and their bodies or minds revert back to craving alcohol sometimes. same as with narcotics anonymous. once an addict you are always an addict. pure and simple. there is physical and psychological addiction and they are not the same and they both require more than a choice to stop.
requiring people on welfare to pay for their own testing IS cutting off funding to them. requiring the government to pay for the testing is the same ting as giving those people money because the testing costs about as much as a week's worth or groceries. so either way, no matter how you and the conservatives look at it you are "wasting taxpayer's money" on people on welfare. if you are going to spend the money why not just give it to them in the form of food stamps?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
EXCELLENT point.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
which I still don't understand. So I'll try asking a different way:
You advocate for drug testing TO WHAT END, if not for withholding funding? For such a plan to be implemented, there must be a reason.
I don't have the complete answer to that. Perhaps if a drug test is failed, then those people should be monitored in a program similar to what a probationary program would do, and they would have rehabilitative requirements to fulfill, and, if they did not comply with the probationary conditions, at that point their funding could be revoked. Just a thought.. Again, apologies.
nobody seems to be able to answer this. the position seems to be "yeah lets test those leeches and if they are positive cut off their benefits rah rah rah!" but nobody has a comprehensive plan for inplementing the program, who is paying for it, or the goal or the end result of the program...
you people advocating for this drug testing are opening up a HUGE can of worms that you are all going to have to try to figure out. if this passes and spreads to other states you are going to see a huge increase in size and scope of government....and the tea party is not going to go for that.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
a conscious decision is not the only thing that is required. why do alcoholics stay in treatment way beyond when they choose to stop drinking? because there are temptations and situational factors that effect their choice and test their will, and their bodies or minds revert back to craving alcohol sometimes. same as with narcotics anonymous. once an addict you are always an addict. pure and simple. there is physical and psychological addiction and they are not the same and they both require more than a choice to stop.
requiring people on welfare to pay for their own testing IS cutting off funding to them. requiring the government to pay for the testing is the same ting as giving those people money because the testing costs about as much as a week's worth or groceries. so either way, no matter how you and the conservatives look at it you are "wasting taxpayer's money" on people on welfare. if you are going to spend the money why not just give it to them in the form of food stamps?[/quote]
I did not say that a conscious decision is the ONLY thing that is required, just one factor. I am also in the medical profession and people other than MDs or DOs also qualify to provide care for addiction. Also, I am not a conservative on the whole regardless of how I feel about this issue. And I did not say that taxpayers' money is wasted on welfare. You seem to be generalizing me with others whom you may have had this discussion with.
That is not my position as you stated above about 'leeches' and whatnot. I never claimed to have a comprehensive plan for implementing a program. It just seems to me that if people with jobs have to take drug tests, then so should the people who are getting money from the government. And, if a drug test is failed on a job, and the employee is required to go to some rehab program, the cost is covered by the employee in some cases. To that end, I do not see why a percentage of the person's assistance could not be used to cover the rehab program.
It's all good.
Well I'm 100% in support of rehab programs, which I believe should be paid for by the government & which I'm happy to fund through my taxes. But I think they should be available/required for EVERYONE who needs them, not just poor people receiving government assistance.
I don't think people should be required to take drug tests without a good REASON though - like if they committed a crime. Being poor is not a crime, and I believe the frustration me & gimme & others feel is with the attitude some people have that it is a crime. Imagine for a second that you are at a low point in your life where you're unable to care for your family without government assistance. Then think about how it would feel to be kicked while you are down, to be treated like a criminal simply because you are poor. How dehumanizing!
I don't think the drug testing on the job analogy is a good one, and here's why:
(1) For the most part, the rationale behind testing for certain jobs is that someone could get hurt if you are impaired on the job - like if you operate heavy machinery, for instance, or have people's lives in your hands. Even so, many jobs only require drug testing if there is some reasonable suspicion that you have a problem. Otherwise you are presumed innocent. Receiving welfare, however, puts no one's safety in your hands.
(2) The other reason jobs require drug testing is because they figure drug addicts will commit other crimes. They're afraid you'll steal from them or sell their secrets if you owe/need money for drugs. Personally, I don't think this is a good enough reason unless you're asking for a government clearance or something. But my point is, the testing is not because the company doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on drugs; it's because they don't want to give you access to commit OTHER crimes against them. This is also not relevant to our welfare scenario because receiving welfare doesn't give you government access.
(3) Receiving welfare is not a job. If the "receiving government money is like having a job" analogy were accurate, it should hold true for everyone else with a government job. But it doesn't. I don't see anyone else decrying the lack of testing for ALL government employees. I'm a government employee and I've never had a drug test in my life - but no one is up in arms about that. It's the welfare recipients who are being singled out and it's time to call a spade a spade. They are (generally) singled out because (as blockhead said) they are thought to not be DESERVING of government assistance. They are thought of as lazy freeloaders. They are thought of as more likely to be CRIMINALS. This belittling judgment of those who are less fortunate is the real problem that needs to be addressed.
Anyway, my main problem with this whole argument about withholding the welfare funds of people who use drugs is that THE MONEY IS FOR THE CHILDREN. It's not the addicts who would be punished if they were cut off from food stamps; it's primarily their children. And how anyone can look a child in the eyes and tell her she'll have to go hungry because her dad has a problem... well that's just not something I can ever condone or understand. :(
I agree with this point in full.
^^I also agree and understand this because, as I said in an earlier post, I have had trouble recently and I tried to apply for it; please refer to earlier post (I think p. 2). I also have a cousin who receives it and a very good friend who does as well, and I am not averse to government assistance and I do not view those who get it as 'criminals'. As I also said, I also know/have known those who receive it and are on the flip side. They spend the money they get on drugs, beer, and cigarettes mostly (and rent). I understand what you are saying about the children issue, and that the money is used on their food; I completely agree, and it should be. However, I have also known/known of people (I was personally in a house where I witnessed this several years back) in which the recipient had three kids--there was NOTHING in the refrigerator but 1/2 carton of OJ and baking soda, and I mean NOTHING else. This person was involved in drugs, was clearly not worried about the welfare of her children, and was not using her money on food. She lived in a trailor park, her mother lived next door, and her mother's place is where she and her children ate. Now..I completely realize that this is not the 'norm', but it is a real example, and if it existed in that one situation, then it exists in others. Again, I stress that I DO NOT claim to have the answer to this problem, but situations like that are disturbing. I really would not know what to do regarding the children involved in such a situation. One thing I do feel somewhat sure about is that if a drug test is $20-$50, and a stipulation is that they will have to expect random testing say once every 3-6 months, that this amount will not significantly diminish the amount of food in the household.
^^You also have a valid point here. You bring up something that I hadn't thought about before, and that is that they would be tested just because they receive government assistance; I hadn't thought about it quite in those terms. I was thinking about it more in terms of a job because, like a job, they are receiving money. I did not realize that government employees are not subjected to drug tests. For most of my adult life, I have been in the medical profession, and we are regularly subjected to drug screens with or without suspicion or reason. Therefore, I have been looking at this issue subjectively. I appreciate you shedding a light on a more objective view. Perhaps you can see my reasoning behind thinking that drug screens would be worth considering. Yes, I realize that the medical profession has peoples' lives in their hands, and it is not analogous to receiving government assistance, and this is a valid argument. However, if someone is receiving government assistance, and they have children, they also have someone's life in their hands.
^^No, I do not condone that, either. As I said, I do not have a solution to that. There are also children who go hungry if their parents have a problem and they're not receiving assistance, so shouldn't that be addressed by CPS? I don't know, I'm just saying.. And I know about as much about government assistance programs as I do about the molecular structure of an asteroid.
Scott's agenda has conflicts of interest
Submitted by Ron Littlepage on March 31, 2011 - 11:24pm
Ron Littlepage's Blog
Folks, if you are not, you need to be paying close attention to what's going on in Tallahassee.
Gov. Rick Scott's campaign against special interests is probably still ringing in your ears from the 24/7 onslaught of his television ads last fall.
But apparently there is one special interest he's more than fond of - himself.
First, he signs an executive order requiring drug testing for state employees.
Conveniently, the chain of health care clinics he founded just happens to do drug testing.
Now he wants legislation on his desk that will put all of Florida's Medicaid patients into managed care plans.
The 100,000 or so potential customers from drug testing (at about $35 a pop) is small potatoes compared to the 3 million Medicaid recipients who could be looking for the other services Solantic provides.
A campaign promise Scott soon forgot was his pledge to put his considerable business interests into a blind trust while serving as governor.
Instead, he transferred his $62 million stake in Solantic to his wife.
Asked by reporters about potential conflicts of interest with Solantic, he shot back: "As I've told you, I'm not involved in that company."
How dumb does he think the people of Florida are?
Probably pretty dumb, and with reason.
After all, he did manage to win enough votes to become governor by bobbing and weaving around the record $1.7 billion fine the hospital company he founded had to pay for defrauding taxpayers.
It's no wonder he's emboldened.
And those special interests, other than himself, that Scott wanted to drive from Tallahassee?
The way this legislative session is going, it could be their best year ever.
Last week, the Legislature overrode a Charlie Crist veto of a bill passed last year that re-established "leadership funds," a shameful method of legal bribery that had been done away with two decades ago.
That act of arrogance couldn't be described any better than what columnist Howard Troxler wrote in the Sunday St. Petersburg Times.
"The Florida Legislature proved this past week, once and for all, that it is the utter ***** of Babylon."
Special interests can now pour unlimited amounts of money into these slush funds that go to the House speaker and the speaker designate, the Senate president and the president designate, and the leaders of the minority party in both the Senate and the House.
These "leaders" can then spread the money around to candidates who will then be indebted to them and to the special interests providing the cash.
Troxler wrote: "This is what we have come to. 'Lawmakers' walking around with open gunny sacks, selling the democracy, frankly, proudly, wickedly, shamelessly, amorally."
That conclusion can't be improved upon, and it should be remembered by voters the next time the yahoos who approved these funds come up for re-election.
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:ron.littlepage@jacksonville.com">ron.littlepage@jacksonville.com</a><!-- e -->, (904) 359-4282
I fixed your last post to look right, so if you just hit quote you can see how to do it. (Only it will add "[ quote="_" ]" to the beginning and "[/quote]" to the end, so just ignore those.) In order to quote sections of things, you just have to write "
" yes, or staying with the grandmother, but I get what you're saying.
" "
yes, I do know...and I thought about this point after I pondered it a little while longer. You are right about that. I am shocked that you don't have drug tests. I am a nurse; most of the doctors I know have never had a drug test. I think nursing boards are more stringent regarding that than are medical boards. Yeah, I don't get that. I guess it just seems that there isn't any 'monitoring' going on, if that makes sense (even if, like you say, the 'bad' people of the bunch who get government assistance are doing inappropriate things, nobody is monitoring that). But I do see what you're saying--kind of that it's discriminatory for 'monitoring' someone just because they get government aid; otherwise, you'd have to have the government going into any house with children to 'check on things' even if not reported, etc. Some people are legitimate about it, and some are not. There doesn't seem to be any way around that.
" I know next to nothing about any of it, other than I make too much money to get it at $650/month income. I know several younger girls I know who have jobs and still receive Medicaid for their kids, but can't get it for themselves. Yes, specificity would be helpful, although I still don't know that I could add anything necessarily constructive. :roll:
It worked great!
Regarding drug testing at my job, I don't honestly know about the nurses. Maybe they have to be tested, though I've never heard that they do. I work at a teaching hospital, so the docs (and me & my colleagues) get paid via one government entity (the Health Sciences Center) & the nurses & MAs technically get paid via another government entity (the University Hospital). Some of the hospital policies are different - like their benefits - so maybe this one is different too. But I know for sure that there's no testing at the Health Sciences Center unless there's a problem.
woooow. Crazy. Every place I've ever worked (some teaching hospitals, some not), there has been a pre-employment drug screen, random drug screen policy, and drug screening for reason/suspicion. I'm just used to it now because it's so typical. The random ones don't seem to happen much, but they do happen. Most people I know who are not in the me dical field rarely have drug screens other than the pre-employment, if then. But as far as 'recreation in spare time'...forget it, that can't exist for me---foreign concept.
Weird. I wonder if it's just for nurses. Do the docs get tested too in the places you have worked? If not, maybe they're discriminating against you because you make less money. :problem: I have doc friends all over the country, and I don't think they've been tested in other places either, but I'll ask.