TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35) – A state lawmaker is proposing a bill to drug test unemployed Floridians collecting unemployment benefits. “Let’s make sure it’s going to people who truly are ready, able, and willing to work. People who can’t pass a random drug test really probably shouldn’t be collecting our unemployment money,” said bill sponsor Senator Mike Bennett, a Republican from Sarasota.
Last month the state of Florida paid out $117-million in unemployment benefits.
Bennett’s bill calls for 10 percent of those who file an unemployment claim to undergo random testing. Also, 10 percent of people already receiving unemployment benefits would be tested. Mary Ann Aiken of Wesley Chapel is unemployed and unopposed to the proposal. “If they’re getting these benefits and let’s say for instance they are a substance abuser, then that money could be actually be going to support their habit.” “We’re taking everyone who happens to be in this situation of not having a job, which are a lot of people right now, and we’re treating them as if they are potential drug abusers,” said Courtenay Strickland with the ACLU.
Leaving the unemployment office, Dorothy Odie explained how these days “the unemployed” includes “the hard-working” and people who’ve worked their whole lives. “These people that’s coming here, they’re working people that have been on their jobs. One man I met today, he’d been on his job 30 years. So, you’re labeling people,” she said.
My suspicious nature tells me this just might be designed to avoid paying unemployment benefits.
62,
Odd. A Liberty Lover against drugs. how is it that personal use of substances is something you want to fight against? Not very Libertarian, are you?
#63, I am all for legalizing them.
But since they are against the law, I sure don’t want the money going to those breaking the law.
If you are going to take my money, use it wisely or give it back.
64,
I see. You don’t believe in the law, but you’ll damn well burn the constitution to enforce them? That’s pretty good. You have amazing powers of reconciliation.
I have yet to see any ijit want the police confiscating the unemployed’s cars. Yup, there are those collecting UI that will illegally park or speed. Yup. We can’t have them breaking the law. It doesn’t matter if only a few people do it, confiscate them all.
And smoking!!! I saw someone throw a cigarette butt out his car window yesterday. Now littering is definitely illegal.
66,
Happened to me on the way to work. Flicked my butt before I got to the subway and Mr Officer called me over to her car window. Sitting there eating his watermelon from tupperware, he asked if I would like to have a 300 dollar fine for littering. I said nothing. He asked me if it’s worth 300 dollars to not go throw my cig in the garbage a few metres away. I said that the garbage might catch on fire. For some reason, I didn’t end up in prison. I was trying so hard to not say anything…
#65,
I see. You don’t believe in the law, but you’ll damn well burn the constitution to enforce them? That’s pretty good. You have amazing powers of reconciliation.
Man, you need to go back to reading school. There is no way any literate person could deduce that from my previous posts.
You want to give the money out with no strings attached to the unemployed but you want strings for the corporations.
Why is it good for one but not the other?
Why do you hate America?
68
“Why do you hate America?” HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, that’s rich.
Let’s put it this way… when the unemployed are all proven to be drug users, than sure, mandatory testing for all! But, if you’re hoping to catch a small percentage, the money you save will be burnt trying to track down the guilty. Plus, you have to have an appeals process since you cannot guarantee perfection for every case, every time. And don’t forget about corruption.
As for the corps… my word, you are thick. Company A created junk and then sold junk. Now the junk comes back and Company A says “yeah… we tried to screw you over. Can we have some billions now?” If Company A was led out of the market by Company B because Company A was made redundant by the invisible hand of the marketplace jerking off Company B… sure. Give them 50% of their wages to a maximum of 65K per year. For 12 weeks.
You are the best Libertarian I know, BTW. You’re such an independent that you’ve disjointed your brain from thinking.
#69, Obviously you’ve never heard of random sampling. You don’t have to check them all. A small percentage will do.
AFA the corps, I never wanted the bailout. I called my senators and rep two or three times and sent letters and emails. It passed anyway. However, the fact of the matter is, you are giving taxpayer money away to keep someone afloat, whether it was their fault or not. If you insist on the stipulations for the companies without legal evidence (no charges yet but I am sure Obama will be bringing some soon), then you should do the same thing for anyone else receiving government assistance.
70,
You’re joking. I know you are. You’re doing good keeping up the facade though, so I’ll keep playing.
There is nothing ILLEGAL about what the corps did. They got caught stuffing their pockets by shunting crap around. The jig was up and now they need money to keep them in bonuses and BMW’s. Like I said, it’s not like Company A was made redundant. They fucked themselves and YOU’RE paying them for the privilege of fucking you over again at a later date.
As for your random sample… As a Libertarian, you SUPPORT such a measure? You REALLY don’t know what the hell a “libertarian” is, do you?
BTW, it’s unconstitutional. I guess, as a Libertarian, you don’t support that document.
#71, As for your random sample… As a Libertarian, you SUPPORT such a measure?
Looting money from the citizens to fund the federal government’s social programs I find to be illegal, too, but I’ve been told since the Supreme Court upheld it, I’m anti-American because I support that position.
What is the difference between forcing people to squeeze money out of their pockets or squeezing piss out of their peckers?
There really is no difference between bailing out a bank that may have done nothing wrong and bailing out a worker who has done nothing wrong — except the number of 0’s.
Liberals constantly speak of Equality — why don’t they support that for everybody?
#72 Clearly we need drug testing of Libertarians, as your constant assertion that you must uphold THE LAW simply because its THE LAW leads me to belive that you may be on crack.
Hand them the bottle wet.
To 57 Hugh Ripper. Oh wow, that was deep. Try again. I did not say people are failures. However, if you cannot keep a job, then you failed at keeping a job. I’m not going to pay for other people who have too much pride to go work at Wal-Mart or McDonalds. There are plenty of jobs out there, it’s just that we are ‘too good’ to flip hamburgers or stock merchandise. Your right, I am onto something.
#75 “There are plenty of jobs out there, it’s just that we are ‘too good’ to flip hamburgers or stock merchandise.”
Over 15% unemployment, and yet there are still ‘plenty of jobs’? Sounds unlikely to me. Plenty of normal tax paying hard working folk have been layed off due to white collar criminals (in colusion with government) destroying world finance, and you want to bust thier balls with drug testing? All to catch a few idle hippies on welfare? Who are you, Eric Cartman?
72,
“There really is no difference between bailing out a bank that may have done nothing wrong and bailing out a worker who has done nothing wrong — except the number of 0’s.”
Banks that did nothing wrong? You mean like loaning out buckets of cash under the No Income No Job No Assests plan? And this strategy is “nothing wrong”? Holy crap, you have no sense. I’m guessing you’re just figuring out that hair on your balls means that you’re going to be a “man” soon and you better align quick! To the Libertarian cave!
“Liberals constantly speak of Equality — why don’t they support that for everybody?” What is this “everybody” you speak of? The laid off worker, or the multinational / supranational corporation? here’s an example of how “innocent” your banks are. Citibank gets bailout money and one week later, yes, invests in small business in the US and provides low interest loans… OOoopps. I meant to say, buys a TOLL ROAD IN SPAIN.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/bailed-out-bank-goes-on-toll-road-buying-binge/
Yes. Just like that guy who got laid off and took his UI cheque and bought Mexican pot, Columbian coke, and Afghani hash and heroin?
#73, Clearly we need drug testing of Libertarians, as your constant assertion that you must uphold THE LAW simply because its THE LAW leads me to belive that you may be on crack.
Hey, how many times have we all heard liberals spouting off about how “this is the law of land and if you don’t like it move!”?
Now that the law is on the other foot (so to speak), you guys are all coming up with excuses as to why it SHOULDN’T be followed.
You can’t have it both ways.
I might be mistaken, but it sure sounds hypocritical to me.
#77,
“There really is no difference between bailing out a bank that may have done nothing wrong and bailing out a worker who has done nothing wrong — except the number of 0’s.”
Banks that did nothing wrong? You mean like loaning out buckets of cash under the No Income No Job No Assests plan? And this strategy is “nothing wrong”?
and RE: citibank
How do you know all the banks are at fault? I’d be willing to wager some failed because the major ones failed.
“Liberals constantly speak of Equality — why don’t they support that for everybody?” What is this “everybody” you speak of? The laid off worker, or the multinational / supranational corporation?
Does it matter? If you are going to treat someone one way, you have to treat everyone else the same way. Otherwise, there is no true equality.
Unless of course you mean you want the “end result to be everybody is equal” instead of “we want everybody to be treated equally.”
76. Tisk Tisk. You have not done your homework. Unemployment is at 8.1 percent. Go search it up Mr.Facts. I have nothing against recreational drugs. However, I am against it when I look at my paycheck and I see that 70 dollars is sucked out every week and in the back of my mind I know that some dusch out there is getting high instead of looking for a job. Hey, go get high, by all means, but not off my money. This isn’t about being liberal or conservative. This is about morals. Oh ya, there are more than a “couple” of hippies. You and I both know that. Peace homie
Why not just broaden the scops of the bill. Instead of just drug testing those receiving unemployment, wy not drug test ANYONE RECEIVING ANY PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. There are those on welfare, food stamps, and medicaid who are using and abusing drugs, but they dont have any unemployment benefits because they ran out! While you’re at it, tack on a cap for welfare in terms of years, amount you can get, and for how long.
WTF…………..if you are unemployed……..you must do drugs…how else do you pass the long empty days….ROTFLMAO
Something tells me that alot of people here are collecting unemployment benefits and partying a bit, lol…………
Speaking of drunks. Max Baucus has too often shown physical and cognitive signs of alcoholism that appears to have killed too many brain cells. Baucus repeatedly has a difficult time articulating his thoughts into words. Sad that the folks that elect him can’t find someone better for their State and for America.
Very disturbing that politicians are not required to take random drug and lie detector tests and mental evaluations considering they get way more of our tax dollars than anybody. And have far greater responsibility and accountibility.
I know there is alot of anger about this bill …but I have first hand witnessed people abusing the governments money, sad to say but my own mother does this shes a pill poper and has even gone so far as to use child support money and food stamps to pay her supplyers.And I know alot of other people who do the same thing now maybe this isent the anwser but something has to be done im not shore what but something and if anyone has any better subjestions please e-mail me at renee.kerri@yahoo.com
Kudos to this bold step. I know for a fact that this is not a popular bill to push. I believe as a sign of good faith the legislative should take the first test:). Also as someone who is working and paying taxes, why should my taxes go to junkies who are to lazy to work and all they want is to have a high time.
I am all for the government trying to help those unemployed, specially those who need a helping hand to get them back on their feet. I believe it would help the economy if these unemployed people can get back to their feet and start working again. Till then I believe that the govenment should help this people specially those who are actively seeking to get back to the working class.