THE POOR PEE IN A CUP
Florida has always been righteous regarding drug use. More so since the election of Rick Scott as Governor. The Governor successfully signed into law a bill mandating drug testing by welfare applicants.
Scott’s reasoning was twofold. First, to protect children from danger. Drug users it was felt would abuse their little ones. Second, to insure tax dollars were not being used to buy illegal drugs.
Scott’s law required the welfare applicant to pay for the test. The test a simple one. The welfare applicant peed in a cup which then was tested for drug content. The tests were conducted at privately owned clinics and drug facilities. The welfare applicant was required to pay for the test. The cost generally in the $35 -$40 range. If the test result was negative, the welfare applicant would be reimbursed by the State.
The Governor went further. He was concerned that State employees might be engaged in drug use. He issued an Executive Order requiring mandatory drug testing of all State prospective hires and random testing of current employees. Scott’s Executive order applied only to employees working in those State agencies where Scott had appointed the Directors.
The sense of the law itself was that the unemployed poor were more prone to use drugs.
Studies had been conducted prior to the passage of the law. The United States Chamber of Commerce found that 70 per cent of illicit drugs were used by employed persons. Another study regarding drug use among rich and poor children found that children of the rich were more likely to use drugs than the poor.
Florida had data which was derived from actual applicants for welfare benefits. The 2011 numbers showed that out of 4,086 applicants tested, 108 of the tests came up positive for drug use. The numbers indicated very few welfare recipients were drug users.
The State countered the interpretation by saying that drug users did not take the test because they knew what the outcome would be. Some credence is to be given to such position. However, I find it hard to believe the number who avoided taking the test was anywhere near the number who actually did.
There is the United states Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. To mandate wholesale testing of all welfare applicants without something more was considered by some improper. Where was the necessary requisite of reasonable cause? How can reasonable cause even be determined in a mass testing situation?
A federal lawsuit came about. It was inevitable. The case was Lebron v. Wilkins. Judge Mary S. Scriven of Orlando rendered her decision this past New Year’s eve. She found the law to be unconstitutional in that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The law permitted in effect illegal searches and seizures by mandating mass urine testing of a particular group. The Judge found no pervasive drug problem among welfare recipients.
The only governmental study on the subject was one done by Florida itself in 1998. The study is referred to as the Demonstration Study. Judge Scriven relied on it as part of her decision. She said Florida’s Demonstration Project was the only competent evidence of record addressing drug use by Florida welfare recipients.
The study indicated there was a lower rate of drug usage among welfare recipients than the population of Florida as a whole. The study further found there was no indication of children being adversely affected.
Florida’s own study came back to bite the State in the ass.
Scott has stated Florida will appeal.
Now for the interesting part of this story.
Prior to his election as Governor, Scott owned a drug testing business. Solantic. An urgent care chain consisting of 32 sites. Drug testing was one of Solantic’s more popular services. During the campaign, Scott estimated the worth of his Solantic holdings to be $62 million.
Upon election, Scott did the right thing. He divested himself of his interest in Solantic. The question is did he divest in a proper fashion. Scott transferred the shares in a revocable trust to his wife.
Scott’s attorneys met with the Florida Commission on Ethics. Apparently the procedure was acceptable. I however question the propriety of the revocable trust transfer to the wife.
There is the adage if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck. The same applies here from my perspective. Conflict of interest rears its ugly head. The problem arose when Scott supported and signed into law welfare drug testing. It went a step further when he required by Executive Order that certain State employees also be tested. His wife owned the controlling interest in his former company Solantic. Solantic had to benefit to some extent in the revenue to be derived from the drug testing.
I am not saying Scott did anything wrong. However, it is my belief that a high ranking official such as a governor should be as pure as Caesar’s wife. There is an appearance of conflict of interest.
This matter goes a step further. We live in an age where people believe most public officials are benefiting from their positions. Generally to the detriment of the citizenry. The mandatory urine testing scenario does not play well with the
Governor’s image. Right or wrong, it supports the public’s general feeling that something may be amiss at the high ends of government.
[livemarket market_name="KONK Life LiveMarket" limit=3 category=“” show_signup=0 show_more=0]
Thanks, Mr. Petrone, for pointing this out. Anyone paying attention already knows what a self serving crook our governor is, but for those living in caves this is a perfect example of Scott’s modus operandi.
Scott started out in doughnuts. From doughnuts to drug urine test kits. Scott sure likes investments. Who doesn’t? It’s the American way of life.
Why is drug testing such a personal affront? If you’d ever been a business owner, you would realize what a difficulty it is to deal with people who are drug abusers and from whom you expect productivity. Personally, I have “peed in a cup” on just about every occasion I took on a new job as a term of employment, and as a business owner, I now fully understand why. Asking welfare recipients to do so is not a slap in their face. It is done so that the taxpayers are not shelling over their tax dollars to fund drug use. Drug use has, unfortunately, become so widespread that there just doesn’t seem to be a way around drug-testing. There would be no need for drug testing if people didn’t use drugs, so please don’t villify anyone who has been forced to adopt the practice.