Looks like Florida's program to drug test welfare recipients will save the state $40thousand to $98thousand a year, not including cost of administering the program, at a cost of only $178million. tbo.com
This has nothing to do with Florida governor Rick Scott's shadow-ownership of the major drug testing company in Florida.
Republicans are against government intrusion into people's private lives. This is not an intrusion into anyone's private life, either.
I have been broke and homeless in my life too, and spent many years doing all of the kinds of labor that are needed to get by - I was the only grad student who I knew who was doing landscaping, cleaning toilets, and painting houses. I also went to school on GI bill dollars, after putting my life on the line in foreign countries and giving my body and brain to the US Army for a chunk of my youth. I'm secure and making good money now, while working very, very hard and taking a fair amount of abuse, but still doing well.
Even so, this discussion isn't really about whether we should have gov't support for people - a valid topic, I agree, but a separate topic. It's about a hypocritical, profiteering republican politician who is spending over 178 million dollars of taxpayer money to filter out the 2% of public assistance recipients who are being "bad" by ingesting or inhaling addictive or intoxicating substances; which will save under a hundred thousand dollars. That's under 0.1% savings or something like that. Meanwhile they preach about gov't spending.
I think it's pretty blatantly classist to employ drug testing in such a selective manner. This type of law assumes that the only people that receive government money are the poor when, in fact, there is a large amount of money going out the door in oil subsidies, farm subsidies, business "incentives", tax breaks to the ultra wealthy to "create jobs", etc.
Let's not forget that there is also non-cash governmental funding in the form of free schooling for our children, free police protection, the court system (which the wealthy and corporations benefit more greatly from), fire protection, military protection, etc.
If we are going to really drug test people who receive "hand-outs" from the government, shouldn't we be testing pretty much every US citizen rather than just the poorest ones? The problem is that some people assume that poor = drugs. Coincidentally, I would think you'd find a fairly large number of drug abusers among the wealthy (i.e. musicians, actors, executives). We all pretty much know that Bill Maher smokes pot, but he recieves a substantial tax break because of how much money he makes. Documents coming out of Enron showed an environment of drug use among upper management as part of the "fast" lifestyle. I could go on...