So why is drug testing wrong in this case?

[Tanasi]

The elected representative of the good folks of Florida passed a new law that was signed by the governor that requires the receiptients of welfare to submit to drug testing. An article about this is here (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/01/florida.welfare.drug.testing/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
Personally I don't have a problem with this but according to one of my SILs this is wrong and will hurt familys primarily the children.

So why is drug testing to get welfare wrong?

[Rapscallion]

Don't drugs, and the abuse thereof, hurt children more? Surely if the parents are spending the welfare money on recreational pharmaceuticals then they can't spend it on their children. If they commit crimes to fund their habits and end up in jail, what then of the children?

Actually, I'm sounding a bit Fox Newsy here. I think the part about expecting the testee to foot the bill is ridiculous - they're on welfare and can't be expected to have much coin to spread around. Also, it shouldn't really be every person getting a particular benefit - the staff at the welfare offices should be able to spot obvious signs and have people required to take the test on a specific basis instead of a broad brush approach.

For example, someone loses their job and has to resort to welfare for a while until they get something else. Can't see any reason to apply testing there. Someone comes in scratching at meth mites on their arms and has unkempt children in tow, screaming at them every so often - fuck yes.

My problem with it is in the application, not the concept behind it.

Rapscallion

[Tanasi]

The folks that pass the drug test are refunded the costs of the drug test, those that don't pass well.... I guess that's just a little less money they'll have to spend upon their happy products.
Also those that fail are also offered rehab to get clean. To make it fair and prevent it being ruled arbitrary by the courts everyone would have to submit. Within my company everyone must submit for drug testing before being hired. Even getting so-called "free" money comes with some costs be it money or time.

[Eisa]

Hmm. I'm torn on that. I can see why people would say it's not fair. But on the other hand, the way they're applying it sounds fair. Pass and get refunded, fail and get offered rehab.

[kiwi]

I have no problem with people on welfare being drug tested in order to recieve state funds IF and only IF all other people who recieve state funds are also randomly drug tested. Including and espeically politicians. They suck off the teat of the government purse more than any welfare recipient.

[draggar]

While I am all for this, many of the legal medications my wife takes would make her fail a drug test.

I'm sure she's part of the .00000001% but there are a lot of pill mills here (I think we have the highest per capita in the nation?) who can make illegal drugs look legal.

[Tanasi]

I would think a valid excuse would be proof of perscription and a listing of OTC meds.

[FArchivist]

So why is drug testing to get welfare wrong?

Emotionalism aside...is it fair to deprive of food, shelter, and the other basic necessities of life if their mother shows positive for smoking a joint? Not to mention the inaccuracy of drug tests; for instance, if you are on Medicaid the wrong prescription can strip you of benefits for months.

But never mind that. You do this. The mom smokes a joint. She gets tested positive. As long as you're OK with the kids being kicked out of the Section 8 housing, going without meals, being unable to clothe themselves, not being able to receive proper medical care, go right ahead. Because that's what no welfare means: no Medicaid, no food stamps, no Section 8 housing, NADA. Oh, and your kid has a life-threatening condition like cerebral palsy? Tough shit. On the street without meds that kid goes.

We tried this in GA. It ended badly. Especially when it turned out that DFACS was getting bonuses for every child they put in foster care.

I would think a valid excuse would be proof of perscription and a listing of OTC meds.

No, that doesn't count. Or rather, it has to be verified by a few months of bureaucratic paperwork plus doctors plus blah blah, in which time you don't get to have the benefits.

[AdminAssistant]

I'm for it. I'd suggest instituting a warning system for low-level drug use (smoking a joint). But a meth head mom or dad? Put the kids in foster care. They'll be better off.

On a sorta related note, the town's homeless shelter is right in the middle of downtown. Also, it's what's called a wet shelter. Most shelters won't let you in unless you're 'clean' - not drunk or on drugs. Not us. So we get the worst junkies in this area, and far too many for the shelter to handle. So, they hang out in the parking lot. Right around where a lot of people are walking to go to the bars/restaurants downtown and then back home or to their cars. You can imagine how well that works out - rapes, theft, assault. Lovely.

[linguist]

The folks that pass the drug test are refunded the costs of the drug test,

getting their money refunded for passing is all well and good, but what are those who don't have the money to spend in the first place, refund or no, supposed to do?

[insertNameHere]

While I am all for this, many of the legal medications my wife takes would make her fail a drug test.

I'm sure she's part of the .00000001% but there are a lot of pill mills here (I think we have the highest per capita in the nation?) who can make illegal drugs look legal.

Well, you can't really "fail" the drug test if you have a prescription for something that they find. Lol my dad had to get a doctors note when the doctor had him hold a numbing compound on the back of his dead when he did something stupid and needed bunch of staples..... it wasn't till after it was already absorbing in his skin that that mentioned it was a derivative of cocaine. Just what you want in your system when your a cop who is likely to be drug tested.

But the way I see it, most government jobs drug test, to get in the military they drug test. most private employeers drug test so why the hell should someone on welfare be allowed to do drugs when to have a job i can't, move to a fucking country where it legal if you want to do them so bad!!!! I fucking hate all the people who come in with meth mouth and ask if we take EBT, at least i wasn't offered a chance to but their food stamps.

[Dreamstalker]

The broad-brush approach is wrong; besides treating everyone like a criminal, there are legitimate harmless substances that can pop an initial drug screen (but be sorted out in more detailed testing). Since it's out of pocket, even though someone may have gotten a false positive they won't want to pony up for the other tests (which would mean they have to live with the bad result).
The folks that pass the drug test are refunded the costs of the drug test
I'll believe that when it actually happens...I've been promised reimbursements before but when it came time to actually submit the paperwork it's "oh we never said that/you read this wrong".

[Greenday]

While I am all for this, many of the legal medications my wife takes would make her fail a drug test.

I'm sure she's part of the .00000001% but there are a lot of pill mills here (I think we have the highest per capita in the nation?) who can make illegal drugs look legal.

If they are legal, she wouldn't fail the drug test.

[Dreamstalker]

That depends on how thorough the test is (does it test for legal drugs and make sure they are classed as legal/therapeutic) and whether potential false positives are actually followed up on. Some examples of positives that aren't as clear-cut:

--Positive for marijuana...the person could have been around someone who smoked.
--Positive for opiates...poppyseed bagel could do it.
--Cough syrups could flag as a couple things.

While I agree with the testing, the 'cropdusting' approach is flawed and I don't trust an overburdened agency (at least here, they come up with all sorts of reasons to deny benefits and make it impossible to appeal unless you have the time/money to waste) to do it properly.

[IDrinkaRum]

For poppy-seed bagels (or anything with poppy-seeds in it): My husband works for the Fed. Gov't. He can be drug tested at any time. He avoids those like the plague.

I think if you know you're going to be randomly drug tested (of even if you're scheduled for it), you would do well to a) stop hanging around with your druggie friends (thereby not being around someone who smoked marijuana thereby not inhaling along with them) and b) avoiding something like a poppy-seed bagel before the test.

That might be "getting around the system" though. So not sure.

Of course the best course of action is to stop doing drugs/hanging around with druggies. But only in a perfect world would that actually happen.

[tropicsgoddess]

I think that's the best thing Rick Scott has done besides the pill mill crackdown. For those that cry "privacy invasion!" on it, I disagree. Because with prospective and current employers you can be requested to go through a drug test for pre-employment screening, workman's comp or at random per company policy. With the welfare drug test, they want to know that the money the state of Florida is spending on handing out checks to welfare recipients isn't for enabling illicit drug habits, sitting on their asses and not bothering to look for work and make an honest living.

[Dreamstalker]

The ex smoked weed fairly regularly; I didn't but came up positive on a cheap test given at the school clinic. Luckily I had nothing to worry about. I'm not completely sure why it popped.

I agree with the idea of the test, but feel that it should be given more selectively; people who are clean and know it likely don't have the money to waste on a test and hope to be reimbursed.

[insertNameHere]

I think, the system would work good with, Somewhat accurate test that if you fail, your given a quick retest and have to submit an explanation of what could have happened that doesn't make you a druggie because I'm sure there is some test they could do that is more accurate. But for instance if you have a script for pain pills but they find pot.... your SOL. After failing the second test you get charged for both. if you fail the first test and know your not gonna pass another. you don't have to pay if you don't want a second one..... only needing to pay if you keep failing.

Because HONESTLY drug tests preformed in large numbers I would have to believe become somewhat cost effective and the question that needs to be asked is, how much money would be SAVED by not giving the funds to underserving drug addicts. Since really for my job where I pay taxes to fund some of the people who abuse welfare doesn't allow me to do drugs.... neither should they.

[Shalom]

I tell you, I like this proposal mostly. (I do think the tests ought to be paid by the gubmint, if they're mandating them.) There's only one thing that bothers me:

What this program does is offer the junkies an ultimatum: Get clean, or lose your benefits. How many junkies are going to pick the first option?

Let's say the program works and is successful. You now have a whole bunch of drug addicts freshly off welfare, who are desperate for their next fix, and don't have money to buy it with. (Never mind that they weren't supposed to be using that money for smack or crank in the first place.) What's that going to do to crime statistics in that area?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it happen. There just has to be some mechanism in place to deal with the resulting broke and jones-ing addicts.

[FArchivist]

getting their money refunded for passing is all well and good, but what are those who don't have the money to spend in the first place, refund or no, supposed to do?

According to most conservative thought, those people are just fucked.

If they are legal, she wouldn't fail the drug test.

That's insanity and wrong, wrong, wrong. For example, if you take synthroid, a necessary drug for those who's thyroids have failed or malfunctioned, you can fail a drug test. The standard drug tests show synthroid as an opiate, which it is not. And a doctor's note isn't going to excuse it, either.

[Andara Bledin]

getting their money refunded for passing is all well and good, but what are those who don't have the money to spend in the first place, refund or no, supposed to do?
This.

If you want to test people, then shell out your own fucking money to do it. People who are legitimately on public assistance shouldn't have to skip a meal so that they can prove that they haven't been squandering that assistance.

Well, you can't really "fail" the drug test if you have a prescription for something that they find.
If they are legal, she wouldn't fail the drug test.

First off, this is the truth:

No, that doesn't count. Or rather, it has to be verified by a few months of bureaucratic paperwork plus doctors plus blah blah, in which time you don't get to have the benefits.
My ex used to cycle for his college. But he got dropped from the team, disqualified, and was banned for one year. Because his non-steroidal inhaler made him test positive for steroids.

Oh, wait, no, he didn't test positive for steroids, but the testing center couldn't identify what was a new compound, so they classified it as steroids and it took him five months of him and his doctor fighting with them before they'd reverse their decision.

The ex smoked weed fairly regularly; I didn't but came up positive on a cheap test given at the school clinic.
I had a friend that failed a drug test due to attending a concert.

He almost lost his job over that (and it wasn't a cheap job and the testing lab was one of the best in the country), but since he was a highly trained and very well compensated individual, they were willing to shell out for a less error prone test to confirm that it was actually a one time thing.

I'd probably test positive for pot, myself, and I don't smoke. Anything. But my neighbors sit on the steps up to my balcony and smoke out several times a week. In fact, I suspect that everybody in my building would test positive despite at least half of them (including the marine who lives next door to these guys) not actually smoking it.

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

If I understand correctly, the main purpose of this bill because "if you have money for drugs, you have money for food/medicine/housing and don't need our help."

My only problem with this is that using drugs does not equal buying drugs. Someone can smoke a dube that their friend shared with them, and they'd fail the drug test. It doesn't mean they're a junkie, or blowing their benefits, or even a bad person.

Are we going to drug test just because it's a good idea? Because people shouldn't be on drugs? Great. Then let's start testing everyone for drugs.

And I firmly believe that the person who wants something done should have to pay for it. I don't want a drug test. Why would I pay for something I don't particularly want? Fuck that. You want me tested, you pay for it.

[Evandril]

If they are legal, she wouldn't fail the drug test.

Then why do we have a nice LONG list of *legal* things we're not allowed to eat/take while in the military? Please tell me your branch briefs you on all the things that will trigger a false positive like the Air Force does...I know even our stores limit what they will carry, for that very reason. (The on-base ones)

[DrFaroohk]

Yes, More BS.

"Your" (being the tester) lack of progress in the drug testing field which cannot tell the difference between an opium addict and a bagel lover is not MY problem. It should not be treated as such.

[Andara Bledin]

Also, let's not forget until as recently as just a couple of months ago, Scott held a controlling interest in a major Florida clinic that targets the poor and uninsured that also, unsurprisingly, provides drug testing. He transferred controlling interest - to his wife. And he is still on the board of directors.

This from a man who amassed the largest health care network in the world, which company subsequently defrauded the government of the US to the tune $600,000,000.00+ and who currently owns a venture capitalist firm that invests in health organizations.

I really don't understand why this was ruled as not being a conflict of interest.

^-.-^

[insertNameHere]

I really don't understand why this was ruled as not being a conflict of interest.

^-.-^

Because, he part of the good ol boy network. I mean if you get to make the rules, how the fuck do you expect to play by them

[Fire_on_High]

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it happen. There just has to be some mechanism in place to deal with the resulting broke and jones-ing addicts.

Toss them in jail.

[Tanasi]

Also, let's not forget until as recently as just a couple of months ago, Scott held a controlling interest in a major Florida clinic that targets the poor and uninsured that also, unsurprisingly, provides drug testing. He transferred controlling interest - to his wife. And he is still on the board of directors.

This from a man who amassed the largest health care network in the world, which company subsequently defrauded the government of the US to the tune $600,000,000.00+ and who currently owns a venture capitalist firm that invests in health organizations.

I really don't understand why this was ruled as not being a conflict of interest.

^-.-^

His firm is one of many that provide this service.

[DrFaroohk]

Toss them in jail.

You can't toss 'em in jail for something they haven't done yet. Jonesing means they don't have drugs, so you can't charge them with possession. And if they haven't broken the law yet you cna't arrest them just because they might.

[Andara Bledin]

Toss them in jail.
Oh, yeah, 'cause we don't have enough people crowding our jails, using up government funds for frivolous reasons as is. :rolleyes:

^-.-^

[Dasota]

I got into a discussion f this on FB, and I felt that c/p in it here would be a good idea

This is a really backward thing. You support this because you have to pass a drug test? Well I oppose drug testing altogether. For anyone. What you do in your time is you business. Also, who else but the people on welfare could use a little pot? It's a depressing as fuck world out there when you are trying your damn hardest to get a job, but no one will hire you for any number of reasons, like being in your 60s, or needing a higher pay rate then what they are willing to pay in order to be able to survive. Another thing, how is taking MORE rights away from the people a good thing? We all have a right to privacy.

The 4th Amendment states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[blas87]

You've got to be kidding me.

It really makes my head hurt when people get all militant about "Mah right to privacy!" and quoting the 4th amendment, and then get all dream and idealistic-like, "Aw come on now, everyone should be able to smoke a little pot, it's not a big deal!" or "What I do is my own business!"

Yeah, but you know what? A lot of people don't just smoke at home. I know plenty of people who toke at work. I don't want to work with people who are high. It's bad enough I've had to work with people who have been drinking before work.

You have no right against that stuff on private property, for one, and for two, there are valid reasons why employers don't want employees who actively partake in illegal (and legal, like alcohol) substances. It's liability. It's for safety. It's for the good of the company. God knows, we don't need to be paying workman's comp for idiots who come to work drunk or high and then fall into a machine or slice their fingers off or ram the forklift into a wall.

[linguist]

here's a pretty interesting article (http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility) dealing with the actual effectiveness of drug-screening welfare recipients, vs using much less invasive and much more cost effective measures.

one item i found interesting in the article is that the majority of drug screens don't test for alcohol, which is actually the most abused drug in the country.

[Andara Bledin]

one item i found interesting in the article is that the majority of drug screens don't test for alcohol, which is actually the most abused drug in the country.
Oh, but alcohol isn't the same as other drugs.
</sarcasm>

We, as a society, are such blazing hypocrites when it comes to recreational drug use. Alcohol, which causes more deaths annually then every other drug combined, is a-ok, because so many people like to drink, but everything else that they don't like or we've all had pounded into our heads is "bad" is verboten, despite most of them being notably less damaging, even when abused.

It's that sort of unreflective, ignorant attitude that causes us to spend thousands of dollars in order to save a few hundred, and then we pat ourselves on the backs for a job well done. :rolleyes:

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

I think a novel idea would be to actually blame the people who DO shit, rather than the entire group as a whole. How about you just fire the people who get high at work rather than everyone who MIGHT get high? I know, it's really far out there, holding people accountable for their own actions instead of the actions of others, but it might just work.

Or if we're gonna go with the "might" scenario, how about we do some digging and we discover that X race uses Y drug more than other races, so now why don't we say "well we're not hiring anyone who's a X-enese because they might come to work high! Hey, it's a liability thing!"

[Tanasi]

In my company we instituted pre-employment drug testing and we also included drug/drink testing for anyone that was involved in an accident directly and indirectly. Amazingly the number of accidents went down dramaticly and out workman's comp rate have gone down accordingly. I think the drug testing is a good thing and I have more confidence in my fellow workers that they're not going to injure me because they're impared.

Back OT: Why would anyone voluntarily subidise another's illegal drug habit??? Speaking for myself I do not want my conficated money to be spent on drugs, smokes or booze for anyone regardless of reason. I won't freely give money to someone that I think will use it for such. I wouldn't give money for such to my family and I certainly won't to strangers. Sometimes gifts have conditions.

False positives are a problem but while the article didn't mention one I'd say some sort of appeals process was also included. If I was going to take such a drug test I'd go with the list of prescribed drugs, and OTCs, foods I consume that might give a false positive and any conditions that could lead to such. If I'm smoking dope I wouldn't bother applying for the money.

[Andara Bledin]

Speaking for myself I do not want my conficated money to be spent on drugs, smokes or booze for anyone regardless of reason.
But it costs more to stop a single person from getting money who shouldn't than it does to give money to 50 people. It's not cost effective. You're taking money out of the hands of the needy and giving it to testing facilities. Costs will rise and benefits will fall.

False positives are a problem but while the article didn't mention one I'd say some sort of appeals process was also included.
You'd like to think so, but this is a bureaucracy we're talking about. They'd much rather toss wheat and chaff than allow for a possibility of any chaff getting through. Which is all fine and dandy when you aren't in a position to be the wheat.

Appeals processes are costly and drawn-out processes, and as I've noted myself, they can be a tough battle even with doctors involved. And they add even more cost while providing absolutely no benefit.

^-.-^

[Tanasi]

So in effect what you're saying is nothing can be done so just give them the money??? How about not give them any money at all???

[Andara Bledin]

No, that isn't even remotely what I said.

What I did say is that by doing it this way, you're handing money that could be used by people in need to drug testing companies and bureaucrats just so that you can be smug about denying a drug user or three from getting any.

It's wasteful and does far more harm than the good it's supposed to be doing.

I would hope that we, as an educated people, could manage to be smarter than that, but as it stands, I'm not going to hold my breath.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

Then what way should it be done, Andara? Our government can't afford to give handouts to hardcore drug users.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't have any answer beyond the fact that wasting money is not a solution.

And until someone can find something better, then it's actually best to keep "giving" money to "hardcore drug users." The vast majority of which don't get public funds in the first place.

^-.-^

[Dreamstalker]

I think this was brought up further back in the thread, but reserve the tests for the people who actually have some of the signs of drug use (or other behaviors that cannot be explained by medication side effects, mental issues or just poor hygiene).

Forcing a clean person to hand over money they can't afford to and then denying them benefits because of a false positive that they don't have the time or money to appeal is NOT the way to do this.

[Andara Bledin]

Forcing a clean person to hand over money they can't afford to and then denying them benefits because of a false positive that they don't have the time or money to appeal is NOT the way to do this.
Exactly. Why should hundreds of innocent people be punished just so that the few bad apples can be given the heave-ho?

If it's about the money, then the whole thing is a farce.

^-.-^

[Tanasi]

The should test everyone because if they don't then some druggie that gets tested and fails will cry, whine, complain, play the race card, etc., and some judge will say the rule is arbitrary and comprecious and throws it out. Then the good people of Florida are back to where they started.

[Andara Bledin]

So.... are you going to donate the millions that it will cost to test everybody?

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

If we're worried about "We can't afford to pay druggies" then why can we afford to test welfare recipients? Because if they get a positive, they're getting payed by the state. Which is gonna cost more than the price of just giving drug addicts welfare checks.

Its cheaper not to change anything. Its not a budget issue. The only way this could save money would be if there was an amazingly huge percentage of welfare recipients on illegal drugs. Enough that not giving so many people their monthly checks offsets the number of people who aren't druggies and therefore we have to pay for them.

[Tanasi]

So.... are you going to donate the millions that it will cost to test everybody?

^-.-^

No, sometimes there's a cost to get something and especially so if one hasn't earned it. Now that I think about it I'm already pitching in for the receipient to get welfare and moreso if they pass. I guess for those that don't then that's money they won't have to spend on dope. When thinking of this the old saying "Beggers can't be choosers" come to mind.

[Andara Bledin]

No, sometimes there's a cost to get something and especially so if one hasn't earned it. Now that I think about it I'm already pitching in for the receipient to get welfare and moreso if they pass. I guess for those that don't then that's money they won't have to spend on dope. When thinking of this the old saying "Beggers can't be choosers" come to mind.
Let me get this straight... We don't have enough money available to give all worthy recipients assistance, so you want to take that money, spend millions of it on drug testing to catch the maybe 1% of recipients who actually do drugs, not all of whom have even spent any of that money on said drugs and deny even more people who don't any access to those funds.

What sort of fantasy world does this make sense in?

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

I'm sure it's humbling (and maybe even humiliating) enough for these people to ask for financial assistance, but it's terrible that they're being suspected of something without probable cause.

If there were some who had prior convictions for usage and/or possession of an illegal substance, then test them.

[Tanasi]

First of all I don't think it will cost millions as this only applies to new applicants. I also think that many ofthose that know they'll fail won't bother to go for testing being afraid of getting in trouble with the law. This only applies in Florida and how new applicants are there each year??? In the thousands yes, tens of thousands maybe, hundreds I don't think so.
Andara At least this is a working solution to a problem, you been asked what for a solution and you said that you didn't have one. So far all you've done is snipe, please present a solution other than throwing your hands up in defeat.

IP, yes it is humbling asking for help when you can't provide for your family and yourself. Is this drug test any less humiliating than the ones lots have to take to get a job??? It has to apply to all otherwise those that get tested will asked why they were tested and those other people weren't.

As I've said before some gifts come with strings attached.

[Andara Bledin]

Andara At least this is a working solution to a problem, you been asked what for a solution and you said that you didn't have one. So far all you've done is snipe, please present a solution other than throwing your hands up in defeat.
This is a solution manufacturing a problem to make money off of.

You want an actual solution that won't cost taxpayers millions and will actually have the desired effect: Swap over to cards for all payouts. Keep tabs on where every dollar of state assistance is going. A positive solution with negligible drawbacks and negligible expenditures that will also combat other unacceptable spending habits.

I didn't offer a solution because not only was one never requested, but I don't think there is a problem to solve - this is a manufactured "crisis" for the sole purpose of sucking money out of the state.

^-.-^

[Tanasi]

Why wouldn't that solution also cost millions of dollars to create and implement???
I'm not saying your idea is a bad one just would be a long time in development and implementation and most likely expensive. It would probably combat other fraud.
The thing is, the drug testing is something that can be ready to go fairly quick as the vast majority of the "infrastructure" already exists.

[Andara Bledin]

The federal government has already mandated that all states use EBT cards for food stamps as of 2002, so it's a program that is already in place, with a solid foundation and available throughout the country. There is actually less of a barrier to entry for that then for mandating drug testing, which has to be built from the ground up in terms of policy and administration, will cost the state millions within the first few years and offer no benefit, especially when compared to using cards.

Add in the fact that anyone that fails a drug test can designate someone else to receive money on behalf of their kids that they can then take and spend on drugs, this idea is worse than useless.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

First of all I don't think it will cost millions as this only applies to new applicants.

Wrong. The legislation says it applies every time someone reapplies. Every person on welfare has to reapply every year for it. Those are the rules. So it's not "new applicants"

I also think that many ofthose that know they'll fail won't bother to go for testing being afraid of getting in trouble with the law.

If that were true (which I don't think it is), then that means that only the innocent will be tested - and have to pay for that testing.

This only applies in Florida and how new applicants are there each year??? In the thousands yes, tens of thousands maybe, hundreds I don't think so.

1,690,000 reapply for benefits every year. And that was in 2008. They believe they've added another 300,000 right now due to the rather atrocious economy.

Is this drug test any less humiliating than the ones lots have to take to get a job???

Absolutely. I can refuse the job and walk away with my dignity.
Or, I can refuse to take the test to get benefits, walk away with my dignity, and starve to death on the street.
Hmmmm.