Welfare State To Require Drug Tests – Bans Bath Salts

Florida’s mini-dictator Gov. Rick Scott has signed a law that requires welfare recipients to get drug tested.

Mao has spoken, his will be done:

Controversy over the measure was heightened by Scott’s past association with a company he co-founded that operates walk-in urgent care clinics in Florida and counts drug screening among the services it provides…

In April, Scott, who had transferred his ownership interest in Solantic Corp. to a trust in his wife’s name

Clearly that has nothing to do with why he signed this State dictate.  This is about protecting Americans from pot smoking Americans (since hard drugs are out of your system in a few days while pot can show up in drug tests a month later).  Obviously Scott wants more people on welfare to start using meth amphetamines which are much harder to detect in drug tests.

In addition to requiring the beneficiaries of stolen loot to submit to drug testing, Scott also signed a law that protects people from abusing bath salts; by banning them:

“The chemical substances found in ‘bath salts’ constitute a significant threat to health and public safety,” the governor’s office said in a statement. “Poison control centers in Florida have reported 61 calls of ‘bath salts’ abuse, making Florida the state with the second-highest volume of calls.”

A whole 61 calls – out of 18.5 million people.

I think it’s time to call out the National Guard and arrest some bathtub producers for not adequately ensuring their bathtubs have sticky mats in them.  Statistics from the year 2000 show over 341 dead from drowning in their bathtubs.  Clearly the lack of sticky mats is just as dangerous at bathtub salts.  But I digress.

I love the Dems response to this law:

“Governor Scott’s new drug testing law is not only an affront to families in need and detrimental to our nation’s ongoing economic recovery, it is downright unconstitutional,” – Rep. Alcee Hastings.

“[the tests] represent an extreme and illegal invasion of personal privacy.” – Rep. Corrine Brown

As opposed to laws that order a person to disclose their income under penalty of being kidnapped and imprisoned.  Get it straight kiddies, one law is an invasion of privacy, while the other law is a perfectly acceptable form of social justice.





  • Adam

    [I also posted this on Reddit.com]

    While I agree that this drug testing could possibly encourage harder drug use, in principle it also seems like it is silly not to test welfare recipients. If the government insists on playing Robin Hood with our money, the wealth should at least go to those who are not going to spend it on drugs (although it is clear that [1] The government is doing this to perpetuate the drug war, not to encourage responsible use of welfare money and [2] These drug testing measures will be ineffective for many reasons). The logical extension of this, however, is that the government should be able to prevent them from spending this money on most things. Why let a welfare recipient buy $50 shoes when they could buy $25 shoes? Again, I have no problem with this because it is OUR money.What I do have a problem with is the whole welfare system to begin with, which seems to make this sort of fascism sensible (on top of a whole host of other problems).Additionally, let’s not discredit ourselves by referring to these substances as “bath salts.” The bath salts they are talking about are actually the drug MDPV. They are sold as bath salts with the label “Not for human consumption,” thanks to the drug war. Now, instead of providing all the information about the substance and the danger it may or may not pose, the company instead has to cover its ass from the government by simply providing NO information about what it is and what it will do to you.

    • I thought the same thing.

      For about 5 minutes.

      Then I realized the entire fiasco is a joke.

  • I agree with Adam.

    If we want to support welfare, perhaps we should have commissaries instead of food stamps, clothing depots instead of a welfare check, etc.  If people are being forced to subsidize others, they have every right to protect their investment.  If one is so irresponsible as to need state or federal assistance, he is likely irresponsible in other areas.  The flip side of liberty is responsibility.  Want the freedom to do drugs?  Don’t mooch off of others.  And, by the way, drugs should be legal.  

    • If you agree that ” If people are being forced to subsidize others, they have every right to protect their investment. ”

      Then I assume you are in favor of drug testing for drivers licenses, marriage licenses, hunting licenses, student loans, etc.. etc.. etc..

      It is the only logically consistent position given your comment.

      • Rearden_Steel

         The only example you gave that moderately supports your statement is the student loans.  You don’t get a driver’s license to get a tax payer supplied car, or a hunting license for a tax payer supplied shotgun.

        • You get a drivers license to get a tax payer supplied road.

          You get a hunting license to get a tax payer supplied park.

          • Rearden_Steel

            While it may be arguing semantics, those two licenses don’t provide what you say.  I do, however, agree with you in principal that we’re living in a welfare state.

            The solution would be to get rid of, or at least reform all types of federal welfare.  Couple that with abolishing the DoE and you everything you listed covered.

          • I would rather just abolish the coercively funded State.

            The State has no legitimate right to engage in theft or wealth redistribution through coercive measures.

  • Xoomfarr

    um, We do realize that bath salts are a drug correct.. they are not talking about the stuff you take a bath in.

    • You’re kidding me.  I thought they were talking about Morton’s water softener.

      No kidding sherlock, if you are going to comment on this site I at least expect you to have more than 1 brain cell.