Who Will Pay for Drug Tests? Who Will Do the Testing?

[GoodWitch58]

Scott's needless, wasteful drug screen plans - St. Petersburg Times

In opposing the establishment of a desperately needed statewide prescription drug database that would reduce crime and save lives, Gov. Rick Scott has cited misguided, ill-informed and unfounded privacy concerns for patient confidentiality. Yet the governor has no problem calling for mandatory drug tests and random drug screens for as many as 100,000 innocent state workers while invading their privacy at a cost of millions of dollars. The lack of intellectual honesty here is remarkable.

Florida has become a laughingstock for its dubious reputation as the "pill mill" capital of the nation, with more than 2,000 lives lost every year through the illegal dispensation of prescription drugs such as oxycodone and Xanax. A prescription drug database, paid for by the drug companies themselves, would go a long way toward addressing the problem by making it more difficult for patients to doctor shop for their drugs. It also would make it easier to crack down on unscrupulous physicians who prescribe the drugs without regard to their medical need. But Scott remains opposed to this lifesaving program.

If all of the governor's drug-testing plans come to pass, the drug screening business in Florida should be booming. So Floridians should not forget that Scott founded Solantic, a chain of walk-in health care clinics, and has placed his ownership into his wife's trust. Solantic promotes its drug screen testing services on its website.

A poster yesterday was talking about consistency...this is beyond understanding.

A family member who has mostly voted Republican asked me yesterday: "Why does Governor Scott hate teachers and state employees so much?" It is a good question. I wonder what his answer is...

 

[Here4Good]

I wish that a Scott supporter could explain the pill mill issue to me - this one seems like a no-brainer. Even in our neck of the woods, the illegal prescription drug problem is a huge one.

I am having a hard time figuring out the objections.

As for drug testing state employees, I can't see what it has to do with creating private sector jobs (except perhaps for the company doing the testing, which is just another government contract job, which doesn't count) or saving the state money. It seems calculated to bring the public sector employees down a notch.

If he wants to start with the legislature and their staff, and his own staff, I might care. Frankly, I just don't see this as a problem which is crying out for a solution. It seems like another publicity stunt aimed at bringing public sector employees down a notch.

It's common in business to make your enemies pay when you win, but it's no way to run a state. If you can't govern all of the people, only those who supported you, you aren't creating an environment where anything can get done.

 

[GoodWitch58]

I wish that a Scott supporter could explain the pill mill issue to me - this one seems like a no-brainer. Even in our neck of the woods, the illegal prescription drug problem is a huge one.

I am having a hard time figuring out the objections.

As for drug testing state employees, I can't see what it has to do with creating private sector jobs (except perhaps for the company doing the testing, which is just another government contract job, which doesn't count) or saving the state money. It seems calculated to bring the public sector employees down a notch.

If he wants to start with the legislature and their staff, and his own staff, I might care. Frankly, I just don't see this as a problem which is crying out for a solution. It seems like another publicity stunt aimed at bringing public sector employees down a notch.

It's common in business to make your enemies pay when you win, but it's no way to run a state. If you can't govern all of the people, only those who supported you, you aren't creating an environment where anything can get done.

I wish a Scott supporter could explain his disdain for public employees; teachers; and the checks and balances of the three branches of government. He seems to ignore the legislature's authority; he is attempting to dismantle the court system; and almost abusing the workers who are employed by the state...maybe someone who supports him could explain why they voted for this treatment of our state and public service...

 

[30ashopper]

I think the pill mill issue (which is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, and I'm not sure why people are making such a big deal of it) stems on three issues:

1) it's based on self reporting. So the stand up organizations get burdened by added legislative overhead, while the illegal shops just keep doing what their doing.

2) funding: there's initial private funding, but after a few years Florida has to pick the tab. I believe this is being negotiated.

3) privacy concerns: the database will track everyone in Florida who uses a pharmacy to purchase drugs. Government data like that can be abused by all sorts of groups over time.

From what I understand the legislature is working on these issues in trying to hammer out a new bill. Details like this always get lost in the conversation. On the privacy issue, I think the data should expire after a few weeks. That would solve one problem with the current bill.

As far as drug testing goes I don't agree with this overall. Scott being more libertarian minded I'm surprised he's pushed this, although I've not read why he feels it?s needed, so I'll hold judgment until I do. Regardless the state, as an employer, has the right to do this as long as they conform to all state and federal laws.

 

[30ashopper]

I wish a Scott supporter could explain his disdain for public employees; teachers; and the checks and balances of the three branches of government. He seems to ignore the legislature's authority; he is attempting to dismantle the court system; and almost abusing the workers who are employed by the state...maybe someone who supports him could explain why they voted for this treatment of our state and public service...

I don't think he feels disdain for public employees, he just doesn't trust their unions. Right so too, like all special interests they should not be allowed dictate policy within our political system. If you're curious about the negative side effects of unions run amuck in a political system, look at states like California.

Scott is an important check in a set of checks and balances.

 

[idlewind]

As to the pill mill issue, there is no free lunch, someone pays. And as with local governments getting federal grants, the "free" money ends and the local government has to pick up the tab. And I am not craz about the government gathering that type of information on me.

As far as drug testing, I am shocked this was not already in effect. Private and local employees have been doing this for years. The threat of a test often forces people to seek help who otherwise would not. Random testing seems to me like a no-brainer.

 

[GoodWitch58]

As to the pill mill issue, there is no free lunch, someone pays. And as with local governments getting federal grants, the "free" money ends and the local government has to pick up the tab. And I am not craz about the government gathering that type of information on me.

As far as drug testing, I am shocked this was not already in effect. Private and local employees have been doing this for years. The threat of a test often forces people to seek help who otherwise would not. Random testing seems to me like a no-brainer.

except for a little thing like the privacy law...Drug testing of Florida employees may spark legal showdown - St. Petersburg Times

But federal courts generally have ruled that such policies violate the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches, say lawyers and legal scholars.

"You can't do blanket tests like that," said Ephraim Hess, a Davie lawyer who prevailed over the city of Hollywood in April 2000.

In that case, U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp ruled that governments cannot require prospective employees to take drug tests unless there is a "special need," such as safety. Ryskamp's ruling led

 

[GoodWitch58]

I don't think he feels disdain for public employees, he just doesn't trust their unions. Right so too, like all special interests they should not be allowed dictate policy within our political system. If you're curious about the negative side effects of unions run amuck in a political system, look at states like California.

Scott is an important check in a set of checks and balances.

No, he is disrespectful. If he was just concerned with unions, he would work with the public employees and the unions to find a suitable balance. If he valued the public servant, he would know that not all teachers are bad; not all fire fighters get huge pensions; and that most state employees make less than $40,000 a year and are not on drugs.

 

[idlewind]

except for a little thing like the privacy law...Drug testing of Florida employees may spark legal showdown - St. Petersburg Times

If the facts in the article are correct it would appear the Gov. jumped before he had everything in a row. I don't want to spend tax dollars on a court battle that the state will lose. However, if state employees are not subject to random tests then local and private employees should not be subject either. I don't think anyone wants anyhting but a level playing field for all.

 

[30ashopper]

No, he is disrespectful. If he was just concerned with unions, he would work with the public employees and the unions to find a suitable balance. If he valued the public servant, he would know that not all teachers are bad; not all fire fighters get huge pensions; and that most state employees make less than $40,000 a year and are not on drugs.

You must spend a lot of time with him considering how much you think you know about what he thinks.