# Florida gubernatorial election 2014 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 11, 2014, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026 "2014-02-11T02:56:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/21 "2014-02-12T00:01:48Z")
And again, pretty ambitious projections. As for his other policies, all good with me. The rail project was a wasteful boondoggle, drug testing welfare recipients is as wise as what New YOrk is doing, which is forbidding them to buy cigarettes, alcohol, or gamble with EBT funds, and scrubbing the voter lists is required by federal law. The federal government also lost its case to keep their databases from Florida officials. If Florida officials were trying to disenfranchise people, they wouldn’t have cared about the accuracy of their records. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/22 "2014-02-12T00:22:24Z")
You know the drug testing program is [unconstitutional](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/31/judge-nixes-florida-welfare-drug-testing/) and actually [cost the state money](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0), right? ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/23 "2014-02-12T00:24:19Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > forbidding them to buy cigarettes, alcohol, or gamble with EBT funds I do like this. I feel like this is the only thing the people in my neighborhood spend their money on. Daily trips to the corner store to buy booze, lotto tickets, loosies, cigars, and other items which are marked up considerably, since they’re aware most of their customers walk there and don’t have a vehicle. Welfare recipients shouldn’t be able to waste tax dollars on this crap. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/24 "2014-02-12T00:25:40Z")
It was one judge, which is not a definitive ruling. If government drug testing is illegal for welfare recipients, how is it legal for government job applicants? As for it costing the state money, that is just false. In order to believe this falsehood you would have to believe that welfare recipients are paragons of virtue, because they use illegal drugs at a rate lower than the overall population. What actually happened is that drug users simply didn’t apply, which means the state saved a ton of money. Anyone who has ever been involved in a workplace drug testing program would know that you rarely get positives because drug users don’t apply for jobs where there is testing. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/25 "2014-02-12T00:31:11Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If government drug testing is illegal for welfare recipients, how is it legal for government job applicants? Job applicants have to satisfy a **lot** of requirements that welfare applicants do not. ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/26 "2014-02-12T00:32:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > As for it costing the state money, that is just false. In order to believe this falsehood you would have to believe that welfare recipients are paragons of virtue, because they use illegal drugs at a rate lower than the overall population. What actually happened is that drug users simply didn’t apply, which means the state saved a ton of money. These assertions could be easily proven using numbers. 1. Show the number of welfare recipients before and after the policy was enacted. 2. Show the cost of the drug testing program If the dollar amount decrease (if any) due to welfare recipients going down (if any) is greater than the cost of the drug testing program, you win. Otherwise you’re making an empty statement. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/27 "2014-02-12T00:32:12Z")
> [@](#): > > If government drug testing is illegal for welfare recipients, how is it legal for government job applicants? Because a government job is not a protected liberty interest within the ambit of the Due Process Clause, at least until you already have it. Having said that, I am all in favor of drug testing state legislators. Unfortunately, none of the Republican majority saw fit to introduce such a bill. I’m sure you will be able to offer a citation for your theory about the low rate of positive tests - since there wasn’t a reduction in the number of applications. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/28 "2014-02-12T00:47:11Z")
Receiving welfare is not a liberty interest. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/29 "2014-02-12T00:50:22Z")
As for how the policy affected applicants: > **[Binary-, Forex-, CFD-Trading Blog - floridafga.org](http://www.floridafga.org)** > > floridafga.org It deterred them a great deal. and later, in October of that year, we find: > **[Drug and Alcohol News Archive - Partnership to End Addiction](https://drugfree.org/drug-and-alcohol-news/)** > > Where Families Find Answers 1600 people refused the drug test, and thus didn’t collect welfare. ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/30 "2014-02-12T00:59:59Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > As for how the policy affected applicants: > > [Binary-, Forex-, CFD-Trading Blog - floridafga.org](http://www.floridafga.org/2011/09/the-impact-of-florida-new-drug-test-requirement-for-welfare-cash-assistance/) > > It deterred them a great deal. > > and later, in October of that year, we find: > > [Drug and Alcohol News Archive - Partnership to End Addiction](http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/community-related/almost-1600-welfare-applicants-in-florida-decline-to-undergo-drug-testing) > > 1600 people refused the drug test, and thus didn’t collect welfare. Interesting, I just googled the first thing that came to my head, “Florida welfare drug testing cost” and this popped up right near the top. [http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html) I would consider the Miami herald a neutral source, whereas you’re quoting from an advocacy website funded by the Koch brothers. Hardly a neutral source. [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foundation\_for\_Government\_Accountability](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foundation_for_Government_Accountability) > [@](#): > > **Florida Welfare Drug Testing Controversy** > > A study funded and written by the organization contributed to Florida Governor [Rick Scott](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Rick_Scott)’s defense of his controversial welfare drug-testing law, requiring benefit recipients to take a drug test as a qualification for benefits. The law came under fire from the ACLU and other groups,\*\* and a Bush-appointed federal judge threw out the Foundation’s study as evidence, claiming it was “not competent expert opinion” and that “even a cursory review of certain assumptions in the pamphlet undermines its conclusions.”\*\*[[7]](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foundation_for_Government_Accountability#cite_note-FloridaInd-7) ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/31 "2014-02-12T01:01:40Z")
The Herald can be as neutral as it wants, if it only counts people who tested positive as “savings”, then it’s an invalid study. Now a Koch-funded study can be biased because it asks questions in a misleading way, but they’d have to be lying about DCF finding a big drop in applicants after the law was implemented. If applicants did indeed drop by 20% or so, it’s hard to see how that didn’t save money. ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/32 "2014-02-12T01:07:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The Herald can be as neutral as it wants, if it only counts people who tested positive as “savings”, then it’s an invalid study. Now a Koch-funded study can be biased because it asks questions in a misleading way, but they’d have to be lying about DCF finding a big drop in applicants after the law was implemented. > > If applicants did indeed drop by 20% or so, it’s hard to see how that didn’t save money. What I’m saying, or rather quoting, is that a neutral news outlet reported that a Bush-appointed judge threw out the study entirely because it contained baseless assumptions which completely compromised the validity of the study, making it biased and worthless. Except, of course, to cover Rick Scott’s butt. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/33 "2014-02-12T01:08:22Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The most we can expect from a governor is… for the economy to perform about as well as expected? I was kind of expecting my governor not to turn down federal funding for rail projects, not waste a shit-ton of money drug testing welfare recipients for zero return, and not randomly disenfranchise black people. YMMV. And if Scott is smart, he won’t make a campaign issue of **any** of those things and will try to change the subject if Crist brings them up. ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/34 "2014-02-12T01:09:39Z")
Granted, I spent all of nine minutes lazily looking for anything at all which backs up what your conservative-agenda driven foundation wanted to push on me. All I managed to find so far was that neutral and reputable sources call it bullshit. Just saying. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/35 "2014-02-12T01:16:19Z")
They call it BS by only counting positive, or sometimes positive+cancelled, drug tests as savings. In order to believe that, you’d have to believe that poor people are less likely to use drugs than average, which would contradict oh, about 50 years of social science and statistics. But hey, it’s unbiased, so critical thinking is unnecessary. My point is that well meaning journalists can be morons. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/36 "2014-02-12T01:17:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You know the drug testing program is [unconstitutional](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/31/judge-nixes-florida-welfare-drug-testing/) . . . Then, it won’t be an election issue. ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/37 "2014-02-12T01:26:26Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > They call it BS by only counting positive, or sometimes positive+cancelled, drug tests as savings. > > In order to believe that, you’d have to believe that poor people are less likely to use drugs than average, which would contradict oh, about 50 years of social science and statistics. > > But hey, it’s unbiased, so critical thinking is unnecessary. > > My point is that well meaning journalists can be morons. My point is that politically driven advocates can be not morons, but unethical creeps. > [@](#): > > Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants, data used against the state in an ongoing legal battle shows. > The findings — that only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed — are additional ammunition for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state and won a temporary ban on the drug-testing program in October, said ACLU spokesman Derek Newton. > Attorneys for the state immediately appealed the ban, and will face off against the ACLU again at the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta and the U.S. District Court in Orlando in coming months. > > ``` > The costs and benefits of the law — and the outcome of the court case — could reverberate nationwide. This week, Georgia passed its own drug welfare law. > > ``` > > Since Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law last year, 25 states have considered similar legislation, Newton said. > Data about the law’s cost may impact the court of public opinion, but Jenn Meale, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, said it won’t play a role in the legal proceedings. > That’s because ACLU’s case rests on whether the law violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against “unreasonable searches” by the government. > “Any costs associated with the program are irrelevant to the analysis of whether the statute is constitutional,” Meale said. > **Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.** > **The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.** > > **The state’s net loss? $45,780.** > “That’s not counting attorneys and court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy,” Newton said. > The law also didn’t impact the number of people who applied for benefits. > The findings don’t ruffle supporters of the law, who say that its primary purpose is to make sure taxpayer money doesn’t supplement drug use. > “It’s not about money, it’s about the drug issue,” said Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Lecanto, who sponsored the legislation. “It’s about using every tool we have in the toolbox to fight drugs.” > Jackie Schutz, a spokeswoman for the governor’s office, said the governor agreed: The drug welfare law is about protecting children and getting parents back to work. > “It is important to ensure that people who receive TANF dollars use the cash assistance appropriately and not spend it on illegal drugs,” she said. > Smith said he believes the law helps keep people off drugs and that there’s undocumented savings in the form of less prison costs and fewer broken families. > He sponsored another bill in 2012, recently signed into law by Scott, to allow state agencies to drug test their employees and fire those who test positive. > That law is also expected to cost money and to yield lawsuits. Read more here: [http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html#storylink=cpy](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html#storylink=cpy) So let’s say I pretend it doesn’t cost the state anything in man hours. Aren’t I already compromising the results of my study? Because in the real world, it costs money for man hours. And if there is going to be court battles over unreasonable searches, those costs have to be factored in. But I’ll even call those a mulligan. Let’s pretend it’s all on the ACLU, those costs, and ignore those, to be as fair as possible. But let’s pretend I wasn’t trying to be as fair as possible. Let’s say I took one month, and extrapolated results from that month, and claimed they were representative of an entire year. Whether they were or not. From your own linked study: > [@](#): > > Table 2 shows that **for July,** 9.6 percent of otherwise qualified applicants for cash assistance were denied for a drug-related reason. With an approximate annual savings to the state of $1,608 per drug-related denial (see Table 3), these 574 denials\*\* from July 2011\*\* **represent annualized savings** to Florida taxpayers of $922,992. The cost of reimbursing the 5,390 approved applicants with a negative drug test ($30 average for each) reduces this annualized savings figure by $161,700, for a net savings to taxpayers of $761,292 for the **first month** of the program alone. Since Florida’s\*\* initial denial rate\*\* is 9.6 percent, the State is currently saving an estimated $5.71 on drug testing for every $1 it spends reimbursing approved applicants with negative drug tests who ultimately receive cash assistance. **If these July trends continue throughout the first year,** the drug testing requirement will save Florida taxpayers $9,135,504 from July 2011 through June 2012. What is unclear is why the total number of cash assistance approvals\*\* in July,\*\* even if all drug-related denials were to have been approved, is about 10 percent lower than June 2011. Do you see what sort of assumptions I, a nobody, know-nothing schlub with barely any interest in this subject at all, can lazily demolish from the comfort of my bedsheets? Your advocacy group has ABSOLUTELY ZERO INTENTION of conveying the truth to anyone. They intend to cherry pick one month and turn it into a trend using weasel words and extrapolations and assumptions. Y’know, the kind of crap that can get it thrown out in court by a Bush appointed Judge and made a laughingstock of on a neutral newspaper. Your move. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/38 "2014-02-12T01:29:30Z")
I’m sure that many Floridians have extremely strong views about the Cuba embargo, and vote according to those views, but how much influence does the governor really have on that issue? It’s a federal embargo, and so you’d need someone in the federal government-- a senator or representative-- to do anything. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/39 "2014-02-12T01:32:54Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’m sure that many Floridians have extremely strong views about the Cuba embargo, and vote according to those views, but how much influence does the governor really have on that issue? None directly, but his stance can shift the Overton Window. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026/40 "2014-02-12T01:44:08Z")
> [@Askthepizzaguy](#): > > My point is that politically driven advocates can be not morons, but unethical creeps. > > Read more here: [http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html#storylink=cpy](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html#storylink=cpy) > > So let’s say I pretend it doesn’t cost the state anything in man hours. Aren’t I already compromising the results of my study? Because in the real world, it costs money for man hours. > > And if there is going to be court battles over unreasonable searches, those costs have to be factored in. > > But I’ll even call those a mulligan. Let’s pretend it’s all on the ACLU, those costs, and ignore those, to be as fair as possible. > > But let’s pretend I wasn’t trying to be as fair as possible. > > Let’s say I took one month, and extrapolated results from that month, and claimed they were representative of an entire year. Whether they were or not. > > From your own linked study: > > Do you see what sort of assumptions I, a nobody, know-nothing schlub with barely any interest in this subject at all, can lazily demolish from the comfort of my bedsheets? > Your advocacy group has ABSOLUTELY ZERO INTENTION of conveying the truth to anyone. They intend to cherry pick one month and turn it into a trend using weasel words and extrapolations and assumptions. > Y’know, the kind of crap that can get it thrown out in court by a Bush appointed Judge and made a laughingstock of on a neutral newspaper. > Your move. They didn’t cherry pick a month, they used the two months since the law went into effect that they had data for at the time. So far, your unbiased sources have not presented any meaningful data whatsoever. Instead, they’ve chosen to use intentionally misleading statistics. But that’s okay, they are unbiased. Applications for welfare dropped sharply in the two months after the law went into effect. Those numbers come from DCF, not the Kochs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-gubernatorial-election-2014/681026.md?page=3)