In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Florida: Targeting the poor, refusing to protect children

Two new laws on the books in Florida: One to require drug tests for welfare recipients, and one that makes it illegal for doctors to ask patients about their firearms. Interesting priorities.

Testing welfare recipients for drugs is a massive waste of taxpayer dollars, and a major privacy invasion. It’s been found unconstitutional in some circuits, since the 4th Amendment protects Americans against unreasonable searches. It’s a scary precedent to suggest that receiving public funds should leave you open to government invasion of your body. The argument in favor of drug testing seems to be, “Some people don’t deserve welfare.” Except, really, everyone deserves to eat and to have a roof over their heads — including drug users and addicts. If we want to help folks with addiction, the solution isn’t to make their lives harder and cut off their (already minimal) income source; it’s to fund social service programs for the poor, and make addiction treatment accessible and reasonable for low-income people. And as a practical point, if the goal is saving money, drug testing doesn’t do it — testing every welfare recipient is more expensive than maintaining aid without testing. But of course, this isn’t about saving money. It’s about targeting and punishing the poor.

Also on the Florida GOP target list? Children’s safety. Florida has passed a law preventing doctors from asking patients about their firearm ownership and use, which on its face sounds silly — why would your doctor ask you about your guns? — but is actually relatively important in pediatric care. As Dahlia Lithwick details:

The scuffle over “docs vs. Glocks” seems to have started when a pediatrician in Ocala asked the mother of a young child whether she kept guns in the home. She refused to answer because, as she put it, “whether I have a gun has nothing to do with the health of my child.” When the doctor told her to find another pediatrician, the women threatened to call a lawyer. Consider: According to a suit filed this week by the Brady Center, 65 children and teenagers are shot every day in America, and eight of them die; one-third of American homes with children under 18 have a firearms in them; and more than 40 percent of those households store their guns unlocked and a quarter of those homes store them loaded. What was it that mother said again? Oh, right, guns have nothing to do with the health of our children.

Pediatricians are trained—indeed, they are explicitly advised by the American Academy of Pediatrics—to inquire about the presence of open containers of bleach, swimming pools, balloons, and toilet locks in the homes of their patients. It’s part of their job to educate parents about potentially lethal dangers around the home. (Pediatricians have also been known to ask about menstruation, painful sex after childbirth, birth control, and the travails of potty training, all in the interest of patient well-being, by the way). So one might wonder why an inquiry about guns is the place to draw the line in the sand, the ultimate threat to personal privacy.

It’s not like pediatricians can take away your guns, but that’s what the NRA and the GOP seem to think — the NRA initially suggested that the punishment for violating the “no asking about guns” law should be prison time or a $5 million fine. Seems reasonable. I think we should institute the same punishment for wasting everyone’s time and money on stupid laws that actively harm the most vulnerable. The NRA alone could solve the U.S. debt crisis.


77 thoughts on Florida: Targeting the poor, refusing to protect children

  1. The “I don’t want to pay for people’s drug habits” argument bugs me, because of this… what if I were to say “Well, I don’t like my tax money paying for people to buy beer?” or even “I don’t like my tax money to pay for people to go to the movie theatre?”

    Do I get to dictate that welfare recipients make sure that every last penny they receive goes to food, shelter, heat and absolutely nothing after that? Do we start doing breathalyzers when people pick up their cheque? Do we have the ushers ask patrons if they’re receiving welfare, to make sure that not a single penny is being squandered?

  2. The drug testing (especially since it’s ridiculous given the differences in how some drugs show up on tests and others don’t if you wait a few days) infuriates me, and the gun issue makes absolutely no sense. Aren’t the gun owners protected by doctor-patient confidentiality? Unless parents are using a gun to harm their child, the doctor wouldn’t be legally allowed to report the fact of their gun ownership to authorities.

  3. Rick Scott co-founded and is heavily invested in an urgent care chain in Florida that provides, surprise, drug testing. Oh, excuse me, his wife is heavily invested, because he signed over his shares to her after he was elected. He’s also supported drug testing of all state employees. Also, also, he supports trying to move 3 million Medicaid patients to private managed care (HMOs) which would expand that urgent care chain’s client base by about (carry the 1) 3 million people.

  4. I’m extremely bothered by the attempt to divide welfare recipients into the deserving, virtuous poor and the undeserving un-virtuous poor. I actually argued with a reactionary ass yesterday about this law, and his argument was “my taxpaying dollars, blah blah blah…” Ironically, he is drawing unemployment, which is totes different.

    If we want to help folks with addiction, the solution isn’t to make their lives harder and cut off their (already pithy) income source; it’s to fund social service programs for the poor, and make addiction treatment accessible and reasonable for low-income people.

    Ask me sometime about my very (very) recent forays into the maze of addiction treatment and how it’s basically reserved for the sons and daughters of professional people, and even then, completely overpriced and unavailable to all but a handful of the population at large, insured or not. But anyway, medical addiction is seen under the disease/disability model for a reason, primarily the *inability* to quit using *even when suffering catastrophic consequences.* Knowing this and nevertheless removing social services from addicts and their families is ruthlessly cruel and inhumane.

  5. Those two things aren’t even the tip of the failberg that is Scott and the teabagger legislature. Florida hasn’t hit Michigan levels of stupid yet, but we are trying so hard.

  6. IIRC, Rick Scott was also deeply involved in Medicare fraud. He’s the last person who should be accusing anyone else of being undeserving of public financial support, in addition to the classism underlying such proposals (hey, can we test people claiming the mortgage interest deduction on their income taxes as well? Claiming business write-offs? Benefitted from the bank bailouts?)

    The knee-jerk response to a rather justifiable question from a doctor about the possible presence of accessible projectile weapons in a home with kids who may not know any better than to avoid treating them like toys is a predictable outcome of decades of fearmongering by organizations that *should* know better. Goodness, there’s a pretty big gap between the gub’mint comin’ to take yer guns and your friggin’ health care professional trying to get a sense of the possible sources of danger your kid may encounter at home. Sheesh. It’s not as if having the right to be armed and dangerous somehow eliminates the necessity of care, caution, and respect for the potential harm those weapons can be used to cause, yet any minimal effort to bring that subject up somehow gets turned into “gun-grabbers! gun-grabbers!” and comparisons to jackbooted thugd busting into homes to seize that stupid little .22 your mom gave you years ago. It makes having a mature conversation about the subject impossible.

  7. how it’s basically reserved for the sons and daughters of professional people, and even then, completely overpriced and unavailable to all but a handful of the population at large, insured or not.

    [I feel like sharing. Even when you’re insured, your insurance will probably only pay for 7-10 days of care which is barely long enough to detox, if it’s enough at all. If you’re not insured, you’re looking at 2-3 days which you may or may not pay out of pocket. Successful addiction treatment modalities recommend 90 days of managed inpatient care (the longer the better), including group therapy, individual therapy, family therapy, medication, post-treatment planning, and some kind of halfway house or sober living environment so you don’t leave inpatient and go back to your old using friends and habits. For this you will expect to pay about $50,000 completely out of pocket, minimum. During one desperate search, I found one treatment center that would do a 30-day program for “only” $15,000. Here’s an example of pricing for inpatient care only. Our treatment of addicts in this country is fucking shameful.]

  8. I am completely in favour of allowing drug addicts and casual drug users to have food and shelter. Also, welfare does not even begin to cover the cost of a drug addiction, so they needn’t worry about it.

  9. “Testing welfare recipients for drugs is a massive waste of taxpayer dollars,”

    I stop here every time. I cannot fathom that the percentage of drug-using welfare recipients is so high that denying them coverage (saving money!) will offset the cost of testing ALL welfare recipients (losing money 🙁 ). Fucking ridiculous.

    I could go into the ethics of why this is wrong, but I can’t do it as eloquently as most of you and I really don’t think it’ll convince the right that they’re wrong. They need to acknowledge the poor as people, and I’m frankly convinced they’re incapable of it.

  10. Thanks for writing about this. I’ve seen this status going around Facebook lately:

    Florida is the first state that is now going to require drug testing for welfare! Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional but it’s completely legal that every other working person had to pass a drug test in order to support those on welfare? RE-POST IF YOU AGREE!!! Let’s get Welfare to the one’s who NEED it, not those that just WANT it!

    …and it’s just really, really depressing and anger-inducing to know that so many people feel this way.

  11. For those in need of a dual diagnosis I would suggest looking into http://www.unityrehab.com. They are highly recommended nationwide and have some of the best staff to provide you with the services you’ll need to reach a proper recovery. They’re affordable and accept anyone because their primary focus is to make sure you reach a healthy positive recovery and have the ability to prevent from any relapse to take place.

  12. Aren’t the gun owners protected by doctor-patient confidentiality? Unless parents are using a gun to harm their child, the doctor wouldn’t be legally allowed to report the fact of their gun ownership to authorities.

    They don’t even want the doctors to be able to counsel patients about appropriate gun safety measures. The NRA opposes ANY research that might help elucidate new ways to prevent gun injuries.

  13. Fun fact: they did this in Jacksonville from 1998 to 2001, and of the 8,797 people applying or receiving welfare benefits drug tested, 335 tested positive. So a grand total of 4% of the people were using drugs.

    Also, I’d like to point out that this law requires the person being tested to pay for their own test, which is $35-40. How are they going to pay for it? Hmm…

  14. FashionablyEvil: They don’t even want the doctors to be able to counsel patients about appropriate gun safety measures.

    Disgusting. Another example of ignorant people trying to tell doctors what they can/can’t talk to their patients about. It’s a wonder why anyone wants to enter medicine anymore. Thanks for linking to that article.

  15. Brandy:
    Thanks for writing about this. I’ve seen this status going around Facebook lately:

    …and it’s just really, really depressing and anger-inducing to know that so many people feel this way.

    Ugh.. I know.. I always want to scream “JUST BECAUSE IT’S LEGAL TO SCREEN EMPLOYEES DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT!!!”

  16. This is what happens when the Protestant Work Ethic is on force. “No one ever gave me anything. I work, keep my head down, and don’t ask for anything. I am entirely self-sufficient. What can’t they be the same way.”

    The problem is that we’ve never articulated wholesale why this attitude is not congruent with people who live in poverty. There’s a big difference between a solidly working class existence and living hand to mouth. And instead of having a conversation in which this is discussed and disseminated, we have stupid, counter-productive bouts of finger-pointing. Useless. All useless.

  17. They test drugs on people in third world countries too. My mother’s told me horror stories of things gone wrong with women who tested things like birth control pills–they were too poor to afford the ones that have been cleared, so testing them out in case they worked sounded like a good deal to them because they had no other option.

  18. The thing I don’t understand is, if you cut people off from their (presumably) sole source of income because they have a habit you look down on, where does that leave them?

    Isn’t this basically begging people to commit more crime – roobery, mugging, drug trade, etc etc etc?

    Wouldn’t mandated rehab be a better idea? I mean, in the “lesser of two evils” sense.

  19. Okay, I got this far:
    “the solution isn’t to make their lives harder and cut off their (already pithy) income source”

    and I stopped. You do not mean “pithy”, apt, cogent, snappy and short. You mean “a pittance”, a small, negligible amount. Make a note of it.

    1. Okay, I got this far:
      “the solution isn’t to make their lives harder and cut off their (already pithy) income source”

      and I stopped. You do not mean “pithy”, apt, cogent, snappy and short. You mean “a pittance”, a small, negligible amount. Make a note of it.

      Whoops! That is what I get for writing quickly and not proofing.

  20. Regarding the drug testing of people receiving public assistance, my question is, to what end? Is it if they don’t “pass,” they don’t get the assistance? As others pointed out, that is counterproductive and just plain cruel. If it is to provide them with treatment, then that is better, although I doubt that is the reason, and that still is disturbingly paternalistic.

    I don’t agree with a law banning doctors from mentioning guns, either- that’s just stupid. But I do have to say that the mother’s response could have been perfectly fine in her case (which I know nothing about). She said “whether *I* have a gun has nothing to do with the health of *my* child.” (emphasis mine). Not giving her the benefit of the doubt about her gun safety is also paternalistic. We have guns in my house b/c my partner is a federal officer. I don’t feel that I should have to discuss this with a doctor even if I did have kids; I feel the response ‘that is not relevant here’ is fine. Of course, the doc should be free to ask and to provide safety suggestions. Maybe I just have a sore spot with docs being paternalistic (not about guns, but other issues, such as weight).

  21. Nahida: Oh Jill, you are so kind and patient and a better person than me.

    I’d have been like MAKE A NOTE OF YOUR FACE.

    Word.

  22. Nahida:
    Oh Jill, you are so kind and patient and a better person than me.

    I’d have been like MAKE A NOTE OF YOUR FACE.

    I am way less mean on the internet now than I used to be and still? That. Right up there. In all caps.

  23. Nahida:
    Oh Jill, you are so kind and patient and a better person than me.

    I’d have been like MAKE A NOTE OF YOUR FACE.

    No seriously that was the most important thing to take away from this conversation.

  24. Nahida: IT’S NOT A FUCKING WEASEL!! *punches*

    OK you just had me busting out laughing at work on a day filled with shitty depressing news stories. I curtsy in your general direction.

  25. :::Passes over mushrooms stuffed with curried lentils, braised mustard greens, and roasted beet salad to Nahida for her utter awesomeness:::

    :::Also has homemade chocolate fudge cake if that’s your thing Nahida:::

    Nahida:
    Oh Jill, you are so kind and patient and a better person than me.

    I’d have been like MAKE A NOTE OF YOUR FACE.

  26. Why not just round the poor up, and scream “YOU’RE POOR BECAUSE YOU’RE WORTHLESS, AND YOU’RE WORTHLESS BECAUSE YOU’RE POOR!”

    Don’t hide it in rhetoric.

    UK Prime Minister is cut from this cloth too. He’s decided that nobody obese, or with a substance abuse problem, is worthy of assistance.

  27. What I don’t understand is why people who are unwilling to work for themselves deserve public tax dollars in the first place. Why should the tax dollars that I work hard for go to someone who is not working? Are they entitled to the fruits of my labor?

    This matter is made even worse when drugs, alcohol, and tobacco are involved. I don’t use those substances because they cost too much so why should I have to purchase it for someone else? I support drug testing for people on welfare but would prefer it if the government left charity work to non-profits.

  28. Rare Vos:
    The thing I don’t understand is, if you cut people off from their (presumably) sole source of income because they have a habit you look down on, where does that leave them?

    Isn’t this basically begging people to commit more crime– roobery, mugging, drug trade, etc etc etc?

    Wouldn’t mandated rehab be a better idea? I mean, in the “lesser of two evils” sense.

    Like many Republican ideas, it’s short-sighted and pretty much guaranteed to make life worse for everyone, not just the no-longer-welfare-recipients, down the line. Yes, having a bunch of poor people who use drugs with absolutely no assistance will cut a few bucks from the welfare budget today, but then raise the budgetary requirements for police and prisons if these people are then pushed to crime to survive, or hospitals when they’re dropping in the streets from starvation, or from having to start a corpse-collecting department to collect the bodies from neighborhoods. It’s short-sighted and cruel for the sake of being cruel with saving money as a completely fraudulent excuse as the costs of the problems raised by people with no support will far outweigh the costs of minimal support now. And of course, when a Republican gets caught in this same mess, THEY’LL be the special angels whose circumstances are sooooo different than those… other people… Just like Republican abortions.

  29. I fail to see why it’s any doctor’s business whether you have guns in your home or not. Let’s say you’re the most irresponsible gun owner alive – you never teach your children about gun safety and you leave loaded weapons laying all over the house, fine. What difference does it make whether your pediatrician is aware of it or not? There’s nothing that makes a doctor especially qualified to instruct anyone about gun safety, and it’s not as though you can catch some sort of illness from guns. Either your child gets shot or not. What sage wisdom will the pediatrician impart? “You know, if your child gets a hold of your gun and shoots themselves, it will have negative health consequences.” Thank you, Captain Obvious. The only way the question makes any sense is if gun ownership in and of itself is being used as a check mark in the “creating an unsafe environment” category, which would prompt many gun owners to tell a doctor “Go fuck yourself.”

  30. The drug test law is ALL KINDS of ridiculous…and offensive to the working poor, tax payers, people in general etc etc

    As for the guns…I think that law does just sound “silly.”. However, I don’t think a doctor should be able to refuse patients based on what they will tell them. Yes, I know they want to make things safe for familes, but if a mother won’t tell you something, can’t you still educate her and provide information on safety? Doctors should not be refusing patients no matter the reason (just as I shouldn’t get harassed / blocked by doctors and pharmacists when attempting to fill my birth control prescription) but it happens…unfortunately a law like this won’t fix the issue, and limits doctors while providing care.

  31. I don’t get what’s so offensive about mentioning to parents that they should think about how accessible their guns are to their children. Like it or not, guns are a potential safety hazard. It’s not a value judgment. I’ve been asked about guns (which I do own), inflatable swimming pools, car seats, stairs, and, yes, hot coffee.

    I was advised not to drink coffee while nursing my baby so as to avoid scalding her. Is that obvious? Sure. Was I tempted to do it, anyway? Yes. Did I think twice because my midwife explicitly mentioned it? You bet. And that was the point.

  32. What’s sad is a that if people are denied welfare because of drug usage the ones who will be suffering are not the drug users, but their kids who they are probably providing for.

  33. JD:
    What I don’t understand is why people who are unwilling to work for themselves deserve public tax dollars in the first place.

    Hi, have you met the economy? I’m willing to bet a good portion of the people receiving assistance are willing to work if the work is available.

    Having been on assistance, it’s fucking humiliating and dehumanizing, and hardly what you would call a comfortable living, and while there are always *some* people who abuse the system, a lot of people are on it because they NEED to be, not because it’s a fucking free ride.

    I seriously resent the assumption that people on welfare are lazy and unwilling to work. So fuck right off with that.

  34. First, Nahida for the win.

    Second, this:

    What difference does it make whether your pediatrician is aware of it or not? There’s nothing that makes a doctor especially qualified to instruct anyone about gun safety, and it’s not as though you can catch some sort of illness from guns.

    So, first off: People often listen to their doctors. For example, even brief simple advice from a physician increases the chance that someone will be successful in quitting smoking.

    I could certainly see it being the case that a pediatrician might say, “Do you have any guns in your house? Do you keep them locked up?” Similarly, “Do you have a pool at home? Have you checked the fence and placed a lock on the gate to prevent your toddler from wandering in and drowning?” and that those questions might help a parent realize that there was more they could be doing to help keep their kids safe.
    Accidents, homicides, and suicides are leading causes of death for children and adolescents. I certainly think doctors can play a role in reducing those risks.

  35. JD:
    What I don’t understand is why people who are unwilling to work for themselves deserve public tax dollars in the first place.Why should the tax dollars that I work hard for go to someone who is not working?Are they entitled to the fruits of my labor?

    This matter is made even worse when drugs, alcohol, and tobacco are involved.I don’t use those substances because they cost too much so why should I have to purchase it for someone else?I support drug testing for people on welfare but would prefer it if the government left charity work to non-profits.

    Where are your statistics that tell you the amount of people who receive these benefits do not work?

    Where are your statistics that tell you that these people are more likely to spend this money on drugs?

    Where are your statistics that tell you that these people aren’t in fact looking for work, but want a “free ride?”

    If you don’t have any reliable studies/statistics/numbers from a reliable source and now one that has an agenda to push so they want to give you unreliable stats, then please tell everyone why you have this viewpoint on people who receive government help. If what you’re saying cannot, in fact, be backed up with truth, then why you sayin’ it, and why do you believe it?

  36. As the article says, if doctors are banned from asking about guns, why should they not also be banned from asking about bleach, swimming pools, balloons, and toilet locks? Or asking about menstruation, painful sex after childbirth, birth control, and the travails of potty training? Or asking about smoking, drinking, etc? If doctors are allowed to ask about all sorts of things, why single out guns? Why is this such a sensitive topic that even asking about it was proposed to result in jail time and a $5 million fine? Is the idea that guns could possibly be dangerous so scary? Doesn’t anyone see anything very authoritarian and extreme about jail time and a $5 million fine for asking a question, or disturbing that one of the most powerful special interest groups in the country wanted this to be the penalty?

    My doctors will ask me about my smoking and drinking habits all the time. They’ll also tell me that these things can be risk factors for certain health problems. That doesn’t mean my doctors are going to take my alcohol away; and it doesn’t mean I’m obligated to answer; and it doesn’t mean they have the right to refuse me if I don’t answer; and it doesn’t even mean that the question will even necessarily help me or result in useful advice. It’s just an acknowledgement of fact. What’s wrong with that?

  37. Mechelle: Where are your statistics that tell you the majority of people who receive these benefits do not work?

    I would add to that – why do you think that the majority of people who do not work are unwilling to work? And of those who are actually unwilling, what makes you think that most of them don’t have a good fucking reason? I’m thinking of parents who, if they start working, will lose benefits in direct proportion to the amount of money they earn, but then won’t be home to care for their children. And then, somehow, they’re supposed to support themselves AND pay for childcare with the same amount of money. If I was in that situation I’d probably say the job wasn’t worth it, too!

  38. Brandy:
    Fun fact: they did this in Jacksonville from 1998 to 2001, and of the 8,797 people applying or receiving welfare benefits drug tested, 335 tested positive. So a grand total of 4% of the people were using drugs.

    Hey Brandy, do you have a link for reference? I would love to use this stat in the blog post I just wrote, but I couldn’t find any articles 🙁

  39. andrea: Hey Brandy, do you have a link for reference? I would love to use this stat in the blog post I just wrote, but I couldn’t find any articles 🙁

    I have seen this referenced in several articles but I can’t find the original source, though I know that the program was conducted by the Florida Department of Children & Families (DCF). The article above mentions it (with less detail):

    The ACLU of Florida disagrees and cites a 2001 Florida pilot study that looked at drug use among welfare recipients.

    Newton said the study was stopped after only a year because it failed. The study found drug use among welfare recipients was equal or less than the general public’s drug use, Newton said.

    The ACLU said the study found the drug testing program would cost more to run than the state could possibly save by eliminating drug users on welfare.

    Here’s one article that references it: http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2011-05-05/story/bill-will-mandate-drug-tests-florida-welfare-recipients

  40. JD: This matter is made even worse when drugs, alcohol, and tobacco are involved. I don’t use those substances because they cost too much so why should I have to purchase it for someone else?

    Seriously? What are you even talking about? You don’t not use those substances because they cost too much, you don’t use those substances because you don’t have a substance abuse problem. If I was American, I wouldn’t be thrilled about my tax dollars going to a disgustingly overinflated defense budget and 3 useless wars, but hey we can’t really pick and choose can we?

    How exactly do you know that the majority of people who are on welfare are not working? That’s a myth/opinion that I sure wish would stop being stated as fact. Someone working 2 minimum wage jobs likely actually works harder than you and may still live way below the poverty line.

    1. How exactly do you know that the majority of people who are on welfare are not working? That’s a myth/opinion that I sure wish would stop being stated as fact. Someone working 2 minimum wage jobs likely actually works harder than you and may still live way below the poverty line.

      Seriously. A lot of people on welfare DO work, or would work if they could. There seems to be an assumption that people on welfare are just lazy, but in reality there are complex and myriad issues. Some people are on welfare for short periods of time until they find permanent work that pays them a living wage. Other people are on and off welfare for years — and this is anecdotal, but the folks I’ve worked with who are on welfare tend to have really complicated reasons why it’s hard for them to hold down permanent jobs. A big reason is health issues, for themselves and their kids. When I was doing legal services work in a dense urban area, nearly all of my clients had at least one child with a serious health issue. There were regular hospital and doctor visits, and mom often had to stay home to care for the child — either missing work for days at a time, or, in the case of severely ill children, being a full-time care-taker. Then there were the inevitable housing issues and other legal issues — welfare or some other department would screw up and not pay the rent on time, and eviction proceedings would begin, and there would be court dates and attorney meetings and on and on, all of which requires missing more work. So the folks who did have jobs often had a really difficult time keeping them. Then they would get fired, which would negatively impact their benefits, and the whole thing would start again.

      Point being: It’s not as easy as “get a job” or “the majority of people on welfare are/aren’t working.”

  41. the fact of the matter is, regardless of how one feels about it, DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL.
    so testing to make sure that tax dollars at a time when many are upset at the amount of wanton spending by the government isnt being spent on illegal activity, furthermore this is for welfare assistance, which leaves other programs available for the truly addicted and hungry criminal.
    theres even the option of asking ones church or other community center for private assistance.
    or even seeking help for the addiction, but providing funds to fuel their addiction at the cost of taxpayers is not a valid answer

  42. “so testing to make sure that tax dollars at a time when many are upset at the amount of wanton spending by the government isnt being spent on illegal activity”

    You know what makes me feel awesome about my tax dollars being spent wantonly? When we spent $500,000 making people miserable to line the pockets of a total prick who, by all appearances, actually gets an erection from making people miserable in order to avoid spending $25,000 on welfare benefits for people who abuse drugs.

    If your actual fucking problem is government overspending, it shouldn’t make you feel better that we wasted $475,000 to avoid spending $25,000. It should, in fact, make you feel like we just pissed away a half-million dollars when we could have pissed away a tiny fraction of that.

    (Above numbers pulled out of my ass based roughly on the 4% sampling given above. Actual amounts are probably way higher.)

  43. Does anyone know whether the drug testing statute includes any wording that protects people taking medications prescribed to them? I’ve looked, but I haven’t been able to find info either way on that.

    Just trying to see how many levels of rights infringement this law contains.

  44. The drug test law is just a vile example of what happens when you give a little man a balcony, nothing else to say that hasn’t already been said to death.

    As for the gun law, I think its a lot more complicated than a lot of people think. I’m not an expert on Florida confidentiality exceptions, but in the state in which I live there are a lot of times when a doctor is allowed to breech confidentiality. There are also a lot of times when a doctor is required to breech confidentiality. Technically, I’m supposed to report every patient I have with a diagnosis on a certain list to the State Police so they can’t get a gun card. One of the big reasons I think a lot of people are afraid of doctors asking questions about guns is that you don’t know where or how that information is going to be used not just today but five or six years down the line.

    I think a lot of friction between gun owners and gun control proponents comes down to the two sides just not understanding one another. Gun owners have been made to feel like criminals, they often feel marginalized (yeah, its bullshit, but thats the experience in the community), there is a constant sense that this thing in their lives which is both a constitutional right and historically safe for them is going to be attacked over and over again. You end up with a siege mentality and people who are extremely protective of their rights. The most important thing that I think a lot of people not involved in the gun community don’t really know, though, is that there is a pretty heavy focus on responsibility. People who treat guns like toys, who don’t educate their kids, who don’t think and follow basic safety protocol become very unwelcome very quickly. Yet because of a lot of myths about guns and how they work, the safety-obsessed community is constantly being told by people who don’t use guns how to use guns safely. A doctor asking about firearms in the house isn’t likely to be the expert in that interaction and the question ends up feeling intrusive.

    Its a question I would never (and have refused to) answer for a doctor because I just don’t see how its relevant. I don’t see how having my gun ownership documented helps me in any way. I know my doctor doesn’t have some special gun safety tips that I wouldn’t already know. More importantly, I’ve learned the hard way that blindly trusting doctors isn’t always the best idea. I’m not going to my doctor to give me a comprehensive evaluation of my life’s safety. I don’t want them to tell me to exercise more or drink more tea or eat more fish. Its mission creep, its paternalistic, and public health initiatives in general feel both very intrusive and very condescending. Thats doubly true given the history of public health and the ways it has been used to oppress. I go to the doctor for physical health, anything more isn’t the service I’m paying for.

    Should it be against the law? Thats kind of silly. Am I going to be quite firm in my refusal to answer any questions that don’t have a direct baring on the specific problem I’ve come to a doctor for? You bet your ass.

  45. William, everything you said is fair, but that isn’t the issue. As I understand it, the issue isn’t whether the patient has the right to refuse the question, nor is the question whether asking the question will be productive. Those are other debates and other discussions. The question at issue here is whether the doctors should have their license revoked and basically their life destroyed, 9 years+ of medical training, a career for god knows how many years of decades, just for asking a 5-second question. That question has now been answered by the Florida legislature in the affirmative. The gun community may be unfairly marginalized and their siege mentality may be justified, but it doesn’t justify them creating special protected standards just for them and imposing harsh and draconian laws on the rest of society.

  46. >The gun community may be unfairly marginalized and their siege mentality may be justified, but it doesn’t justify them creating special protected standards just for them and imposing harsh and draconian laws on the rest of society.

    I don’t see it as much of an imposition. Doctors and other health care providers have a lot of power, they ask a lot of questions they shouldn’t, they interfere in ways that have little to do with the concerns their patients bring to them. Now they can’t ask a nosy question some of them would have liked to ask. Boo hoo, tough shit, serve your damned patients and shut the hell up. It really isn’t that tough, I do it every day. The absolute best way to not accidentally trigger a patient is to not stick your nose into matters unrelated to the task at hand.

    Look, I have to ask my patients about the details of their sex lives because its central to the work I do. I have a valid reason for asking and thats part of the work patients come to me to do. But a G.P. doesn’t need to know those same details when a person comes in with a head cold. It just isn’t relevant. Too many doctors have forgotten that. Maybe guns aren’t the right place to start, maybe the law is draconian, but I’m not exactly bleeding with sympathy here.

  47. Jill: Seriously. A lot of people on welfare DO work, or would work if they could. There seems to be an assumption that people on welfare are just lazy, but in reality there are complex and myriad issues. Some people are on welfare for short periods of time until they find permanent work that pays them a living wage. Other people are on and off welfare for years — and this is anecdotal, but the folks I’ve worked with who are on welfare tend to have really complicated reasons why it’s hard for them to hold down permanent jobs. P>

    The Florida Chamber of Commerce has been pushing legislation. Including drug-testing welfare recipients. The Chamber of Commerce is trying to eliminate employers paying unemployment insurance. As, well as make the corporate tax rate zero. Mark Wilson of the Florida Chamber is the most powerful man in Florida.

    Drug-testing the unemployment is about profits for health care companies doing the testing (it is still uncertain if Scott sold Solantic) and keeping people from collecting unemployment.

    I live in Florida and even Republicans are avoiding Scott. One Republican running for Miami mayor told a radio show he voted her Scott’s opponent Alex Sink.

  48. William, no one is asking you to “bleed with sympathy”. You’re making assumptions left and right. You’re assuming these doctors know nothing about guns, or couldn’t possibly help any patients with tips about gun safety, even if it’s just a reminder to think about it. That’s not a valid assumptions. That something “feels intrusive” or hurts your feeling isn’t a valid reason to revoke a doctor’s medical license or trample on freedom of speech. If even one child’s life is saved by a normal patient-to-doctor interaction where routine gun safety comes up, then it’ll be worth more than all of the hurt feelings in the world. And we know this stuff does happen. Just a couple of months ago a toddler shot and killed his mother due to a gun that wasn’t stored properly. Just last week a 13 year old boy in Palm Springs shot and killed himself accidentally. It’s pretty amazing that a gun community supposedly so concerned about safety priorities their own right not to have their feelings hurt over innocuous questions over the possibility of saving the life of a child.

  49. William: But a G.P. doesn’t need to know those same details when a person comes in with a head cold. It just isn’t relevant. Too many doctors have forgotten that. Maybe guns aren’t the right place to start, maybe the law is draconian, but I’m not exactly bleeding with sympathy here.

    Except the law wasn’t touched off by a nosy GP — it was touched off by a pediatrician asking about the presence of a device which, if improperly stored and safetied, is a risk factor in child injury and mortality in a home with a child. The wider problems you speak of are just that — wider problems that need to be dealt with on their own, properly. Restricting the ability of a doctor to ask a question about a potential risk factor is precisely the kind of knee-jerk reaction that will do nothing to solve the broader issues of doctor-patient confidentiality and forced state reporting you’re talking about, since it does nothing to actually address them on the scale necessary.

  50. “Guns play a role in three of the top five causes of injury-related deaths among children in Florida: accidental events, homicide and suicide. In Jacksonville alone, four children died in gun-related homicides last year and in 2009; in 2008, there were eight.

    Two recent incidents involving kids and guns in Northeast Florida have helped galvanize the bill’s detractors. In Palatka, a 5-year-old boy was caught with a loaded handgun inside a prekindergarten class this month. The boy told authorities he found the gun inside the vehicle in which he rode to school.

    A week earlier in Jacksonville, a 6-year-old girl shot herself in the chest after finding her father’s gun unattended.”

    Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-01-31/story/florida-physicians-take-nra-gun-privacy-issue#ixzz1OtvupqTY

    Obviously, this has nothing to do with pediatricians’ jobs– someone who’s profession is to keep kids healthy and alive couldn’t possibly have any interest in this issue. Obviously, every single person with a gun is 100% infallible, needs no reminders, and always follows best practices all the time.

  51. I don’t think the new law about the guns and pediatricians thing bans doctors from handing out literature or advising on safety so much as specifically asking. It’s probably going to get treated the way a lot of doctors treat the bullshit statements they have to read before abortions due to anti-choice grandstanding. “I can’t ask you if you have a gun in the house, but I’d like to point out the copious stack of brochures, pamphlets, and print-outs about children and gun-safety I have sitting right here on this table.” Pediatricians also, for instance, typically do not come out and check on your car seat to make sure you installed it properly, since handing out literature on the topic tends to be reasonably effective without sucking up too much of their time.

  52. preying mantis, brochures about children and gun-safety are “bullshit statements”? I don’t see how that’s true. We’re even against brochures on gun safety now???

    Your scenario is an assumption. It’s “probably going” to do this… “probably going” to do that… can we please just go by the facts and not what we would like to believe for once. The law does not define harassment, so what you just listed (handing out brochures, advising etc.) could be construed as “harassment” under this law. And given that the doctor could lose their license if they fail to guess correctly, this could have quite a chilling effect.

    Also, no pediatricians is going to anyone’s house and checking anything, so I have no idea why that is relevant. People seem very reluctant to discuss the actual law and what it does. Rather we have gone on numerous tangents, speculations and assumptions. What’s next? Let’s throw people in jail for asking if their neighbors have guns. Or making any negative statement about guns to a possible gun owner. That’s harassment, too. Heck, throw me in jail. My comments may have made someone here feel bad.

  53. Wouldn’t mandated rehab be a better idea? I mean, in the “lesser of two evils” sense.

    This is way upthread but I don’t think it should go unanswered (even if it was rhetorical).

    No. Mandatory rehab is not a better idea because it’s not even a good idea in the first place. 1) Not everyone who uses drugs abuses drugs and needs any form of rehab. 2) The only time I can see mandatory rehab being justified (and I can understand how other people wouldn’t see this as justified either) is when it comes as part of a sentence after committing violent crimes due in part to the drug use. Being poor isn’t illegal (well, um, not technically…. in reality though?).

  54. Well, Tony, that’s certainly a novel way to interpret my post. I mean, it’s totally wrong, but you know, don’t let that stop you with your performance art piece on poor reading comprehension.

  55. What sage wisdom will the pediatrician impart? “You know, if your child gets a hold of your gun and shoots themselves, it will have negative health consequences.” Thank you, Captain Obvious.

    Agreed. Either the adults in the house have common sense, or they don’t. It’s not exactly a big secret that leaving loaded guns on the floor if you have children is a bad idea. If the adults in the household don’t realize that, chances are the children aren’t living in a safe environment with responsible adults.

    Most responsible adults with common sense keep their guns unloaded, locked up, etc. My step father hunts and doesn’t leave loaded rifles lying on the couch. I mean, for FFS. If you have to tell someone it’s a bad idea….

  56. Gun owners have the political clout to ensure that if a doctor asks a patient about their firearm ownership and use, the doctor will be struck off and fined up to ten thousand dollars. William thinks this is because gun owners are a marginalised group and feel “under siege”.

    I think this is privilege on the same lines as Christians complaining that they’re a marginalised group and feel under siege because gay couples get to have some of the same rights and benefits as married couples some of the time.

    Gun ownership is monstrously and absurdly privileged in the United States. It’s defined as a civil right, f’fsake, which is a complete nonsense (and looks like a majorly NRA-serving interpretation of the Second Amendment, too). The notion that a doctor is allowed to remind you that drinking hot coffee while you breastfeed may scald your baby, but not allowed to ask you whether any firearms you own are safely locked up, is because gun owners are this weak, meek, mild, powerless, besieged group of people desperately in need of protection from the big bad doctors…

    …well, William, privilege never sees its own privilege, but this one is pretty damn glaring.

  57. Either the adults in the house have common sense, or they don’t. It’s not exactly a big secret that leaving loaded guns on the floor if you have children is a bad idea. If the adults in the household don’t realize that, chances are the children aren’t living in a safe environment with responsible adults.

    So if the parents don’t have “common sense”, the kid obviously deserves to die. That’s just how it is, they were born that way, they lack the “common sense” gene, hence any advice or intervention is always useless.

  58. Agreed. Either the adults in the house have common sense, or they don’t. It’s not exactly a big secret that leaving loaded guns on the floor if you have children is a bad idea. If the adults in the household don’t realize that, chances are the children aren’t living in a safe environment with responsible adults.

    There are lots of health behaviors when we know what the healthier thing to do it–we just don’t do it (smoking, drinking too much, not eating more fruits and veg). It is usually NOT lack of knowledge that causes us to engage in unhealthy behaviors, but lack of motivation to change that behavior. A conversation with a physician just might be what a person needs to nudge them in a healthier direction.*

    Also, the idea that all gun owners are super responsible and always always do the right thing is laughable.

    *As a public health professional, I will note that public health pretty much always has a certain degree of paternalism to it. I think it’s more or less unavoidable for it to be present in some form in public health interventions, although it can certainly be managed more/less effectively.

  59. Gun owners have the political clout to ensure that if a doctor asks a patient about their firearm ownership and use, the doctor will be struck off and fined up to ten thousand dollars.

    Sorry, but this statement is completely untrue.

    Anyway, guns make me uncomfortable, and as a parent I have no desire to have a gun in my house ever. But I grew up in a gun-owning house with multiple guns stored around (disassembled and unloaded) that were my father’s and grandfather’s and I imagine I’ll inherit them someday and have to do something with them (sell them, most likely, god). A doctor being mandated to question a family about their gun ownership is no great crime or burden, but I have serious reservations with the flippant way that gun rights are being presented here, especially coming from a rural background where guns function as day-to-day tools used in your life the same as a tractor, or a truck, or a flashlight.

  60. Florence: Sorry, but this statement is completely untrue.

    Sorry, but the news story that the original statement links to (and a search I did on the legislation in Florida) says it is true. (The initial NRA demand of five million got bucked down to a maximum of ten thousand, but a doctor can still lose their license for asking if a parent has guns and understands gun safety rules for children.)

    but I have serious reservations with the flippant way that gun rights are being presented here

    I find it hard not to be flippant about the silly idea that the NRA has implanted in people’s heads that gun ownership is a civil right.

    True, for people in rural areas guns can be day-to-day tools. But you don’t have people talking up tractor ownership as a civil right: or truck ownership: or flashlight ownership. Just guns.

    Even bankruptcy court (at least in the UK) could not take away a person’s ability to earn a living – the tools of your trade are exempt. Where a gun is necessary equipment to earn a living, a person has a right to own one: but the civil right worth protecting is the right to earn a living, not the NRA-inspired twist on civil defense giving a special and profitable sanctimony on owning guns.

  61. Thanks so much, Florence. Do enjoy the one and only “civil right” in America that conservatives are consistently eager to protect.

  62. Testing positive for drug use does not equal having a drug addiction, FWIW.

    Also, from my anecdotal POV, most people who are poor enough to need assistance are purchasing their drugs with drug money, not taxpayer money.

  63. Cheap Labor Conservatives Issues Guide:

    Since prison and punishment are generally ineffective to reduce crime, and since the “cheap-labor conservatives” will hear of no economic improvements that are effective, “self defense” is about your only protection from crime. Instead of better schools, full employment and other improvements in social conditions, the cheap-labor conservative solution is “buy a gun”.

Comments are currently closed.