|
On June 10 2011 07:25 DamnCats wrote:
I like how if you're on welfare you can be as much of alcoholic as you want. Basically the worst drug ever. WTG florida.
absolutely. alcohol abuse will rise massively.
to the guy who said we should add alcohol? go ahead and add internet useage time, and unhealthy food, and leisure outings, and magazines, and fancy clothes, or whatever you want to know the money is being spent helpfully...
|
do people on drugs not get help?
|
On June 10 2011 07:50 VPCursed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 07:46 RoosterSamurai wrote:On June 10 2011 07:35 VPCursed wrote:On June 10 2011 05:18 Boblhead wrote:
Ever state needs to do this, who knows how many people on welfare, and and disability abuse the system, I know of a lady that has 8 kids, and is fit to work, but she just abuses the system and the state pays for everything. I know that she partakes in illegal drug use as well. I know arizona the "Controversal state" was thinking about doing this, and let me tell you I'm 100% into supporting this. she has 8 kids and you want her to find a job? are u sick in the head? Do you have any idea how hard it is to even raise 1 child? So let me get this straight. She's on drugs, and you think she's actually raising those 8 kids? Bet you anything if we took a trip to her house it would smell like cat piss and cigarettes, and the children would be malnourished, spending all of their time at a friend's house because they're afraid to go home and be anywhere near one of mom's boyfriends. ah, ye. lets stereotype all those welfare recipients. ye man. Those fucking poor people. They're all the same. Lazy as hell and don't do anything. just think of the horrors this person has done. I don't know anything about except besides the fact that shes poor but I can make these huge sweeping generalizations.
I grew up near a section 8 neighborhood. I've never been in a welfare home that didn't fit my stereotype. And I've been in a lot of welfare homes. How about you?
|
On June 10 2011 07:52 boyle wrote:
do people on drugs not get help?
People on drugs view the drugs as their help. Same with cigarettes to a lesser extent.
|
This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
|
I find it hilarious that so many Americans are cheering for this, this is a blatant foot on the constitution, if this does not get overruled i will be shocked. Looking forward to them explaining why they should search everyone in need for drugs "just because". That argument is going to be a hoot.
And they say the Democrats are "ruining the constitution" at their healthcare rally's, ha.
|
On June 10 2011 07:39 darkscream wrote:
Actually, it hurts the taxpayer, because if you read the article you would know the drug tests are paid for by EVERYONE on welfare, and the cost is paid back to them by the welfare office if they are clean.
So instead of paying for drug addicts maybe (since knowing someone uses drugs doesn't actually tell you anything about what they spend their money on), you are guaranteed to pay for many expensive frivolous drug tests.
Anyone who jumps on board of "Fuck u, drug users, im not paying!" is just spewing propaganda without actually thinking about how the world works. This arrangement will cost the state more money than just paying people who may or may not be taking drugs, but qualified for assistance based on their finances - for which the amount of money they receive is already based on their bills and expenses, which have to be proven to the welfare office with receipts and records of payment - meaning they don't really have money for drugs anyways unless they lied about their rent.
This legislation is basically saying everyone on welfare is guility of fraud, and they must submit to an expensive drug test to prove their innocence.
So before you go FUCK YEAH, AMERICA, WE BEAT THE DRUG USERS, actually think about the mechanics of the situation, and who will be paying for it.
You fail to take into account all the money that won't be wasted by giving drug abusers welfare, which is quite possibly a large sum of money. Then the consequence of less drug users having the money to buy drugs is there are less drugs being bought. If that's the case then there is less money needed to fight this "war on drugs" and thus more money saved.
Now no one here has actual figures to prove which will be more cost effective, however, you should get off your high horse as if you've really taken to account all possible situations and know the best course of action.
In principle, this new policy seems like a great idea.
|
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote:
This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
Yeah. Because weed is going to keep them and their kids fed, right? I never thought of that!
|
On June 10 2011 07:53 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 07:50 VPCursed wrote:On June 10 2011 07:46 RoosterSamurai wrote:On June 10 2011 07:35 VPCursed wrote:On June 10 2011 05:18 Boblhead wrote:
Ever state needs to do this, who knows how many people on welfare, and and disability abuse the system, I know of a lady that has 8 kids, and is fit to work, but she just abuses the system and the state pays for everything. I know that she partakes in illegal drug use as well. I know arizona the "Controversal state" was thinking about doing this, and let me tell you I'm 100% into supporting this. she has 8 kids and you want her to find a job? are u sick in the head? Do you have any idea how hard it is to even raise 1 child? So let me get this straight. She's on drugs, and you think she's actually raising those 8 kids? Bet you anything if we took a trip to her house it would smell like cat piss and cigarettes, and the children would be malnourished, spending all of their time at a friend's house because they're afraid to go home and be anywhere near one of mom's boyfriends. ah, ye. lets stereotype all those welfare recipients. ye man. Those fucking poor people. They're all the same. Lazy as hell and don't do anything. just think of the horrors this person has done. I don't know anything about except besides the fact that shes poor but I can make these huge sweeping generalizations. I grew up near a section 8 neighborhood. I've never been in a welfare home that didn't fit my stereotype. And I've been in a lot of welfare homes. How about you?
Great news, your anecdotal evidence is now the law of the land, bless you and your heightened sense of stereotyping!
|
On June 10 2011 07:51 FFGenerations wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 07:25 DamnCats wrote:
I like how if you're on welfare you can be as much of alcoholic as you want. Basically the worst drug ever. WTG florida. absolutely. alcohol abuse will rise massively. to the guy who said we should add alcohol? go ahead and add internet useage time, and unhealthy food, and leisure outings, and magazines, and fancy clothes, or whatever you want to know the money is being spent helpfully...
No need to create so many bureaucracies, I'd rather just get rid of the welfare altogether. I can help the poor people in my community better than a massive centralized government can, and make sure none of the money goes to waste.
|
On June 10 2011 07:56 Bunnypanda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 07:53 RoosterSamurai wrote:On June 10 2011 07:50 VPCursed wrote:On June 10 2011 07:46 RoosterSamurai wrote:On June 10 2011 07:35 VPCursed wrote:On June 10 2011 05:18 Boblhead wrote:
Ever state needs to do this, who knows how many people on welfare, and and disability abuse the system, I know of a lady that has 8 kids, and is fit to work, but she just abuses the system and the state pays for everything. I know that she partakes in illegal drug use as well. I know arizona the "Controversal state" was thinking about doing this, and let me tell you I'm 100% into supporting this. she has 8 kids and you want her to find a job? are u sick in the head? Do you have any idea how hard it is to even raise 1 child? So let me get this straight. She's on drugs, and you think she's actually raising those 8 kids? Bet you anything if we took a trip to her house it would smell like cat piss and cigarettes, and the children would be malnourished, spending all of their time at a friend's house because they're afraid to go home and be anywhere near one of mom's boyfriends. ah, ye. lets stereotype all those welfare recipients. ye man. Those fucking poor people. They're all the same. Lazy as hell and don't do anything. just think of the horrors this person has done. I don't know anything about except besides the fact that shes poor but I can make these huge sweeping generalizations. I grew up near a section 8 neighborhood. I've never been in a welfare home that didn't fit my stereotype. And I've been in a lot of welfare homes. How about you? Great news, your anecdotal evidence is now the law of the land, bless you and your heightened sense of stereotyping!
Luckily, stereotypes have no truth to them. 
|
nm I may be wrong on this.. which is rather saddening
|
Home of the free, land of the brave....
Even the UN says the war on drugs failed and what does Florida do? They step up their game and criminalize people even more.
And now scream a bit about those "lazy drug addicted welfare bastards" without acknowledging that there are not even enough jobs for people to work on. Brave new world...
|
On June 10 2011 04:56 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 04:53 SpoR wrote:On June 10 2011 04:50 Kamuy wrote:On June 10 2011 04:46 SpoR wrote:On June 10 2011 04:43 Razith wrote:On June 10 2011 04:34 SpoR wrote:On June 10 2011 04:34 Kamuy wrote:On June 10 2011 04:28 SpoR wrote:On June 10 2011 04:27 Kamuy wrote:
I'm sorry, whats wrong with this? You stick your hand out asking me for money, I want some assurance its not going to be injected into your arm or smoked. Beggar's can't be choosers. because the honest people who don't actually do drugs. And it's not like they stick their hand out, they pay into it every paycheck when they were actually working. AND it costs a lot more money to run the testing. Why would they be against getting tested? There is ONE group of people who are being affected by this, drug users. I would think that those who dont use drugs and are on a welfare program would be happy such a test was put in place. It ensures the funds are going in the right channels and that the state can maintain the program more efficiently than before. I'm sure, just like all government run plans, the tests will probably end up costing more overall than the actual savings. I don't do drugs and I think its a fucking hassle, an invasion of privacy, and a waste of time every time I'm tested for something. Not to mention a waste of time and money from the state as well (for all the clean people obviously). You make it sound like you're tested for drugs for everything you do against your will, which is obviously not true; stop being so dramatic. To call this an invasion of privacy is a little ridiculous. They're not searching your home for drugs and paraphernalia. They're not going to gain a ton of personal information from your cup of piss. The only information that will be gained from this will be if you do drugs or not. They want to implement this because they don't want to be subsidizing criminals. The last thing we need is tax payer money being handed over to drug dealers. 9/10 jobs drug test which is already too much bullshit to endure. I mean shouldn't the interview(s) be enough to decide if the person is using drugs/fucking insane? AND they also do criminal background checks as well. Hahaha so naive. right. Like I said before people can stop using drugs, take the test, and get right back on them. I have friends that smoke weed who do shit like that all the time. weed stays in your system much to long to just quit for a bit and pass the test. to get into the military you are looking at being clean of pot for over a year. relative to the length of your hair. other drugs like crack and meth that you cannot quit for a week would show up too. if you quit for a week you are a hero and should write a book.
It's cool of you to post when you have no clue what you are talking about. You absolutely could go clean, take the test, and then get back on pot. Even the biggest pothead in the world will get clean in a month with some exercise if they aren't fat. Depending on circumstances it could happen even quicker. You also could simply drink something that cleans out your system the night before the pee test, take the test, and pass... so you wouldn't even have to stop smoking pot.
And the military doesn't do hair tests, except maybe in some very very very special jobs.
|
On June 10 2011 07:56 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote:
This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to. Yeah. Because weed is going to keep them and their kids fed, right? I never thought of that!
Nice straw man. Are you supposed to be refuting what I am saying?
The people will spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on.
|
On June 10 2011 07:54 Bunnypanda wrote:
I find it hilarious that so many Americans are cheering for this, this is a blatant foot on the constitution, if this does not get overruled i will be shocked. Looking forward to them explaining why they should search everyone in need for drugs "just because". That argument is going to be a hoot.
And they say the Democrats are "ruining the constitution" at their healthcare rally's, ha.
The drug test is voluntary, there is no violation to the 4th amendment.
|
On one hand, it's easy (and logical) to go "Hey, it's our money, you shouldn't be spending it on drugs.". On the other hand, it's infinitely harder to go up to a single mom who has two children and tell her she's homeless next month because she's using drugs to cope with her situation.
|
On June 10 2011 07:59 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 07:56 RoosterSamurai wrote:On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote:
This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to. Yeah. Because weed is going to keep them and their kids fed, right? I never thought of that! Nice straw man. Are you supposed to be refuting what I am saying? The people will spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on.
You get like $200 a month, and you have to have a child/children to be on welfare.
Good luck keeping yourself and your kid(s) fed, and still have money left to buy pot! lol
|
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote:
This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to.
People might be more inclined to agree with you if weed were legal (even if it should be, it currently isn't), and if weed was the only thing they were testing for.
The government does have a legitimate interest in ensuring that welfare dollars are spent on the things they were intended for.
|
Fact: Weed is not the only illegal drug in the United States.
Then is it possible that this isn't only about weed, guys? Oh my goodness...I never would have thought.
Point: Stop talking as if circumventing positive tests for weed is the issue at hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
