EPTFlorida to drug test for welfare - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Alabasern
United States4005 Posts
| ||
|
huameng
United States1133 Posts
On June 10 2011 12:59 sunprince wrote: I'd propose the solution that anyone who cannot pass a drug test be provided access to centers where they can get food, shelter, clothing, drug counseling, etc. No cash unless you can pass a drug test. Sound reasonable? I don't think they consider the drug addicted life on welfare "too good", but apparently, it's "good enough" that they are willing to continue it. I don't think proposing different solutions is in the scope of this discussion. I'm much more interested in arguing against what is currently going down in Florida. I wouldn't really like what you proposed either, but it's certainly better than what the Florida legislatures came up with. And they think the drug addicted life is better than life in rehab, right? I doubt they think their life is better than, oh, Dirk Nowitzki's, but still better than checking into a drug treatment facility. The solution to this is to make drug treatment facilities better, not to make the drug addicted life worse, and that is something I can get behind wholeheartedly. I also don't find the drug addicted life being good enough to willingly continue it a problem, and even if you think it is a problem, it's not one that should be solved with a "quit or starve" ultimatum. Also, to people arguing for the lawfulness of this: see http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility. As of a few years ago... Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional. | ||
|
Ryalnos
United States1946 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Cause is to make sure the government isn't handing out money to people so they can just buy drugs with it. Makes perfect sense to me. User was warned for this post Clever. | ||
|
ILIVEFORAIUR
United States173 Posts
This is incredibly scary from my point of view. It creates an incredibly unethical precedent which can, and most likely will, be used to make it legal for the government to drug test anyone. Welcome to 1984 Winston... | ||
|
Eknoid4
United States902 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 10 2011 15:40 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Why stop at welfare? Why not drug test everyone who does anything with the government? Why not drug test everyone who works for the government? Why not drug test everyone who gets benefits from the government? After all, we don't want people sitting on the road, which we have paid for with our tax dollars, to use drugs. This is incredibly scary from my point of view. It creates an incredibly unethical precedent which can, and most likely will, be used to make it legal for the government to drug test anyone. Welcome to 1984 Winston... You think this sets a precedent that Obamacare doesn't ? | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On June 10 2011 15:00 huameng wrote:Also, to people arguing for the lawfulness of this: see http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility. As of a few years ago... Neat link. If drug testing is as inefficient as the ACLU describes, then it makes sense not to use it. In any case, this discussion is basically moot, since if implemented the policy would most likely simply be struck down in similar fashion. | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
On June 10 2011 15:00 huameng wrote: I don't think proposing different solutions is in the scope of this discussion. I'm much more interested in arguing against what is currently going down in Florida. I wouldn't really like what you proposed either, but it's certainly better than what the Florida legislatures came up with. And they think the drug addicted life is better than life in rehab, right? I doubt they think their life is better than, oh, Dirk Nowitzki's, but still better than checking into a drug treatment facility. The solution to this is to make drug treatment facilities better, not to make the drug addicted life worse, and that is something I can get behind wholeheartedly. I also don't find the drug addicted life being good enough to willingly continue it a problem, and even if you think it is a problem, it's not one that should be solved with a "quit or starve" ultimatum. Also, to people arguing for the lawfulness of this: see http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility. As of a few years ago... ACLU is hilarious. Why do I have to take a drug test for a job but welfare applicants get to avoid it? Funny how the people that pay taxes so we have programs like this get no representation like this. Is it that incredibly hard to stay clean so you pass your test and then you can resume your addiction? Come the fuck on. | ||
|
Frigo
Hungary1023 Posts
| ||
|
Billyray
Canada49 Posts
The attitude of "I have to do it to get a job, why don't they have to do it to get free money" is really shortsighted at best and doesn't take into consideration all the potential pitfalls of such a program, instead of focusing on one little potential benefit. This is cutting the nose to spite the face: adressing the problem with better rehabilitation programs and job creation would help in the long term, but this is just a political bandaid. | ||
|
iNSiPiD1
United States140 Posts
| ||
|
PolSC2
United States634 Posts
I don't get it. Back on topic: Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable. | ||
|
2on2
United States142 Posts
There would be more government funding if these users were simply cut which could be used for rehab programs and such, unfortunately the article also states if you fail the testing you can allocate the funds to someone else. Im assuming this is where things get tricky because how are they going to screen that person or accept that person if they are unrelated or not a guardian? On a personal note i growing up my family received aid from the government and I think still does, it negatively impacts the children when the parents are too busy getting fucked up to care for their families and this is one way to encourage those people to make a positive change in their lives. | ||
|
Klipsys
United States1533 Posts
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do. If you haven't already (for whatever reason) please READ the article and THE THREAD before you post Few things to point out. 1) Drug test's aren't free, thus "saving tax payer money" is at best a misnomer, and more appropriately a lie (or marketing). Drug testing thousands of people is not going to save anyone money. It's probably cheaper to let them use drugs. 2) Not everyone on welfare does drugs. A large portion perhaps (unknowable), but never the less, many of these people receiving benefits have children who have committed no crime except to be born to the (apparently) wrong parents. 3) Drug testing parolee's and ex-cons doesn't stop them from using/beating the test, and neither will this 4) And to the quoted poster, I suggest you read 1984 before spouting such off ridiculous non-sense. Remember it's better to say nothing, and have others assume you a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt. I don't get it. Back on topic: Welfare is a privilege, not a right. This legislation is fully justifiable. While I agree with you, the legislation simply isn't fully justifiable otherwise there would be no discussion to the contrary. I can argue rather successfully that this would wind up costing the state more money, and possible screw people out of their benefits. Let's be frank I don't really care for most unemployed people, it's the mom with 6 kids who now has stand in line to piss in a cup twice a week to barely feed them. | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
On June 10 2011 23:34 iNSiPiD1 wrote: This article makes me proud to be a Floridian. If you want the taxpayers money then you should do whatever the hell the government tells you to do. YES! because people live to serve the government, not the other way, right? rednecks...  | ||
|
Klipsys
United States1533 Posts
On June 11 2011 00:02 BlackFlag wrote: YES! because people live to serve the government, not the other way, right? rednecks... I agree with the sentiment, but the name calling isn't necessary. Rednecks live in Alabama anyway | ||
|
IrOnKaL
United States340 Posts
| ||
|
Amestir
Netherlands2126 Posts
Whatever you want to do with that money is your business. It's strange to me that people from a country that generaly holds freemdom high as one of the greatest goods agrees to laws like this which directly surpress freedom. Do you lose your right to do what you want when you use drugs? | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
Not allowing welfare for addicts will remove the last "legal support" for them and force them to commit criminal acts to survive in the first place and to get their drugs. This seems counterproductive to me and it totally removes any chance of an addict to "get off the needle". | ||
|
PolSC2
United States634 Posts
On June 11 2011 00:10 Amestir wrote: This scares me. Why do people care so little for thier fellow men? As a resident of a western country you have the privilege that the government will help you when you lose your income. Whatever you want to do with that money is your business. It's strange to me that people from a country that generaly holds freemdom high as one of the greatest goods agrees to laws like this which directly surpress freedom. Do you lose your right to do what you want when you use drugs? Fixed. The government has no responsibility if you can't pay your bills. This legislation is just trying to get the money to the people who want to help themselves. I understand both sides of the arguments, and both sides have really great points. However, one point that shouldn't exist: People think they are entitled to this money. They are not. If you want this help from the government, then a simple drug test shouldn't be too much of a hassle. Yes, it sucks for the honest people, but such is the way of everything in life. The bad ruin it for the rest. Example: Security at the airports. | ||
| ||
