|
On June 11 2011 01:49 huameng wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 18:10 Baarn wrote:On June 10 2011 15:00 huameng wrote:On June 10 2011 12:59 sunprince wrote:On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Yes, I thought you were trying to exclude the kind of street criminal who is committing crimes out of necessity when you brought up mafia members. I was trying to argue that street criminals commit crime out of necessity; my bad if you interpreted it some other way. And I believe that a solution to this is to keep giving them welfare, even if they use drugs! 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? On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Why should we incentivize these people to stop doing drugs by making their lives so shitty they have no other choice? If they think a drug addicted life on welfare is better than going to rehab, I find it hard to believe the problem is that the drug addicted life on welfare is too good, and that we should take away the welfare! I think approaching the problem like this will make it a lot harder to solve, but a lot more rewarding and with a much better long term prognosis. 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. 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. They get to avoid it because it's unconstitutional! If you are upset that they haven't declared drug tests in the workplace unconstitutional, I would advise getting the ACLU to start building that case, instead of just ignoring this case and favoring drug tests for welfare recipients.
The constitution does not guarantee government aid. The constitution does not guarantee a job if it did then we wouldn't need government aid.
|
On June 11 2011 02:43 Billyray wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 02:28 JamesJohansen wrote:On June 10 2011 23:59 Klipsys wrote: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 postFew 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. She shouldn't have had six fucking kids in the first place if she can't afford to pay for them. Reality is a bitch. Life is cruel, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, but if you are posting on an internet forum about a video game on a Friday afternoon, I don't think you have experienced the cruelty of going hungry because your ass is addicted to drugs and middle-class wankers needed to feel good by stripping you of the meager amount they pay out. Do I think it is right for many to use welfare as a way to subisdize their drug use ? No. Do I think that forcing them into even more poverty is the solution to the problem ? Hell no.
Foregone conclusion. In my youth, my parents were poor as shit. I worked manual labor for half of my life then used the military to afford higher education and everything else. I'm still poor as shit, easily a candidate for government hand outs but I refuse to stoop so low.
No one should be given money for doing nothing. Period. Welfare is absolute bullshit on so many levels. Besides, the so called "poor" in the west have more going for them then everyone in third world countries.
You're right about the middle class being wankers, many of them think they owe the world something because "they won life's jackpot" ie they were born into a higher class and got lucky. Bullshit. I've worked my ass off my entire life and I get to watch helplessly as big brother gives my hard earned money to lazy assholes who don't use condoms and who dabbled in substance abuse.
Actions have consequences: Don't do drugs. Don't have kids that you can't afford. Don't buy things you can't afford. The list goes on...
|
On June 11 2011 02:43 Billyray wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 02:28 JamesJohansen wrote:On June 10 2011 23:59 Klipsys wrote: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 postFew 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. She shouldn't have had six fucking kids in the first place if she can't afford to pay for them. Reality is a bitch. Life is cruel, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, but if you are posting on an internet forum about a video game on a Friday afternoon, I don't think you have experienced the cruelty of going hungry because your ass is addicted to drugs and middle-class wankers needed to feel good by stripping you of the meager amount they pay out. Do I think it is right for many to use welfare as a way to subisdize their drug use ? No. Do I think that forcing them into even more poverty is the solution to the problem ? Hell no.
Get off your high horse. I couldn't care less if she is going hungry. It is her fault in the first place, quit trying to blame the 'middle class' I have worked my butt off to get where I am, and I am in no way comfortable and don't feel people should be leeching of me because the system is stupid.
The only people to feel sorry for is the kids that are in that bad situation through no choice of their own. There needs to be a solution on helping the kids get out of that area and show them that they can be a contributing member of society instead of just letting everyone else take care of them.
|
On June 11 2011 01:57 Billyray wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 01:08 Baarn wrote:On June 11 2011 00:41 Billyray wrote:On June 11 2011 00:28 Baarn wrote:On June 10 2011 23:59 Klipsys wrote: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 postFew 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. I disagree $42 is much cheaper than just handing out drug addicts checks that are at minimum 5 times that amount. Ones that claim children and it goes up exponentially. They way I see it though is that this is good for Florida. With a demand of 150,000+ recipients needing to get drug tested opens up employment opportunities for people that live there. You can take the Certified Professional Collections Trainer course for about $150. it's a 7 hour course. It opens opportunities to get a job making over 30k a year. I don't think this is a bad situation for anyone. With this reasoning, everyone should throw their garbage directly in the street: the government could then hire thousand of workers to keep the streets clean and it would create new jobs ! Win/win situation ! You can't just say that drug testing costs are only 42$ per person and in the same breath say that new jobs at 30k a year will have to be created to administer the same tests. You have to take every factor in the equation. And it's not as if they will be testing people once in a lifetime either. This program will implement regular and frequent testing, thus the cost/benefit ratio will radically shoot down once the hypothetical free riders are all denied welfare because then you'll only be testing the clean people. Like I said above if I have to drug test for a job because I want to make money then welfare should have to test to make money also. Of course not this will hopefully be a long term thing for people interested in the medical field. No hopefully the clean ones will get jobs since they can pass a drug screen like anyone else. There are jobs that don't test also like restaurants maybe construction. So this entire thing is avoidable if they are embarrassed or on drugs. Can seek treatment also to get clean. Can't even begin to calculate the tax revenue these jobs will create. It all works out. What's your point ? That the people who are already jobless and smoking crack will get a job as a construction worker if they are scared of losing their benefits ? Your posts doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. 1) A huge proportion of welfare recipients do not consume drugs or if they do, they will just switch to alcohol or find ways to circumvent the tests, just like stoners have been doing for the better part of 30 years. 2) Testing these people is really stupid and wasteful. 3) The ones who get caught will have to resort to other means of income. The difference between you and I is that I know for sure that for the vast majority of the people comprised in this category, gainful employment won't be an option. And what if the people who get caught have kids ? Do their kids also need to suffer (more) crushing poverty because the middle class needs to feel good about teaching the shiftless bums a lesson about the worth of money ? 4) From a strict monetary perspective, this is doomed to fail. It would surprise me that the governement cuts enough people to upset the costs of mandatory, regular testing of the whole Florida population that is on welfare and we're not talking about the other costs (police, homeless shelters, etc.). This is just shifting the burden elsewhere. And as a final point, I live in Quebec, which is basicall a socialist heaven and even here, drug rehab programs are underfunded and understaffed. They can't follow the demand and with my experience with Florida, these services are most assuredly in a more abyssmal state over there. It would be nice if people were able to reconcile with the notion that the "welfare clientele" even if they are drug users are people nonetheless and that we should strive to help them get out of their misery instead of oppressing them even more with ridiculous measures such as this.
If you read the article a lot of your questions are answered. Hey we all make choices with our lives and if you choose drugs then sucks to be you. $42 is cheaper than giving someone a check so they can get high then maybe commit crimes since a welfare check isn't gonna fuel a crack habit. Maybe when they injure someone or themselves we should pick up the tab on that hospital bill or maybe if they don't die their time in jail also. Meh the person has to decide they want to change. Rehab programs don't do shit if the person wants to continue using and if they do why do I want to give them assistance when it won't be enough money anyway? To them I say get a job.
|
On June 11 2011 02:55 TreeDome wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 02:43 Billyray wrote:On June 11 2011 02:28 JamesJohansen wrote:On June 10 2011 23:59 Klipsys wrote: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 postFew 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. She shouldn't have had six fucking kids in the first place if she can't afford to pay for them. Reality is a bitch. Life is cruel, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, but if you are posting on an internet forum about a video game on a Friday afternoon, I don't think you have experienced the cruelty of going hungry because your ass is addicted to drugs and middle-class wankers needed to feel good by stripping you of the meager amount they pay out. Do I think it is right for many to use welfare as a way to subisdize their drug use ? No. Do I think that forcing them into even more poverty is the solution to the problem ? Hell no. Get off your high horse. I couldn't care less if she is going hungry. It is her fault in the first place, quit trying to blame the 'middle class' I have worked my butt off to get where I am, and I am in no way comfortable and don't feel people should be leeching of me because the system is stupid. The only people to feel sorry for is the kids that are in that bad situation through no choice of their own. There needs to be a solution on helping the kids get out of that area and show them that they can be a contributing member of society instead of just letting everyone else take care of them.
I couldn't care less if she is going hungry. Stay classy home of the free land of the brave.
Picture that woman in your head and picture yourself telling her that to her face. Where is your empathy ? Putting aside the ovious problems such laws pose, this attitude "of I worked really hard so I get to look down on other people" I cannot comprehend. Would you take kindly to more successful individuals doing the same to you if you ever fall down on your luck ?
This kind of legislation serves no other purpose but to please the right wing middle class voter base. This will save no money whatsoever and even if it did, do you really think your average joe schmoe taxpayer will benefit from it ?
|
On June 11 2011 02:16 Billyray wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 02:12 Titan107 wrote:
It's not the state's fault the parents resort to drugs. If they CHOOSE to go down that road, then it is THEIR fault their kids will not eat. Perhaps some responsibility will arise within the parent's life...
Bodes well for these kids future ! Going hungry and possibly homeless because daddy is a drug addict. And yes, every drug user on welfare is a potential millionnaire that is too irresponsible to realize his true potential. And people universally choose to do drugs or not. They totally don't get addicted or use them to escape their already shitty reality.
All I hear is "Think of the Children" and "it's not my fault." Well guess what, if you choose to do drugs and get addicted then its your fault. The state isn't making you do it, you are. I don't understand your argument whatsoever. Sounds like you have a soft spot for people who are addicted to drugs... most likely you have been in that situation.
|
On June 11 2011 03:32 Titan107 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 02:16 Billyray wrote:On June 11 2011 02:12 Titan107 wrote:
It's not the state's fault the parents resort to drugs. If they CHOOSE to go down that road, then it is THEIR fault their kids will not eat. Perhaps some responsibility will arise within the parent's life...
Bodes well for these kids future ! Going hungry and possibly homeless because daddy is a drug addict. And yes, every drug user on welfare is a potential millionnaire that is too irresponsible to realize his true potential. And people universally choose to do drugs or not. They totally don't get addicted or use them to escape their already shitty reality. All I hear is "Think of the Children" and "it's not my fault." Well guess what, if you choose to do drugs and get addicted then its your fault. The state isn't making you do it, you are. I don't understand your argument whatsoever. Sounds like you have a soft spot for people who are addicted to drugs... most likely you have been in that situation.
This is where we disagree. Drug use is very often not something willingly people choose to do. A lot of the heavy addicts have either:
a) Started at a young age
b) Underlying mental illnesses that they self medicate through it.
Heavy drug use is more often than not the product of your upringing and social status. Pretty much the only segment of the population that willingly chooses to do drugs, as in "let's try coke for fun!" is comprised of recreationnal users and I very much doubt such measures will put more than a dent in the money paid out to these people: they will find ways to circumvent the tests or simply stop, but I'd wager my life savings that the % of people who choose to give up will be meager compared to those who will just cheat.
I do have a soft spot for people who are down on their luck, even if it is because of their very own actions because I recognize that they are human nonetheless and that it is in the human nature to often make shit decisions.
I have never taken any drugs in my life, but I know from firsthand experience the damage it can do not only to the user, but to its whole family from volunteering in drug shelters. I have tried to help people who were 19 and junkies for the better part of their teens. It's heartbreaking. I wouldn't have the guts to say "that's your own dumb fault" to them.
|
It makes sense. They have to make a choice. Continue in my addiction or continue getting welfare. Granted they may just resort to violence then. There's no easy answer, it's messy.
My opinion: it's not the government's job really.
|
Sounds reasonable to do random drug tests on welface recipients. However, testing everyone would probably cost too much money, so just test randomly. Some people will get caught, others will be discouraged from drugs due to fear of getting caught.
|
I have a solution. For those who fail the drug screening, offer them a free one-way ticket to the EU country of their choosing, where they will be entitled to so much more than they are in this terrible, terrible, uncaring U.S. of A. They will have actual rights to things, that were merely privileges in the U.S. People are so much happier in Europe.
|
[QUOTE]On June 11 2011 03:55 Billyray wrote:
[QUOTE]On June 11 2011 03:32 Titan107 wrote:
[QUOTE]On June 11 2011 02:16 Billyray wrote:
[QUOTE]On June 11 2011 02:12 Titan107 wrote:
It's not the state's fault the parents resort to drugs. If they CHOOSE to go down that road, then it is THEIR fault their kids will not eat. Perhaps some responsibility will arise within the parent's life...
[/QUOTE]
It's heartbreaking. I wouldn't have the guts to say "that's your own dumb fault" to them. [/QUOTE]
Someone has to.
My brother was on the verge of death from taking shrooms and has done everything there is. Also, my older brother went through the same ordeal minus the death experience. However, both are now married with children and have come out of that lifestyle in order to have a stable life.
A future is possible if the person TRULY has the will to get better. I just don't buy the "I'm addicted and I wanna quit--- but I smoked pot the other day and broke my promise." No. Sure, its tough to stop an addiction, but the Will to fix yourself goes further than addiction.
Fight or Flight for the drug takers.
Drugs prescribed by medication are an entirely different subject.
|
|
|
On June 11 2011 04:03 Kaitlin wrote:
I have a solution. For those who fail the drug screening, offer them a free one-way ticket to the EU country of their choosing, where they will be entitled to so much more than they are in this terrible, terrible, uncaring U.S. of A. They will have actual rights to things, that were merely privileges in the U.S. People are so much happier in Europe.
I know you're trying to make a point about the kindness of those in the U.S. but that's really the solution you're going to throw out here to contribute to the conversation? And what kind of rights to things are you talking about, I'm genuinely wondering what the differences are.
|
Well, I read someone say that people had a right for the government to support them when they didn't have a job. In the U.S., it's not a right, but a privilege, so that's a start.
|
[QUOTE]On June 11 2011 04:18 Titan107 wrote:
[QUOTE]On June 11 2011 03:55 Billyray wrote:
[QUOTE]On June 11 2011 03:32 Titan107 wrote:
[QUOTE]On June 11 2011 02:16 Billyray wrote:
[QUOTE]On June 11 2011 02:12 Titan107 wrote:
It's not the state's fault the parents resort to drugs. If they CHOOSE to go down that road, then it is THEIR fault their kids will not eat. Perhaps some responsibility will arise within the parent's life...
[/QUOTE]
It's heartbreaking. I wouldn't have the guts to say "that's your own dumb fault" to them. [/QUOTE]
Someone has to.
My brother was on the verge of death from taking shrooms and has done everything there is. Also, my older brother went through the same ordeal minus the death experience. However, both are now married with children and have come out of that lifestyle in order to have a stable life.
A future is possible if the person TRULY has the will to get better. I just don't buy the "I'm addicted and I wanna quit--- but I smoked pot the other day and broke my promise." No. Sure, its tough to stop an addiction, but the Will to fix yourself goes further than addiction.
Fight or Flight for the drug takers.
Drugs prescribed by medication are an entirely different subject.[/QUOTE]
Your brother is one of the lucky ones. I have no doubt that you played a huge role in him getting better but do you see where I am getting at ? Stripping people from their welfare benefits because of drug use won't help the ones who are already off in the deep end and might push others into. At what costs ? Possible money savings that will never materialize because drug testing thousands of people isn't exactly free ?
If there are two things that are needed for rehabilitation to be possible, they are:
a) The desire from within to change (not gonna happen if you cut funding...)
b) A support group, meaning family nd friends (again, not gonna happen).
Your brother had both. A can be had by anyone, and many addicts do desire to change, but they lack b. Someone who cares. You have to realize that the welfare existence isn't one rife with options. We are going off on a tagent here, but a huge proportion of hard drug users have either alienated themselves from family, have families who are also heavy drug users or were alone to begin with. It's not by leaving them to fend for themselves with no money that we will finally beat this problem, just as much as it is not by cutting welfare that people will go on the job market again. That's just a recipe for shifting trouble around. We have to solve the underlying issues because being on welfare isn't the problem, it's a symptom: better education and better jobs would be a start. A lot of people who are depending on welfare aren't exactly grade-A material for prospective employers and in an economy that is in a slump, I don't know how they are supposed to pull themselves by the bootstraps and get a job without the necessary tools to achieve.
|
I find it hysterical that the people most adamantly opposed to the government giving aid to poor people are the people who would be most helped by it, but choose to have to work 10x as hard as most people do to still be poor.
Look, I understand that you yourself have worked very hard, did manual labor, joined the army, and are now earning 30k a year. That's quite an accomplishment (no sarcasm), but myself and other people who have been born in slightly better situations want to help you and others out, and all you do is go "MY LIFE IS SO HARD FUCK THOSE DRUG ADDLED BITCHES WITH 6 CHILDREN"
Give it a rest with your pride and let people help others out ffs. It's not even like the argument against drug testing is that we want to give money to drug addicts, the main issue is that it's probably not even economically viable.
Also Titan I don't know your particular situation but comparing your brothers who were addicted to hallucinogens while probably living in the suburbs to someone hooked on crack in the projects isn't really a good comparison, lol.
|
I doubt this will be interpreted as unconstitutional - it's already completely standard for a drug test to be required for employment, what's wrong with it being required for welfare? (Source of money to do these tests nonwithstanding - where the money is coming from doesnt have a ton to do with the constitutionality of it. The tests are getting pretty cheap now too.)
On June 10 2011 04:28 SpoR wrote:Show nested quote +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.
So the honest people pee in a cup every once in a while, and come up clean. Have to do it to get most jobs anyway. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if it cuts down in government spending due to people not collecting their welfare checks because they can't pass the test.
If people start giving up drugs in favor of having a welfare check, then this is accomplishing what it needs to. And, unlike many other tactics against drug abuse, I can see this one working, because it will create additional peer pressure to clean up, rather than law enforcement being the only thing to deter people from drug abuse. (Law enforcement is pretty damn ineffective against drug abuse.)
|
Honestly, I think this is a bad idea. All you're doing is putting people who are already in a desperate situation into a more desperate one. I think it's pretty clear what happens when you back people into a corner; they either give up or fight. In this case fighting means crime, and giving up means... well giving up.
|
Good tests aren't that cheap. That's why you only see large corporations employing them. Of course the state would like to drug test welfare recipients if it can force them to pay for it, cause that's really an appropriate way to force people to spend their money when they don't have any. Just wait and see the scams that will arise when people are "getting money for the children". All I see are a bunch of judgmental people happy to see that the state is telling the poor how to live their lives, as if their lives weren't already shitty enough. Being on welfare isn't a choice, and neither is a drug addiction. If you haven't been addicted then you don't know, I don't care if you had a brother who blah blah blah it doesn't make a shred of difference if you've never been there yourself.
People will cheat, the ones who are already scamming welfare anyways, and this will do nothing but cause life to take an even bigger shit on people who never had a chance in the first place. Continue enjoying your privilege, whilst being ignorant of life outside of your little box. The world isn't a perfect place where you get your bread after a fair day's work, it just is for some people. That is all.
P.S. People don't know how easy it is to bypass a drug test (they can only test for marijuana unless they are using hair strands, which is prohibitively expensive atm), so yeah this is aimed exclusively at pot smokers who don't know how to protect themselves. I'm sure that having the homeless sink all their welfare into alcohol instead of pot will solve all of Florida's problems. Lol.
|
On June 11 2011 04:56 d.o.c wrote:
Honestly, I think this is a bad idea. All you're doing is putting people who are already in a desperate situation into a more desperate one. I think it's pretty clear what happens when you back people into a corner; they either give up or fight. In this case fighting means crime, and giving up means... well giving up.
No, people, when people who are addicted to drugs get financially cornered and beaten down they finally go "by golly, I was living a foolish life, let's now search the paper for gainful employment and kick this decadent habit of crack smoking". True story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
