EPTPun not intended
Florida to drug test for welfare - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Flakes
United States3125 Posts
Pun not intended | ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
| ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:34 Kamuy wrote: 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). | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:34 SpoR wrote: 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). Well you could always go get a job, then. But they might drug test you anyway.... If you don't want to be tested, then don't go on welfare. That is your right, to not be on welfare if you don't want to be (whatever the reason). | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
You said they pay into it with every paycheck, implying they pay into it as an employee. It's nice to know you've at least acknowledged that employees do NOT pay into these services. | ||
|
Alexhandr
United States218 Posts
| ||
|
natebreen
United States184 Posts
Also, if you apply for welfare you are required to give up your personal information, along with medical records and arrest history. Requiring you to be drug-free is nothing extraneous or out of the question in any way. | ||
|
Rasun
United States787 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:30 BlueBird. wrote: I don't have a problem with this welfare is meant to help people out not for the purchase of drugs, I am 100% for social programs. However I don't think that welfare should be denied to those found on drugs, especially those with families/children, just some steps will need to be taken by those individuals if they want to get the welfare, not sure what steps exactly though =/ For food stamps this would make perfect sense, but not Welfare, even if the person does have dependents you can't give them money if they test positive because that money will not be going towards supporting those dependents in all likelihood. If they test positive they cannot be trusted to use the money the government is giving them responsibly. | ||
|
natebreen
United States184 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:36 Kaitlin wrote: You said they pay into it with every paycheck, implying they pay into it as an employee. It's nice to know you've at least acknowledged that employees do NOT pay into these services. Considering the funding for generalized welfare comes from a redistribution of taxes, I don't see how you're claiming that people don't "pay into it." Sure, technically you don't pay into a program specifically on your paycheck, but if you have worked and paid income tax as a citizen, you have paid into every government program, hence your eligibility. | ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:36 RoosterSamurai wrote: Well you could always go get a job, then. But they might drug test you anyway.... If you don't want to be tested, then don't go on welfare. That is your right, to not be on welfare if you don't want to be (whatever the reason). I'm sorry but that argument is kind of silly. You think any honest person is going to give up their right to benefits because of a drug test? Furthermore who says druggies can't stay clean for a week to take the test? Pretty sure meth and hard drugs like that don't stay in your system as long as say weed or something. | ||
|
Dr. Von Derful
United States363 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:31 RoosterSamurai wrote: And enabling them to buy drugs without ever having to work or do anything productive is NOT helping them... And if they're not on drugs, then good! We can know that we're helping someone get back on their feet. I give homeless people booze because a full stomach doesn't make your living situation seem quite that bad. Would you want to be consciously aware that you were homeless? You have to give them an incentive to work, not to sit and collect. That's my problem with the current welfare system. Any money they spend will be spent "incorrectly", they're in poverty and on welfare for a reason. I'd rather audit people abusing the welfare system then improperly spending the money. The core issue here is that you can't tell someone how to spend their money, be it for the consumption and use of illicit substances or food for their family.. I don't care if they want to spend their money on drugs, booze, or prostitutes, it's their money once we give it to them. You can't tell someone how they can or can't spend their own money, regardless of how they obtained it. It's a slippery slope to say you have to go through a drug screening, the implications of this are huge and are met with the same shallow minded thinking of the people who use them. It's like putting a bandage on wound that's causing internal bleeding. It's not going to solve the problem. The implications of this are enormous and I'd argue serve to only either increase crime or exacerbate the poverty problem in Florida. | ||
|
Razith
Canada431 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:34 SpoR wrote: 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. | ||
|
darkscream
Canada2310 Posts
Forget whether or not the people on welfare use drugs. Is it right to deny them any sort of financial assistance based on, well, anything except their finances? I don't know about you, but if I found someone on welfare to be using drugs, I'd probably... try to help them? Instead of cutting their income. If you take a drug addict's drug money away, they will just commit crimes to get more money. The drug testing is expensive and it forces everyone on welfare to pay it. All in all, this is retarded legislation which won't help anyone, Next they will want to sample welfare people's shit to make sure they're buying the correct kind of food, after all it would be irresponsible for the taxpayer to pay for their potato chips instead of apples. Where does it end? Anyone who says "Well the government shouldn't subsidize criminals!!!" should take a look into fucking world politics. Where does all the opium in the world come from right now? Who is it guarded by? Hint, it's not the smallest small fry welfare person in florida. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
| ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
Half the time some panhandler is asking me for money I know they are going to buy some booze with it. If I wanna prevent that, I'll give him some actual food. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:41 SpoR wrote: I'm sorry but that argument is kind of silly. You think any honest person is going to give up their right to benefits because of a drug test? Furthermore who says druggies can't stay clean for a week to take the test? Pretty sure meth and hard drugs like that don't stay in your system as long as say weed or something. I think I would be one to say if they are doing drugs such as meth, heroin, crack, etc. that they can't stay clean for a week. | ||
|
SiffStarcraft
United States45 Posts
| ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:42 Babyfactory wrote: I give homeless people booze because a full stomach doesn't make your living situation seem quite that bad. Would you want to be consciously aware that you were homeless? You have to give them an incentive to work, not to sit and collect. That's my problem with the current welfare system. Any money they spend will be spent "incorrectly", they're in poverty and on welfare for a reason. I'd rather audit people abusing the welfare system then improperly spending the money. The core issue here is that you can't tell someone how to spend their money, be it for the consumption and use of illicit substances or food for their family.. I don't care if they want to spend their money on drugs, booze, or prostitutes, it's their money once we give it to them. You can't tell someone how they can or can't spend their own money, regardless of how they obtained it. It's a slippery slope to say you have to go through a drug screening, the implications of this are huge and are met with the same shallow minded thinking of the people who use them. It's like putting a bandage on wound that's causing internal bleeding. It's not going to solve the problem. The implications of this are enormous and I'd argue serve to only either increase crime or exacerbate the poverty problem in Florida. I definitely agree with you that we should audit welfare users. Unfortunately that would be a massive undertaking.... Honestly, if I could choose between welfare audit and drug tests, I'd go for the audit. But people are going to complain about it being an invasion of their privacy either way. Which is irrelevant because they have to give up equally personal information just to get on welfare in the first place... The welfare system needs a complete reworking. It is more broken than anything in any game I've ever played. But if this is all we get for right now, then fine. Eventually they'll have no choice but to rework it. Because, when you've got people sitting around collecting $60,000 a year on state benefits....There's a problem. | ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:43 Razith wrote: 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. | ||
|
Dr. Von Derful
United States363 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:43 darkscream wrote: Listen, people. Forget whether or not the people on welfare use drugs. Is it right to deny them any sort of financial assistance based on, well, anything except their finances? I don't know about you, but if I found someone on welfare to be using drugs, I'd probably... try to help them? Instead of cutting their income. If you take a drug addict's drug money away, they will just commit crimes to get more money. The drug testing is expensive and it forces everyone on welfare to pay it. All in all, this is retarded legislation which won't help anyone, Next they will want to sample welfare people's shit to make sure they're buying the correct kind of food, after all it would be irresponsible for the taxpayer to pay for their potato chips instead of apples. Where does it end? Agreed. It shouldn't matter who they are. If this is an attempt to "save" money, I find it to be quite sad that it has to come at the cost of the people who need "help" the most. IF the government wants to save money, it needs to start paying attention to its own coffers to find the people making "frivolous spending". It must be nice to have a tax payers constantly lining your pockets. | ||
| ||
