|
I don't understand what's unconstitutional about this. Can someone explain how it's unconstitutional?
While I can understand how we shouldn't be paying for people's illegal drugs, I don't understand how we should be paying for people's drug tests. But then I don't know if this would save money or waste it. I have no idea.
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 ?
However you think spending our money on people who are "off in the deep end" is worth the taxpayer's money? Why would this push others into it? I completely don't understand your train of logic.
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.
So what would you suggest? Because giving them more money doesn't sound very practical either. This has the potential to cut off income to drug traders which would actually be a more longterm solution.
|
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.
How do you figure those people will get their money to live now ?
|
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.
so then i could care less if you die. because it would be your fault. oh wait...thats not exactly completely true, as ur not able to control EVERY aspect that influenced u dying.
look, i think the idea that this might help addicted people get off drugs, or that it might save alot of money since the wellfare money isnt wasted, is a great idea. however the problem lies in the fact that it might just not do what its intended to do. Think about the mentality of people that are addicted to drugs. They are capable of doing alot of shit, and whos to say that they wont just end up getting clean piss from someone or find away to avoid the system the way alot of people avoid the system when they apply for jobs. So my gripe is that this might not help much at all and actually end up costing more money while saving a little....
And also, to those people saying they dont care about people going hungry and because its their own fault....thats not entirely true. You just can't generalize like that. Take myself for example, my mom came to this country (usa) with 13000 dollars to make us a better life. Worked under a legal persons name (whom she was exploited by to collect social security for themselves, but i digress) , always paid taxes under the persons name, and had a 8 dollar an hour job. She manages to buy a house everything is going well and she does all of this for me, so that i can get a better education and be someone in life. Well, she ends up getting harrassed at work, in other words her boss was trying to have sex with her and my mother being the strong willed woman she is, never gave in. Despite being scared for her job, however since she worked under a different name she couldn't do anything about it. So what happens next? she gets fired, for that sole reason because believe me no one works harder than my mom. However she was able to get food stamps for us throughout all this, and workers comp as well (i was small but i think by this point she had become a resident) and thank god we were able to get by. Finding another job was not easy and shes gone from temp jobs to post office (hell) to finally a stable job now. However u have NO IDEA how much food stamps helped us out. You now how many times ive eaten rice and beans? how many times my fridge has had nothing but eggs? Food stamps pretty much saved my life, the money she saved on groceries, paid the bills. And now im almost done with college and an engineering career because i get financial aid and im able to maintain a high gpa. I honestly have no idea where i would be if it wasnt for government help. I look around at my old friends , alot of them smoking weed all the time and being lazy not doing shit, some have money and some dont. But in the end its really the individual's decision to use the help for good. the way my mom and i did.
I dont mean this to be some sob story, but i want u to understand that not every circumstance is the same. Wellfare programs work, and now instead of having some other poor person in the country, they'll have an extra engineer. food for thought.
|
On June 11 2011 05:06 DoubleReed wrote:I don't understand what's unconstitutional about this. Can someone explain how it's unconstitutional? While I can understand how we shouldn't be paying for people's illegal drugs, I don't understand how we should be paying for people's drug tests. But then I don't know if this would save money or waste it. I have no idea. Show nested 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 ?
However you think spending our money on people who are "off in the deep end" is worth the taxpayer's money? Why would this push others into it? I completely don't understand your train of logic.
As I said times and times again in this thread, I'm not happy* that taxpayers money is squandered on drugs, but it makes me even unhappier to see stupid measures such as this one being propped up as a solution instead of just another feel good measure for the ring wing nutjobs. Especially when there is now way this will actually save anyone any money since GOOD drug tests (not the shitty ones the restaurant manager forces you to pass in order to wash dishes) are incredibly expensive and only the chronic abusers will get caught. You know, the ones who are already an inch away from a life of crime.
* This is actually not all that true. I can't muster enough hate to give a shit how the people in the gutter spend their money, especially when so much of what I give every year is used to scratch the backs of fatcats politicians and their friends.
|
On June 11 2011 05:03 Billyray wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I lol'd. Hard.
|
tl should implement a "like" button like facebook's ;] ^^^^^ i agree with billyray.
|
Welfare Floridians needed a nerf, their homeless were mad OP because its sunny all year, NY homeless got the winter to deal with, they have some of the highest HPs on the planet.
|
I don't want people getting handed money if they are spending some of it on drugs. Good move by Florida.
|
As I said times and times again in this thread, I'm not happy* that taxpayers money is squandered on drugs, but it makes me even unhappier to see stupid measures such as this one being propped up as a solution instead of just another feel good measure for the ring wing nutjobs. Especially when there is now way this will actually save anyone any money since GOOD drug tests (not the shitty ones the restaurant manager forces you to pass in order to wash dishes) are incredibly expensive and only the chronic abusers will get caught. You know, the ones who are already an inch away from a life of crime.
* This is actually not all that true. I can't muster enough hate to give a shit how the people in the gutter spend their money, especially when so much of what I give every year is used to scratch the backs of fatcats politicians and their friends.
Oh so you see it more as completely pointless and potentially harmful. That's fair.
|
On June 10 2011 16:37 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +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 ?
How so? And what is "Obamacare"? Is that the new healthcare initiative? I don't I've ever heard it addressed officially as Obamacare.
|
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.
I'm pretty sure we do drug tests on all government employees, so I'm not really sure what you mean. Many companies require drug tests on all their employees as well. It's not unheard of.
|
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.
That is an issue for social services. Odds are if the parents are junkies they are not caring properly for the kids as is, and the social security money will be prioritized for getting their fix first, and food later. The better solution in this case is foster care and more responsible adult supervision for the kids, not government funded subsidization for a junkie's next fix.
|
On June 11 2011 05:25 mastergriggy wrote:
I don't want people getting handed money if they are spending some of it on drugs. Good move by Florida.
But it's fine if they spend it on alcohol, cigarettes, hookers, porn, guns or celebrity magazines ?
You either give someone money or you don't, you don't get to control how they spend it. That's what food stamps are for.
|
On June 11 2011 02:50 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 01:49 huameng wrote: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.
and
On June 11 2011 05:06 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't understand what's unconstitutional about this. Can someone explain how it's unconstitutional?
and
On June 11 2011 04:52 sylverfyre wrote:
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.)
I didn't say the constitution guaranteed those things. All I am saying is that this specifically, this being making passing a drug test required to receive welfare, was declared unconstitutional. http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/marchwinskiamicusbrief1_22_01.pdf is the briefing, if you're interested in such things.
On June 11 2011 05:25 mastergriggy wrote:
I don't want people getting handed money if they are spending some of it on drugs. Good move by Florida.
Is it ok if, say, they are only smoking drugs their friends give them?
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...
If someone truly wants to quit something in order to survive, they will. I just don't understand these arguments of-- OH MY God Think of the Children!!! That card has been played enough in these debates.
Yes, "think of the children" is pretty played out, maybe second only to "well if only they had MORE RESPONSIBILITY!!!"
|
how is this even a debatable topic?
these people are asking the gov't for money and support. and in turn they are expected to follow that gov't's rules.
if you dont want to get tested for doing illegal shit, go stick your hand out somewhere else.
i mean i have to get tested just to keep my job, and i used to get tested all the time in high school, and since im not a criminal, i didnt care at all.
if the druggies are really desperate and want to work the system, just go to prison. free lodging and food.
|
On June 11 2011 07:27 danson wrote:
how is this even a debatable topic?
these people are asking the gov't for money and support. and in turn they are expected to follow that gov't's rules.
if you dont want to get tested for doing illegal shit, go stick your hand out somewhere else.
i mean i have to get tested just to keep my job, and i used to get tested all the time in high school, and since im not a criminal, i didnt care at all.
if the druggies are really desperate and want to work the system, just go to prison. free lodging and food.
I have a feeling that that's where a lot of these people will wind up next :p
|
On June 11 2011 07:05 Acid~ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 05:25 mastergriggy wrote:
I don't want people getting handed money if they are spending some of it on drugs. Good move by Florida. But it's fine if they spend it on alcohol, cigarettes, hookers, porn, guns or celebrity magazines ? You either give someone money or you don't, you don't get to control how they spend it. That's what food stamps are for.
You are overlooking the reason that the money is provided. It is provided to the individual for food and shelter not for drugs or other entertainment. The legally binding documents you need to fill out state that the money provided is for the necessities of life ie. food shelter and it is agreed to with a signature.
You're right you either give them money or you don't. Morally the government is obligated to help those who do not have food or shelter get these needs, it is not obligated to hand over some cash for some weed or a 40oz.
If they are using it for food/shelter then its given to you.
If you are using the money for something other than what you agreed to use it for that is called fraud.
They have no way to track what everyone is using the money for so they are trying to come up with ways to administer the agreements. They know through investigation that a significant percentage of the welfare users are committing fraud and spending the money on drugs contrary to what they agreed to use the provided money for. Their solution is the drug test and policies that exclude drug users from defrauding the program.
I say they should take it one step further and since they have proof of a crime committed they should pass that info to the police and have those who failed the test arrested for possession and use of illegal drugs and fraud for lying to the government to obtain funds for illegal usage.
When word gets around that you can't defraud the welfare dept. for some extra pocket money anymore and get put in jail for it you'll only be left with the honest citizens that really need the help.
|
This legislation is just an austerity measure. The government simply wants to cut costs and puts in barriers to demotivate citizens to take welfare. Not only that, the politician who introduces this new law will make a nice profit on the drug tests... only in america.
|
On June 11 2011 07:30 Valentine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 07:27 danson wrote:
how is this even a debatable topic?
these people are asking the gov't for money and support. and in turn they are expected to follow that gov't's rules.
if you dont want to get tested for doing illegal shit, go stick your hand out somewhere else.
i mean i have to get tested just to keep my job, and i used to get tested all the time in high school, and since im not a criminal, i didnt care at all.
if the druggies are really desperate and want to work the system, just go to prison. free lodging and food. I have a feeling that that's where a lot of these people will wind up next :p
That's where a lot (of homeless specifically) already are. 3 free meals a day and cable with no need to work or anything. At least in Canada it's that way. I'm aware a great deal of people already are in jail in US.
Tbh, here people can get 5 free meals a day. I'm more then willing to buy someone a sandwich but not give them money to feed their addictions. Why pay for people from the taxpayer's pocket to cover for their addictions? Because they'll resort to crime? They already do.
|
On June 11 2011 05:06 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't understand what's unconstitutional about this. Can someone explain how it's unconstitutional?
Because a judge says it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
