On August 28 2011 19:20 exShikari wrote: Of course I haven't posted any evidence because no-one has the balls to actually take a chance and put faith in the system. Who gives a fuck if they turn to crime, I'm pretty sure that's what law enforcement is for. If a junkie chooses to steal to support their habit, rather than finding a job then that's their fuckup and no-one else is to blame. Common sense > economics.
*facepalm*
The rest of the post aside, just who do you think pays for law enforcement?
The rest of the post considered:
On August 28 2011 19:20 exShikari wrote: Of course I haven't posted any evidence because no-one has the balls to actually take a chance and put faith in the system.
If there's no evidence you can find, "balls" might not be the reason. Just saying.
On August 28 2011 19:20 exShikari wrote: Of course I haven't posted any evidence because no-one has the balls to actually take a chance and put faith in the system. Who gives a fuck if they turn to crime, I'm pretty sure that's what law enforcement is for. If a junkie chooses to steal to support their habit, rather than finding a job then that's their fuckup and no-one else is to blame. Common sense > economics.
*facepalm*
The rest of the post aside, just who do you think pays for law enforcement?
On August 28 2011 19:20 exShikari wrote: Of course I haven't posted any evidence because no-one has the balls to actually take a chance and put faith in the system.
If there's no evidence you can find, "balls" might not be the reason. Just saying.
"Balls" is exactly the reason there's no evidence.
The people who have even a shred self-respect and work for a living are the ones that pay for law enforcement, what's your point?
they going to screen for alcohol as well? i mean, why should taxpayers sponsor people getting drunk:s and what about fat people, people eating donuts i mean, they will be a huge burden on the medical system in the future already, why should taxpayers sponsor that testing for donuts should also be done if people want social security
/sarcasm, i dunno about this yes i can understand people that say i dont want my tax monney used to buy drugs but then you are entering a slippery slope and you could argue to test for annything you consider to be bad despite how bad it is to sponsor people using drugs, they are free to spend their monney the way they like just like every other citicen and there should be no control on where the monney goes except when people are also in debt if they want prevent people from using it on drugs they should change the welfare to not handing it out in cash but simply handing it out in services/products
if they want prevent people from using it on drugs they should change the welfare to not handing it out in cash but simply handing it out in services/products
Like wic checks for mothers and the babies. Good idea. I never thought about that. Until that happens though guess this is the best we got.
Seems perfectly fair to me. You need to test for drug use to receive a pay check in many cases - I don't see why you shouldn't test for drugs to receive a welfare paycheck as well. What's the problem?
Tbh, I can only see drug users that don't have jobs complaining about this one, really.
On August 28 2011 22:08 FallDownMarigold wrote: Seems perfectly fair to me. You need to test for drug use to receive a pay check in many cases - I don't see why you shouldn't test for drugs to receive a welfare paycheck as well. What's the problem?
Tbh, I can only see drug users that don't have jobs complaining about this one, really.
This is precisely the kind of narrow-minded tribal thinking that enables the systematic contraction of our civil liberties. Here's to you, you proudly ignorant americans!
On August 28 2011 22:08 FallDownMarigold wrote: Seems perfectly fair to me. You need to test for drug use to receive a pay check in many cases - I don't see why you shouldn't test for drugs to receive a welfare paycheck as well. What's the problem?
Tbh, I can only see drug users that don't have jobs complaining about this one, really.
This is precisely the kind of narrow-minded tribal thinking that enables the systematic contraction of our civil liberties. Here's to you, you proudly ignorant americans!
Narrow-minded? What are the negatives to simple drug testing for welfare? From what I've read there aren't any financial problems - in fact analysis reveals it saves money. All I said was that given what I read, it seems reasonable. Moreover, drug testing - considering that it's issued to enable payment for standard employment - seems like it should be issued to receive other types of payment as well, like welfare. Enlighten me rather than mindlessly call me and all "Americans" ignorant, tribal, narrow-minded, etc.
Number of ad hominems in your statement: 2 Number of claims: 1 Number of examples to justify claim: 0
Great idea Florida. We're starting to have a problem with that in Colorado T.T
On August 28 2011 22:23 Fleebenworth wrote: This is precisely the kind of narrow-minded tribal thinking that enables the systematic contraction of our civil liberties. Here's to you, you proudly ignorant americans!
How is this against our civil liberties? There is nothing in any document that says we can't test for drugs, and the only people who are affected are those doing something illegal.
On August 28 2011 21:54 Rassy wrote: they going to screen for alcohol as well? i mean, why should taxpayers sponsor people getting drunk:s and what about fat people, people eating donuts i mean, they will be a huge burden on the medical system in the future already, why should taxpayers sponsor that testing for donuts should also be done if people want social security
/sarcasm, i dunno about this yes i can understand people that say i dont want my tax monney used to buy drugs but then you are entering a slippery slope and you could argue to test for annything you consider to be bad despite how bad it is to sponsor people using drugs, they are free to spend their monney the way they like just like every other citicen and there should be no control on where the monney goes except when people are also in debt if they want prevent people from using it on drugs they should change the welfare to not handing it out in cash but simply handing it out in services/products
At the very least those purchase have tax. Buying weed with your unemployment check is just retarded. Just because you can't fix one problem doesn't mean you should ignore other ones. Drugs are a huge problem here.
On August 28 2011 21:54 Rassy wrote: despite how bad it is to sponsor people using drugs, they are free to spend their monney the way they like just like every other citicen and there should be no control on where the monney goes except when people are also in debt
well it's not exactly "their money" if i was paying taxes i wouldn't mind if they used it to feed the hungry, but to buy drugs? no ty
Welfare could be paid out in food stamps and governments could pay landlords and housing associations directly so no money goes into the hand of those on welfare - fair enough, food stamps can be swapped for real money etc etc - but might make it a little bit more difficult to blow benefits on things that are not essential to living and job hunting. Benefits should be a life line - just enough to survive until you land a job (so you know, there is ample incentive to get one and not live on benefits) nothing to get comfy and survive until state pension age on . One of my best friends used to be a junkie and revels in telling me how much heroin she managed to get from each benefit payment I strongly believe in beggars can't be choosers - I mean if you want to take drugs, that's up to you, but with welfare money while tax payers tighten their belts for austerity measures? No way hose. If you don't like the idea of drug testing, well you simply opt out of welfare, easy peasy.
FallDownMarigold completely sums it all up. The only people that will continue to bitch after the "I need to fight everything gov related" group moves on are druggies.
If you want social assistance it's completely reasonable for you to be required to follow societies laws in return.
I think the idea is fine; many jobs require you to consent to a drug test anyway, why not welfare? The problem with this is corruption: Governor Scott's wife is a major shareholder in the company that will be contracted to do the testing. In other words, whether the bill itself is a good idea or not, the Governor will *directly benefit* from this law so his motives are suspect. Not to mention he's cut in half the pensions of state employees (EDIT: and eliminated teachers' pensions); the guys is bad news for the state of Florida.
On August 29 2011 03:22 Vain wrote: Aren't you guilty in america untill disproven? or am i wrongly informed?
It's "innocent until proven guilty", but it's arguable whether it applies here. They at least need to demonstrate that a significant portion of welfare money is being spent for drugs but the law itself is not going to be used to prosecute criminals.
EPT
I strongly believe in beggars can't be choosers - I mean if you want to take drugs, that's up to you, but with welfare money while tax payers tighten their belts for austerity measures? No way hose. If you don't like the idea of drug testing, well you simply opt out of welfare, easy peasy.
