|
On August 29 2011 06:02 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 05:54 RoosterSamurai wrote:On August 29 2011 04:54 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties. Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits. You don't need a warrant if the person being searched is giving consent. And by consenting to receiving social assistance, they are also consenting to any searches that go along with it. Nobody forced them to be poor and have babies. Exactly. Is airport security unreasonable search and seizure? No, because you want to fly (receive welfare) and they set up criteria, like not having knives (not being on drugs) You don't have to undergo the search, but you won't get welfare. They modified the welfare so that is excludes those who fail...
This is an awful analogy for a huge number of reasons.
You're not legally entitled to get on an airplane. You are entitled to welfare.
Safety is 100% required for air travel. Being drug free is not required to need state aid.
A metal detector or pat down does NOT require a warrant or probable cause (ie, a cop can do it to you for no reason. I think we can argue about whether the TSA has the right to pat you down). A drug test does require these.
|
I cannot believe that backlash this is receiving. People do not have rights to intoxicate themselves, granted you can do it, but don't expect the law to protect you if you make poor choices or in general act like a moron. If someone is in a deplorable state of poverty, I am willing to help them, but don't expect the taxpayers to be very tolerant of you wasting their money on stupid ^&$% like drugs and alcohol. I've seen this many times in grocery stores where someone would come through my line with 2 carts. one with food, one with alcohol / tobacco. They pay for their food with food stamps, and pay for a ton of drugs with their own money  If anything I'd like to see random testing initiated to weed out even more of the users.
|
On August 29 2011 06:08 mastergriggy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 05:33 Romantic wrote:On August 29 2011 00:14 mastergriggy wrote: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. Simple - unreasonable searches and seizures. Drug testing people for use of a public service is insane. It's not unreasonable to test for drugs any more than it is to walk through security at an airport or courtroom. Are we concerned that people who do illegal activities have freedom to do these illegal activities as long as they don't get caught? I sincerely hope not (nor am I saying that's what you are arguing, just that's where that line of logic goes). The 4th Amendment was created so a police officer can't barge into someone's home and search the place or anything of the sort. I don't know how voluntarily consenting to a drug test either is in anyway unreasonable or constitutes searching or seizures. It's insane to me that so many people get worked up about this. The one time the government is trying to help the economy by prioritizing money to people who need it more than the drug dealers, everyone freaks out about it yelling "my inapplicable rights command that you don't do this to me! I need my pot!"
The Supreme Court has on multiple occasions called drug testing a search.
No, it is not where my logic goes. My logic is that unless under suspicion or at a job that poses a risk to others mandatory drug testing to receive a public service is an unreasonable search.
The program costs more money than it will save; it is unambiguously an attempt to humiliate people who use cash assitence for the benefit of conservatives.
No, I do not use any drugs.
|
On August 29 2011 06:05 tryummm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 05:07 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:56 tryummm wrote:On August 29 2011 04:54 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties. Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits. Its really tricky to analyze which amendments states have to abide by and to which extent. We can't possibly know the Constitutionality of this until it passes through the courts. It is, however, debatable whether or not its Constitutional but we will not know for sure until judges begin ruling on it. You're kidding, right? The states have to abide by all the amendments, to their full extent. It's true, there's no official ruling on constitutionality until the courts get a hold of this law, but it looks pretty clear to me. So I guess Barron v. Baltimore, Gideon v. Wainwright, Gitlow v. New York, etc...are not real court cases. I wonder why they are posted all over the internet and taught in University to be court cases. I guess my college professors must have lied to me also when I took poltiical science classes when they discusses disputes over the extent of the Bill of Rights that apply to state governments. I wonder why they would do such a thing.
Of those cases, only Barron v Baltimore limits the bill of rights to the federal government. Gideon and Gitlow both extended portions of the bill of right to the states under the due process clause of the 14th amendment (which didn't even exist when Barron was decided). You might also want to check De Jong v Oregon and especially Wolf v Colorado. Wolf in particular extended the fourth amendment to states, which is the issue at hand.
You argument is that a single case almost 200 years ago, which is based on an outdated constitution and has been slowly and consistently pulled back since, means that the bill of rights doesn't apply to the states? Sounds weak to me.
I don't know whether your professors lied to you, if you misunderstood, have incomplete information, or you're intentionally presenting misinformation. I do know that the 4th amendment applies to the states, and that's the only thing that matters here.
|
On August 29 2011 04:26 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 04:21 ffz wrote:
This is so hilarious. I worked at a medicare/medicaid/uninsured clinic that was subsidized by the government. Whenever the doctor orders a drug screen he gives the person a urine cup and then tells them to go to the bathroom. No supervision because nobody has the money to hire someone to go look at other ppl pee when they're prob getting squat for the office visit anyway.
All this law is going to do is make the diagnositic lab companies a little happier and suck away some medicaid dollars. Good idea, but fat chance it'll do anything. Poor people scored better on their drug tests than the rest of the population, so they must have cheated? That's possible. Or maybe they don't take drugs...
Yeah because if a legit company pays me 25 bucks a drug test then I'm going to make sure every protocol is followed to the letter. If medicaid is going to pay me 25 bucks for 100 drug tests then my time is better spent helping ppl that are actually sick.
|
It'll undoubtebly cost more money than it will save, but drug users will be more inclined to try and stop using drugs so they can get their welfare money, which is a good thing. If I give them money, I don't want them to use it on drugs, but instead only use it on necessities. I can see a lot of good coming from this, motivating people to stop using drugs might make it easier for them to get jobs and to stop living off of welfare altogether, it's a pretty good regulation.
Here in the Netherlands we have extremely generous welfare, you get 75% of your previous wage a month (if you earned minimum wage that's about €1000 or $1500 a month, but it can easily go up higher) from the government, which is plenty to continue living normally, but it is also very restricted. You have to have worked prior to receiving welfare, you have to constantly go to job interviews and get rejected for a reasonable reason (not "he showed up naked" but "he was not qualified") in order to continue receiving welfare. Welfare is not meant as a permanent source of income, it is meant as a temporary substitute in hard times. People without serious disabilities that prevent them from working should not be on welfare all their life, or even the majority of their life.
|
I don't see what the big fuss is about.. If you are getting government money for free the least you can do is take a drug test, and if you are doing drugs you apparently don't need the money because you are spending the money on drugs and aren't starving.
|
On August 29 2011 06:29 Yergidy wrote:
I don't see what the big fuss is about.. If you are getting government money for free the least you can do is take a drug test, and if you are doing drugs you apparently don't need the money because you are spending the money on drugs and aren't starving.
Ok, let's drug-test every federal student loan, medicaid, medicare, and social security recipient then as well.
|
On August 29 2011 06:29 Yergidy wrote:
I don't see what the big fuss is about.. If you are getting government money for free the least you can do is take a drug test, and if you are doing drugs you apparently don't need the money because you are spending the money on drugs and aren't starving.
My big fuss is that this program is costing the state way more money than it saves by not giving money to drug users; it's costing the state money when our Universities are cutting departments, our roads aren't getting repaved, our state employees are getting their pensions cut or losing them outright. Oh, and that Governor Scott's wife (and Scott himself before taking office) owns a controlling stake in the company the tests are contracted out to. In closing, there's a big fuss to be made in the Sunshine State.
|
On August 29 2011 06:35 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 06:29 Yergidy wrote:
I don't see what the big fuss is about.. If you are getting government money for free the least you can do is take a drug test, and if you are doing drugs you apparently don't need the money because you are spending the money on drugs and aren't starving. Ok, let's drug-test every federal student loan, medicaid, medicare, and social security recipient then as well.
Are you pretending to be this stupid?
serious question.....
|
I don't believe this is unconstitutional, it's a hand-out simple as that. They want the money going somewhere positive and blah blah blah.
But here is the thing, will this testing actually be effective at weeding these people out, because well any drug user with half a brain can fake a test man. I've done it and i'm sure some of you have done it.
Is it going to be one of those dinky tests where u head up to your local testing agency,and they send u into a bathroom alone, if so this will just be another worthless expenditure on the states part. And quit frankly I think it will be, I don't think they will go so far as send u too a facility where a dude stands over your shoulder, making sure u don't got someone else's piss strapped down there in a baggy ^^
As always with government I think they're head is in the right place but they are completely unrealistic.
This will be completely uneffective
|
On August 29 2011 06:35 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 06:29 Yergidy wrote:
I don't see what the big fuss is about.. If you are getting government money for free the least you can do is take a drug test, and if you are doing drugs you apparently don't need the money because you are spending the money on drugs and aren't starving. Ok, let's drug-test every federal student loan, medicaid, medicare, and social security recipient then as well.
I don't see the necessity the way I do in this case concerning welfare. Care to explain this reasoning? In the case of welfare it has to do with saving money. Somebody else pulled the figures a few pages back. Drug tests for welfare recipients cuts significant expenses over 12 month periods.
|
This should have been implemented in every state and it should have been used years ago. The government needs to be sure that welfare isn't abused, (Which it constantly is) and this is a great way to do it.
|
If the citizens of Florida feel this is a good idea then it is entirely up to them.
Welfare is charity. The money comes from the tax payers. They should decide who to give it to. If I was handing out charity, I would probably steer clear from drug users as well.
Ideally of course, this decision would be just that, in the hands of every individual. But when you build massive welfare states things like this happen.
(Note: I don't care about the legal situation. I just care about the ethics/moral/principals involved).
|
On August 29 2011 06:45 TheLOLas wrote:
This should have been implemented in every state and it should have been used years ago. The government needs to be sure that welfare isn't abused, (Which it constantly is) and this is a great way to do it.
What is the point of preventing people from abusing welfare when it costs more to do so then to just let them sit? The principle of the matter? There are far more important things for the state to spend its money on.
|
On August 29 2011 06:08 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 06:02 Froadac wrote:On August 29 2011 05:54 RoosterSamurai wrote:On August 29 2011 04:54 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties. Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits. You don't need a warrant if the person being searched is giving consent. And by consenting to receiving social assistance, they are also consenting to any searches that go along with it. Nobody forced them to be poor and have babies. Exactly. Is airport security unreasonable search and seizure? No, because you want to fly (receive welfare) and they set up criteria, like not having knives (not being on drugs) You don't have to undergo the search, but you won't get welfare. They modified the welfare so that is excludes those who fail... This is an awful analogy for a huge number of reasons. You're not legally entitled to get on an airplane. You are entitled to welfare. Safety is 100% required for air travel. Being drug free is not required to need state aid. A metal detector or pat down does NOT require a warrant or probable cause (ie, a cop can do it to you for no reason. I think we can argue about whether the TSA has the right to pat you down). A drug test does require these.
You are not legally entitled to welfare. They changed the law so if you failed the tests you did not get it.
|
On August 29 2011 06:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 06:35 zeppelin wrote:On August 29 2011 06:29 Yergidy wrote:
I don't see what the big fuss is about.. If you are getting government money for free the least you can do is take a drug test, and if you are doing drugs you apparently don't need the money because you are spending the money on drugs and aren't starving. Ok, let's drug-test every federal student loan, medicaid, medicare, and social security recipient then as well. I don't see the necessity the way I do in this case concerning welfare. Care to explain this reasoning? In the case of welfare it has to do with saving money. Somebody else pulled the figures a few pages back. Drug tests for welfare recipients cuts significant expenses over 12 month periods.
With the exception of student loans, all those programs are basic welfare programs. If you're for testing poor people because you don't want to risk subsidizing drug use, why not old people? If you want to save money (which Florida's program isn't doing), testing the elderly is just as effective or ineffective. I actually think Zeppelin raised a pretty interesting question.
What is confusing about this to you?
|
On August 29 2011 06:49 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 06:08 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 06:02 Froadac wrote:On August 29 2011 05:54 RoosterSamurai wrote:On August 29 2011 04:54 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:34 Dekoth wrote:On August 29 2011 04:18 Omnipresent wrote:On August 29 2011 04:12 TwoToneTerran wrote:Wait, is this 96% of people who went in to collect, or 96% of all Florida applicants to Welfare? As people who collect welfare for drug money might, you know, not go in to collect if they know they're going to be tested and, possibly, imprisoned after failing the test. 2% of recipients failed. 2% refused to take the test. That means at lest 96% of welfare recipients are clean, assuming all 2% who refused are users. This was a scam and an invasion of civil liberties from the start. Now it's also a waste of money. Isn't an invasion of civil liberties..You want a government hand out check, you play by their rules. Why some of you continue to not get that concept. As a Fla Taxpayer, I would pay for this law without hesitation even if it got less than 1%. I would rather pay for drug tests than be paying for a single lowlife mooching the government to pay for their drug habit. If you want to do drugs, that is fine by me. However don't expect me to pay for it. Hold down a job and pay for them yourself and you can do all the drugs you want for all I care. Who am I to stand in the way of you destroying your life. Besides, I get some great entertainment on TV from it. :D It's an illegal search with no warrant and no probable cause. The state is withholding benefits, to which people are legally entitled, in order to force this search. It's a clear violation of civil liberties. Also, if you're concerned about your tax dollars, just know that your state just spent more testing people than it saved from denying benefits. You don't need a warrant if the person being searched is giving consent. And by consenting to receiving social assistance, they are also consenting to any searches that go along with it. Nobody forced them to be poor and have babies. Exactly. Is airport security unreasonable search and seizure? No, because you want to fly (receive welfare) and they set up criteria, like not having knives (not being on drugs) You don't have to undergo the search, but you won't get welfare. They modified the welfare so that is excludes those who fail... This is an awful analogy for a huge number of reasons. You're not legally entitled to get on an airplane. You are entitled to welfare. Safety is 100% required for air travel. Being drug free is not required to need state aid. A metal detector or pat down does NOT require a warrant or probable cause (ie, a cop can do it to you for no reason. I think we can argue about whether the TSA has the right to pat you down). A drug test does require these. You are not legally entitled to welfare. They changed the law so if you failed the tests you did not get it.
They changed the law to illegally include a search, which they cannot do. That's the entire point. If you meet the other requirements, you are entitled to the benefits. The required search is the issue here.
|
On August 29 2011 06:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 06:35 zeppelin wrote:On August 29 2011 06:29 Yergidy wrote:
I don't see what the big fuss is about.. If you are getting government money for free the least you can do is take a drug test, and if you are doing drugs you apparently don't need the money because you are spending the money on drugs and aren't starving. Ok, let's drug-test every federal student loan, medicaid, medicare, and social security recipient then as well. I don't see the necessity the way I do in this case concerning welfare. Care to explain this reasoning? In the case of welfare it has to do with saving money. Somebody else pulled the figures a few pages back. Drug tests for welfare recipients cuts significant expenses over 12 month periods.
The government is forced to reimburse those who passed their drug tests for the cost of the testing.
So far, enough people are passing the drug tests that the cost of reimbursing all of the people who passed is greater than the amount of money that is saved by forcing the people who failed to forfeit their benefits.
Therefore, this program costs the government more money than if the program had never been implemented. Here is an investigative report about it http://www.wftv.com/news/28908436/detail.html.
If the program is a net loss of taxpayer money, and the stated purpose of the program is to save taxpayers money, then the program should either be terminated or the stated purpose of the program is not accurate.
|
Zep- No doubt. This isn't an across the board sweep but yet another stab at poor people. It costs ~25 bucks to get an synthetic urine kit. Unless these tests are massively obtrusive the majority of users will not even be stopped. Talking army style drug tests where they stand next to you and watch you pee "from the tip, to the cup."
Not to mention that it only focuses on 1 aspect of governmental assistance. Also should needy families necessarily be punished for a sickness in the parental units? Sorry your baby starved, but bitch you use drugs.
Seems a pandering answer to all the old rich fogeys who live and complain in Florida about the lower class drug addicts that steal all their wealth. Whatever, and they establish a dangerous precedent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
