EPTFlorida to drug test for welfare - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
There's also the issue of the state budget. A similar law has also passed (or soon will) mandating all state employees take drug tests. Governor Scott has cut over $1.5 billion in state education funding in the name of balancing the budget, but these programs will cost Florida millions. The most damning problem is that of corruption. Governor Scott (through his wife) owns a significant stake in a major medical testing company in Florida. He stands to gain personally from this law passing, as the company will see increased business from the thousands of state-mandated drug tests. Scott has insisted he intends to sell his stake in that company, but has yet to do so. He has also refused to preclude that company from being a licensed tester for state-mandated drug tests. The moral issue is clear from where I'm sitting (people need aid), but I can understand if people disagree. | ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:44 Kaitlin wrote: 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. They can pretend or actually try to kick cold turkey and come in to welfare and even possibly say this, piss clean, and then be back on drugs via relapse. 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? 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. good points | ||
|
Percutio
United States1672 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). It seems odd to think that someone who qualifies for welfare would decline it due to the inconvenience or invasion of privacy. Additionally the cost of the test is put onto the person who is applying for welfare as explained by the article. | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 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. An audit cost more than a drug test, good thing you're not in government, or state govs would be in even more debt than they already are. 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. That's not an issue. It's obvious that you can't tell someone how to spend their money. So if you don't want them to spend it on something, just don't give them the money. How easy is that? 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. Solve what problem? The use of drugs by lower-income people? Well duh, forcing welfare recipients to take drug tests isn't going to stop the use of drugs by lower-income people. The use of welfare funds to buy drugs? You bet it will solve that problem. | ||
|
natebreen
United States184 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? 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. If this is how you feel then I'm glad to hear that you donate your time and money regularly to drug addicts. Surely you wouldn't criticize taxpayers for wanting to ensure that their taxes were well spent and not being used to fund drug habits without yourself carrying out the habits and values you wish to instill on everyone else. | ||
|
Reaper9
United States1724 Posts
| ||
|
Kamuy
United States212 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:46 SpoR wrote: 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. Hahaha so naive. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:47 Omnipresent wrote: About probable cause: This is a case of unreasonable searches. It's a fourth amendment issue. The state needs probable cause (and often a warrant) in order to engage in almost any search, including drug tests. People draw parallels to this mandatory drug testing and the kind of drug testing you might undergo when starting a new job. The difference is that you're protected from this type of search by the constitution, as long as the state is doing it. There's no federal law governing whether private employers can drug test you or not. Some states allow it while others do not. Mandatory testing by the government (state or federal), without cause and without a warrant, is unconstitutional. You might not care that it's unconstitutional, but it is. What you fail to comprehend is the fact that the government is not forcing these drug tests. Nobody is being forced to submit without probable cause. The people who want government benefits give their voluntary consent to the drug test (search) and with consent, probable cause is never needed. | ||
|
Scriptix
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
natebreen
United States184 Posts
An employer isn't forcing you to apply. If they want to screen their applicants thoroughly they are entitled to. As far as the morality/social fiber of it all, I've worked for a background screening company and some of the horror stories are ridiculous: Security Guards at truck stops being hired who have previous rape convictions in other states and the stories are endless... | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32113 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:43 SpoR wrote: This also kind of reminds me of the Dave Chappelle stand up that goes something like, "Nigga lives in a box, let him drink all the booze he wants you can't get much lower than that." 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. But people on welfare aren't living in boxes. They're not exactly well off... but in a box, hell no. I'm not a big fan of drug laws in this country, but I certainly think that if you are going to accept money from the government, there are certain criteria that should be met. This would be one of them. The whole system is rife with abuse anyway, and you can't exactly stop someone from buying a 60 inch tv instead of food for his kids. You can determine if that money is going to drugs every day | ||
|
Cudaflu
33 Posts
| ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
right. Like I said before people can stop using drugs, take the test, and get right back on them. I have friends that smoke weed who do shit like that all the time. | ||
|
Souljah
United States423 Posts
| ||
|
natebreen
United States184 Posts
| ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
natebreen
United States184 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:53 SpoR wrote: right, like I said before people can stop using drugs. Take the test and get right back on them. I have friends that smoke weed who do shit like that all the time. Avoiding legislating or policymaking with the implicit expectation of abuse and deceit is never advisable. | ||
|
iceburgSLIM
United States2 Posts
| ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:53 SpoR wrote: right. Like I said before people can stop using drugs, take the test, and get right back on them. I have friends that smoke weed who do shit like that all the time. weed stays in your system much to long to just quit for a bit and pass the test. to get into the military you are looking at being clean of pot for over a year. relative to the length of your hair. other drugs like crack and meth that you cannot quit for a week would show up too. if you quit for a week you are a hero and should write a book. | ||
| ||
