|
On June 10 2011 04:53 SpoR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 04:50 Kamuy wrote:On June 10 2011 04:46 SpoR wrote:On June 10 2011 04:43 Razith wrote:On June 10 2011 04:34 SpoR wrote:On June 10 2011 04:34 Kamuy wrote:On June 10 2011 04:28 SpoR wrote:On June 10 2011 04:27 Kamuy wrote:
I'm sorry, whats wrong with this? You stick your hand out asking me for money, I want some assurance its not going to be injected into your arm or smoked. Beggar's can't be choosers. because the honest people who don't actually do drugs. And it's not like they stick their hand out, they pay into it every paycheck when they were actually working. AND it costs a lot more money to run the testing. 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). 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. Hahaha so naive. 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.
Your friends quitting weed for two weeks to get a job at blockbuster is very different when comparing it to a crack addicted fiend desperate for his next hit that is given a check on the first of every month from the state. Something along the lines of logic would tell you that the #1 target in this isnt potheads.
|
the problem with this as is all other drug testing is that marijuana stays in your system for 30 days and is not even comparible to the dmg that alcohol does. Hair samples and other ways find more accurated samples of other more serious drugs that would indeed severly hurt your chances of getting a job
|
the problem with this is that alcohol is legal.
|
On June 10 2011 04:47 SpoR wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Ah, yes. The "pretend" method of passing a drug test...
|
On June 10 2011 04:57 Duke wrote:
the problem with this is that alcohol is legal.
That could be a problem. Either way it is a good idea, hope Canada soon follows.
|
Rick Scott, the governor, is supposedly a shareholder in the company that's doing the tests.. Idk remmeber where I heard it and I would google it but I'm on my phone at the moment.. Anyone feel like checking that out for me?
Edit: ah nvm it's mentioned :/
|
On June 10 2011 04:28 SpoR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 04:27 Kamuy wrote:
I'm sorry, whats wrong with this? You stick your hand out asking me for money, I want some assurance its not going to be injected into your arm or smoked. Beggar's can't be choosers. because the honest people who don't actually do drugs. And it's not like they stick their hand out, they pay into it every paycheck when they were actually working. AND it costs a lot more money to run the testing.
Why wpuld honest people who dont do drugs object to being tested once it is explained to them that theres good reasons for it?
If you vut the freeloading druggies off benefits then theres more money available for the honest folk.
|
On June 10 2011 04:48 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I'm glad you're just like this piece of legislation: you only address things at face value. You don't know the full extent or the repercussions of withholding funds from "junkies". It's not about a dollar figure but rather the levels of crime, happiness, and poverty that need to be monitored. I wasn't suggesting they should audit over a drug screening, rather I was saying that it in terms of saving money and preserving the integrity of the system it would be preferably to perform an audit.
Show nested quote +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 is the issue and to think other wise is a grave misjudgment. You're telling them how they can spend it by holding the money hostage. If that's the road welfare is going down then the country is in for a shit storm.
Show nested quote +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.
The idea is to cut of funds to drug users by preventing telling them they can't spend welfare money on drugs. It doesn't matter if you spent money you earned from a job under the table, a gift from your aunt, or your part time minimum wage job that you pay taxes on, if you are doing drugs you are disqualified from welfare. If you think that isn't controlling what someone can and can't purchase then you're naive and don't fully grasp how welfare works.
|
About damn time this happened somewhere. Way way too many scumbags living off the state while they sit at home doing drugs.
Edit* If you are going to try to make some argument for how junkies will be hurt by not getting a welfare check then I couldn't care less.
|
On June 10 2011 04:52 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
To my knowledge, the law makes no such distinction. Like it or not, welfare recipients are entitled to their benefits. This is essentially no different than money you receive from state tax returns. The state is withholding aid (to which the recipient is legally entitled), unless he/she submits a drug test. This is a clear case of an unreasonable search. Lawsuits from the ACLU of Florida, challenging that exact point, are already pending.
|
It is really smart.. like the first comment says they want to make sure that the people they are giving well fare money to are going to use it properly, i don't really see an argument against it....
|
On June 10 2011 04:57 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 04:47 SpoR wrote: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. Ah, yes. The "pretend" method of passing a drug test...
pretend as though they are done with drugs forever (and stop taking them) and obviously just wanted to pass the test so they can get back to their drugs. Don't be retarded
|
Pretty sure 1/10000 of the people will receive a positive result despite being clean. ^^ With about 2'000'000 (2005 figure) recipients, that's 200 people. This number will be inflated by the peolpe who use pain medication or cough remedies. Bullshit idea all around. Polemic policy making par exemple.
|
The street price for clean urine is Florida just went up 1000% 
|
Seems like a good idea (when i typed idea i actually typed idra and again when i typed it in this parenthesis lul FUCK stalking). But you know theres several people that are going to complain and cry bill of rights (i have no idea if this is protected but i'm sure bitches will cry). Even people that don't do drugs or aren't on welfare. They will bitch to bitch like normal.
I agree with it though assuming its carried out correctly.
|
|
|
On June 10 2011 05:03 Yamulo wrote:
It is really smart.. like the first comment says they want to make sure that the people they are giving well fare money to are going to use it properly, i don't really see an argument against it....
The argument becomes instantly invalid when alcoholics or other drug addicts who use substances that don't remain in the body for long or are hard to trace (LSD) can easily pass these tests. The people could be gambling addicts, too, or hooker addicts, or could be using the money to fund criminal activities. You *cannot* make sure that people are going to use the money properly.
+ Show Spoiler +That's partly why I only give small change to beggars who are honest about how they're going to use it. The second they start about "hey, i need some money for the bus"... they dun' goof'd.
Also, do you know how expensive it is to RUN all these tests? This is such utter bullshit.
|
On June 10 2011 05:03 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 04:28 SpoR wrote:On June 10 2011 04:27 Kamuy wrote:
I'm sorry, whats wrong with this? You stick your hand out asking me for money, I want some assurance its not going to be injected into your arm or smoked. Beggar's can't be choosers. because the honest people who don't actually do drugs. And it's not like they stick their hand out, they pay into it every paycheck when they were actually working. AND it costs a lot more money to run the testing. Why wpuld honest people who dont do drugs object to being tested once it is explained to them that theres good reasons for it? If you vut the freeloading druggies off benefits then theres more money available for the honest folk.
I don't do drugs, but I would absolutely object. That's really irrelevant though. The constitution prevents the state from requiring the test in the first place.
Also, what happens if you deny aid to drug addicts? Really. It's a serious question. Do you think they're going to instantly quit drugs? Realistically, you're just increasing the crime rate.
|
On June 10 2011 04:46 SpoR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 04:43 Razith wrote:On June 10 2011 04:34 SpoR wrote:On June 10 2011 04:34 Kamuy wrote:On June 10 2011 04:28 SpoR wrote:On June 10 2011 04:27 Kamuy wrote:
I'm sorry, whats wrong with this? You stick your hand out asking me for money, I want some assurance its not going to be injected into your arm or smoked. Beggar's can't be choosers. because the honest people who don't actually do drugs. And it's not like they stick their hand out, they pay into it every paycheck when they were actually working. AND it costs a lot more money to run the testing. 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). 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.
No the interview isn't enough to decide if the person is using drugs. You can't tell if someone uses drugs by talking to them. You also can't determine if someone is a murder by talking to them either.
Employers should have the right to make sure you aren't some coke addict or murder or any other type of criminal. These are crimes. I know many people want drugs to be legalized / decriminalized, and in this we forget that drugs are in fact still illegal.
If you don't have a criminal background and don't do drugs, what are you trying to defend? People's privacy (pissing in a cup?) out-weighs the safety of other employees and to make sure you aren't a liability when an employer finds out you're a drug addict?
Maybe if someone came into your home and assessed how you lived your life it would be a little much (pink drapes? NOT HIRED). But to simply piss in a cup and have your back ground checked to ensure the safety of yourself and employers isn't worth this so-called privacy invasion?
|
Oh, look, a politician double dipping... what a surprise! I think the legislation should address government officials not welfare recipients. I'd be amazed at the number that don't currently have cocaine or another illicit drug in their system.
It's a shame that the governor actually does hold shares of stock in that company, it smells like Halliburton in here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
