|
When I hear talking about our money being spent on drugs, all I can think of is Cartman from South Park parodying Glenn Beck lol. But it's a valid point, welfare is a goodfaith payment to impoverished citizens we give with the assumption that it's being used to help them maintain some kind of stable life. It'd be hard pressed to find someone admitting that they don't mind their taxes going to someone else purchasing drugs. I wish there were some kind of statistics floating around about what % of people on welfare also use drugs.
Oh look, this actually happened before in Michigan. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/19/us/welfare-drug-tests-to-end.html
The State of Michigan on Thursday agreed not to resume its sweeping drug-testing program for welfare recipients, drawing to a close a four-year lawsuit between the state and the American Civil Liberties Union.
In April, a federal court of appeals ruled that Michigan's pilot drug-testing program was unconstitutional. The state had tested 268 people in 1999 before the A.C.L.U. filed a lawsuit that year, halting the program.
In Thursday's out-of-court settlement, the state retained the right to test some welfare recipients if they are suspected of having substance abuse problems. Michigan has no plans to do so, said a spokeswoman for the Family Independence Agency, Maureen Sorbet.
In the five weeks Michigan's program operated, 8 percent of recipients tested positive, in line with national drug-use statistics.
|
On June 10 2011 06:11 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 05:53 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 05:49 shinosai wrote:
Corporations are allowed to drug test you if you want a job with them. But the government can't drug test someone in order to see if they deserve free money? Hilarious. Perhaps you guys should start rallying against walmart for invading their employees privacy instead of the government. There is a VERY important difference between corporations and the government. It's public vs private sector. You can not hold a corporation to the same standard you hold the government. Oh, I see. Invasion of privacy only matters if the public sector is doing it. And more importantly we're holding the government to a 'higher' standard so we won't allow them to determine where our tax dollars go... actually, this sort of seems like you expect me to hold them to a lower standard.
No, the importance lies in the definitions of public and private... for all vs for few. The actions of the private sector do not effect everyone at large as the actions in the public sector do.
If you're going to argue this then you need to a basic government and society class.
|
On June 10 2011 06:15 dudeman001 wrote:When I hear talking about our money being spent on drugs, all I can think of is Cartman from South Park parodying Glenn Beck lol. But it's a valid point, welfare is a goodfaith payment to impoverished citizens we give with the assumption that it's being used to help them maintain some kind of stable life. It'd be hard pressed to find someone admitting that they don't mind their taxes going to someone else purchasing drugs. I wish there were some kind of statistics floating around about what % of people on welfare also use drugs. Oh look, this actually happened before in Michigan. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/19/us/welfare-drug-tests-to-end.htmlShow nested quote +The State of Michigan on Thursday agreed not to resume its sweeping drug-testing program for welfare recipients, drawing to a close a four-year lawsuit between the state and the American Civil Liberties Union.
In April, a federal court of appeals ruled that Michigan's pilot drug-testing program was unconstitutional. The state had tested 268 people in 1999 before the A.C.L.U. filed a lawsuit that year, halting the program.
In Thursday's out-of-court settlement, the state retained the right to test some welfare recipients if they are suspected of having substance abuse problems. Michigan has no plans to do so, said a spokeswoman for the Family Independence Agency, Maureen Sorbet.
In the five weeks Michigan's program operated, 8 percent of recipients tested positive, in line with national drug-use statistics.
Oh look, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
|
On June 10 2011 06:18 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 06:11 shinosai wrote:On June 10 2011 05:53 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 05:49 shinosai wrote:
Corporations are allowed to drug test you if you want a job with them. But the government can't drug test someone in order to see if they deserve free money? Hilarious. Perhaps you guys should start rallying against walmart for invading their employees privacy instead of the government. There is a VERY important difference between corporations and the government. It's public vs private sector. You can not hold a corporation to the same standard you hold the government. Oh, I see. Invasion of privacy only matters if the public sector is doing it. And more importantly we're holding the government to a 'higher' standard so we won't allow them to determine where our tax dollars go... actually, this sort of seems like you expect me to hold them to a lower standard. No, the importance lies in the definitions of public and private... for all vs for few. The actions of the private sector do not effect everyone at large as the actions in the public sector do. If you're going to argue this then you need to a basic government and society class.
But they don't affect everyone at large. They affect the people applying for welfare. Who do so voluntarily.
|
On June 10 2011 06:18 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 06:11 shinosai wrote:On June 10 2011 05:53 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 05:49 shinosai wrote:
Corporations are allowed to drug test you if you want a job with them. But the government can't drug test someone in order to see if they deserve free money? Hilarious. Perhaps you guys should start rallying against walmart for invading their employees privacy instead of the government. There is a VERY important difference between corporations and the government. It's public vs private sector. You can not hold a corporation to the same standard you hold the government. Oh, I see. Invasion of privacy only matters if the public sector is doing it. And more importantly we're holding the government to a 'higher' standard so we won't allow them to determine where our tax dollars go... actually, this sort of seems like you expect me to hold them to a lower standard. No, the importance lies in the definitions of public and private... for all vs for few. The actions of the private sector do not effect everyone at large as the actions in the public sector do. If you're going to argue this then you need to a basic government and society class.
Unless you want to leave the country by plane, and then the TSA comes into play...Then you're dealing with invasive patdowns, or naked body scans.
|
Lots of speculation about it costing more than it's saving, but does anyone have actual numbers?
|
On June 10 2011 06:19 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 06:18 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 06:11 shinosai wrote:On June 10 2011 05:53 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 05:49 shinosai wrote:
Corporations are allowed to drug test you if you want a job with them. But the government can't drug test someone in order to see if they deserve free money? Hilarious. Perhaps you guys should start rallying against walmart for invading their employees privacy instead of the government. There is a VERY important difference between corporations and the government. It's public vs private sector. You can not hold a corporation to the same standard you hold the government. Oh, I see. Invasion of privacy only matters if the public sector is doing it. And more importantly we're holding the government to a 'higher' standard so we won't allow them to determine where our tax dollars go... actually, this sort of seems like you expect me to hold them to a lower standard. No, the importance lies in the definitions of public and private... for all vs for few. The actions of the private sector do not effect everyone at large as the actions in the public sector do. If you're going to argue this then you need to a basic government and society class. But they don't affect everyone at large. They affect the people applying for welfare. Who do so voluntarily.
No, that is a very, very grave assumption you've made. IT effects everyone as everyone has the potential and ability to apply for welfare when the financial qualifications are met. This is the standard of the public sector and it something that must be understood.
|
On June 10 2011 06:20 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 06:18 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 06:11 shinosai wrote:On June 10 2011 05:53 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 05:49 shinosai wrote:
Corporations are allowed to drug test you if you want a job with them. But the government can't drug test someone in order to see if they deserve free money? Hilarious. Perhaps you guys should start rallying against walmart for invading their employees privacy instead of the government. There is a VERY important difference between corporations and the government. It's public vs private sector. You can not hold a corporation to the same standard you hold the government. Oh, I see. Invasion of privacy only matters if the public sector is doing it. And more importantly we're holding the government to a 'higher' standard so we won't allow them to determine where our tax dollars go... actually, this sort of seems like you expect me to hold them to a lower standard. No, the importance lies in the definitions of public and private... for all vs for few. The actions of the private sector do not effect everyone at large as the actions in the public sector do. If you're going to argue this then you need to a basic government and society class. Unless you want to leave the country by plane, and then the TSA comes into play...Then you're dealing with invasive patdowns, or naked body scans.
I'm 100% against the TSA pat downs; however, you're bringing up national security in a welfare debate. I'm not biting.
|
|
|
Direct response to the OP:
Good.
I've lived in Florida my whole life and the amount of people that abuse the welfare system is immense.
Edit: I'm a liberal democrat. Party affiliations and philosophical standings do not matter on this: A LOT of people are abusing the welfare system in this state and its one of the many running inside jokes we have.
Like integrity of political office, drug prevention measures and the preservation of our state environment. Seriously, I love my home but we're a mess down here.
|
Makes sense to me. People who can support themselves should never be subject to drug tests, but if you're being supported by the government it's very fair that we ask people to not spend their neighbors tax money on drugs.
|
On June 10 2011 06:22 Craton wrote:
Lots of speculation about it costing more than it's saving, but does anyone have actual numbers?
It depends on how they implement it. If reducing costs by 8% + fees outweighs the cost of the drug test then indeed it would save them more money. But I haven't seen what the fees would be or the cost of the tests.
|
On June 10 2011 06:23 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 06:20 RoosterSamurai wrote:On June 10 2011 06:18 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 06:11 shinosai wrote:On June 10 2011 05:53 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 05:49 shinosai wrote:
Corporations are allowed to drug test you if you want a job with them. But the government can't drug test someone in order to see if they deserve free money? Hilarious. Perhaps you guys should start rallying against walmart for invading their employees privacy instead of the government. There is a VERY important difference between corporations and the government. It's public vs private sector. You can not hold a corporation to the same standard you hold the government. Oh, I see. Invasion of privacy only matters if the public sector is doing it. And more importantly we're holding the government to a 'higher' standard so we won't allow them to determine where our tax dollars go... actually, this sort of seems like you expect me to hold them to a lower standard. No, the importance lies in the definitions of public and private... for all vs for few. The actions of the private sector do not effect everyone at large as the actions in the public sector do. If you're going to argue this then you need to a basic government and society class. Unless you want to leave the country by plane, and then the TSA comes into play...Then you're dealing with invasive patdowns, or naked body scans. I'm 100% against the TSA pat downs; however, you're bringing up national security in a welfare debate. I'm not biting.
It's the same general problem though. Private sector vs public sector.
The ACLU won't even touch the TSA issue, but I'll bet their lawyers will be in court against the state of florida in a week or two.
|
On June 10 2011 06:22 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 06:19 shinosai wrote:On June 10 2011 06:18 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 06:11 shinosai wrote:On June 10 2011 05:53 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 05:49 shinosai wrote:
Corporations are allowed to drug test you if you want a job with them. But the government can't drug test someone in order to see if they deserve free money? Hilarious. Perhaps you guys should start rallying against walmart for invading their employees privacy instead of the government. There is a VERY important difference between corporations and the government. It's public vs private sector. You can not hold a corporation to the same standard you hold the government. Oh, I see. Invasion of privacy only matters if the public sector is doing it. And more importantly we're holding the government to a 'higher' standard so we won't allow them to determine where our tax dollars go... actually, this sort of seems like you expect me to hold them to a lower standard. No, the importance lies in the definitions of public and private... for all vs for few. The actions of the private sector do not effect everyone at large as the actions in the public sector do. If you're going to argue this then you need to a basic government and society class. But they don't affect everyone at large. They affect the people applying for welfare. Who do so voluntarily. No, that is a very, very grave assumption you've made. IT effects everyone as everyone has the potential and ability to apply for welfare when the financial qualifications are met. This is the standard of the public sector and it something that must be understood.
You could just as easily argue that everyone has the potential and ability to apply to walmart. Potentiality and actuality sometimes coincide but not often. Reality: It affects everyone who applies for welfare. And that group of people does not include everyone.
|
On June 10 2011 06:25 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 06:22 Craton wrote:
Lots of speculation about it costing more than it's saving, but does anyone have actual numbers? It depends on how they implement it. If reducing costs by 8% + fees outweighs the cost of the drug test then indeed it would save them more money. But I haven't seen what the fees would be or the cost of the tests.
Basically, you have to figure out how much a drug test costs, and how much time the drug test takes away from both parties. And how much money you'll save by catching a drug user.
And, of course, you're probably jailing people who fail the drug tests, or at least following up with police visits or investigation. Which costs money, too.
On the other side, you'd have to figure out just how much money from the average welfare check to a drug abuser goes towards drugs.
I'm getting from the Sun-Sentinel that the cost of a drug test kit is around 50-70$ and that one in ten abuse illegal drugs.
|
On June 10 2011 06:22 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 06:19 shinosai wrote:On June 10 2011 06:18 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 06:11 shinosai wrote:On June 10 2011 05:53 Babyfactory wrote:On June 10 2011 05:49 shinosai wrote:
Corporations are allowed to drug test you if you want a job with them. But the government can't drug test someone in order to see if they deserve free money? Hilarious. Perhaps you guys should start rallying against walmart for invading their employees privacy instead of the government. There is a VERY important difference between corporations and the government. It's public vs private sector. You can not hold a corporation to the same standard you hold the government. Oh, I see. Invasion of privacy only matters if the public sector is doing it. And more importantly we're holding the government to a 'higher' standard so we won't allow them to determine where our tax dollars go... actually, this sort of seems like you expect me to hold them to a lower standard. No, the importance lies in the definitions of public and private... for all vs for few. The actions of the private sector do not effect everyone at large as the actions in the public sector do. If you're going to argue this then you need to a basic government and society class. But they don't affect everyone at large. They affect the people applying for welfare. Who do so voluntarily. No, that is a very, very grave assumption you've made. IT effects everyone as everyone has the potential and ability to apply for welfare when the financial qualifications are met. This is the standard of the public sector and it something that must be understood.
That is just stupid. Welfare is a non-voluntary deal between the recipient and the tax payers. Tax payers have a right to place stipulations on receiving that money. Shit, they have a right to deny the money altogether but that's an entirely different matter. The fact of the matter is, no one is forced into welfare. Having conditions for being on it is not a violation of privacy. How is someone agreeing to a drug test against their rights? You're argument seems to be "because everyone could potentially agree to it". It makes no sense whatsoever.
Edit: You seem to be assuming in your argument that welfare is a right for everyone upon falling bellow a certain income. It isn't a right, its a privilege.
|
On June 10 2011 06:34 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
That is just stupid. Welfare is a non-voluntary deal between the recipient and the tax payers. Tax payers have a right to place stipulations on receiving that money. Shit, they have a right to deny the money altogether but that's an entirely different matter. The fact of the matter is, no one is forced into welfare. Having conditions for being on it is not a violation of privacy. How is someone agreeing to a drug test against their rights? You're argument seems to be "because everyone could potentially agree to it". It makes no sense whatsoever.
What?
|
On June 10 2011 06:38 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 06:34 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
That is just stupid. Welfare is a non-voluntary deal between the recipient and the tax payers. Tax payers have a right to place stipulations on receiving that money. Shit, they have a right to deny the money altogether but that's an entirely different matter. The fact of the matter is, no one is forced into welfare. Having conditions for being on it is not a violation of privacy. How is someone agreeing to a drug test against their rights? You're argument seems to be "because everyone could potentially agree to it". It makes no sense whatsoever. What?
Provide a source where someone is being forced into receiving welfare.
|
On June 10 2011 06:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Provide a source where someone is being forced into receiving welfare.
I don't understand what your definition of "forced" is.
|
On June 10 2011 06:41 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 06:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Provide a source where someone is being forced into receiving welfare. I don't understand what your definition of "forced" is.
It's not illegal to not be on welfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
